What Is The Christian View On The Dinosaur?

[jbondo]

It amazes me that nonbelievers seem to know what Christians are thinking or what we believe. Even more amazing is that so many seem to know the Bible so well. I read it every day and I don't claim to know it that well.

The OP asked a question, but it would seem that the question was just an agenda to bait Christians into another killing field. I would certainly hope that's not what was intended.

There are some differing views about dinosaurs in the Bible but if you actually read the Book and pay attention, you will see references such as the description of the "Behemoth"/"Leviathan" in the book of Job which described a massive beast with a tail like a cedar tree. There are other references that could easily be considered dinosaurs. I could go thru them all but maybe this will promp someone to pick up the Book and begin reading. In which case I would hope it was with an unbiased and open mind.

Some believe that dinosaurs and humans were contemporaries: http://www.christian...s-and-the-bible

Now, while there's not a whole lot in the Bible about dinosaurs, the same can be said about a lot of things. Does the Bible go on and on about other animals (other than those which are domesticated?) Does God talk about ET's or sports?

However, if we look at the Bible for what it was intended we see that the Bible indicates that God's communication to Moses was centered on the relationship between God and man and the rules by which God wanted man to live. Therefore, the creation account mirrors the content of the rest of the Bible, which centers on mankind and his relationship to God.

The fact is that the Bible is not an encyclopedia or an alternative to science, it's a Book intended to give God's children a blueprint/plan for life and that's what it does.

Edited June 23, 2012 by jbondo

[ranrod]

It amazes me that nonbelievers seem to know what Christians are thinking or what we believe. Even more amazing is that so many seem to know the Bible so well. I read it every day and I don't claim to know it that well.

Not amazing. A great deal of us spent a good amount of our lives being Christian. When doubts, inconsistencies, and contradictions can't be reconciled, the first instinct is to study the bible and history further to see if we can find answers.

At the end of the day becoming so incredibly proficient at every detail of an ancient north-african/middle-eastern story seems like a horrendous waste of time. At the same level as people who spend the same energy studying the Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, or Star Trek universes...Well, the latter seem a little more interesting.

[Arbitran]

It amazes me that nonbelievers seem to know what Christians are thinking or what we believe. Even more amazing is that so many seem to know the Bible so well. I read it every day and I don't claim to know it that well.

The OP asked a question, but it would seem that the question was just an agenda to bait Christians into another killing field. I would certainly hope that's not what was intended.

There are some differing views about dinosaurs in the Bible but if you actually read the Book and pay attention, you will see references such as the description of the "Behemoth"/"Leviathan" in the book of Job which described a massive beast with a tail like a cedar tree. There are other references that could easily be considered dinosaurs. I could go thru them all but maybe this will promp someone to pick up the Book and begin reading. In which case I would hope it was with an unbiased and open mind.

Some believe that dinosaurs and humans were contemporaries: http://www.christian...s-and-the-bible

Now, while there's not a whole lot in the Bible about dinosaurs, the same can be said about a lot of things. Does the Bible go on and on about other animals (other than those which are domesticated?) Does God talk about ET's or sports?

However, if we look at the Bible for what it was intended we see that the Bible indicates that God's communication to Moses was centered on the relationship between God and man and the rules by which God wanted man to live. Therefore, the creation account mirrors the content of the rest of the Bible, which centers on mankind and his relationship to God.

The fact is that the Bible is not an encyclopedia or an alternative to science, it's a Book intended to give God's children a blueprint/plan for life and that's what it does.

Behemot and Livyathan were not dinosaurs; they were mythical animals.

[+Paranoid Android]

Alright:

• Guidelines as to sell your daughter as a sex-slave
  
• Kill homosexuals (male; women aren't mentioned, of course)
  
• Set your Jewish slaves free after seven years (unless you buy them a wife), but keep non-Jewish slaves forever
  
• Don't wear mixed fabrics
  
• Don't eat shellfish
  
• Don't eat pork
  
• Kill "witches"
  
• If you get into a fight, and your wife interferes, and grabs the testicles of your opponent, cut your wife's hand off
  
• Stone unruly children to death
  
• Cure leprosy by slaughtering pigeons and splashing their blood about
  
• Menstruating women are "unclean"
  
• Pregnant women are "unclean"
  
• Force a rape victim to marry her rapist
  
• Don't work on Saturday (under pain of death by stoning)
  

These are a few that I find questionable...

Hi Arb,

I was going to start a new thread on this topic (Old Testament laws aren't quite on the topic of the dinosaur), but chances are this is the last time I'll be responding for three months. I've got a program I'm involved with for work training, and it will mean I'm heading out in the middle of nowhere for three months (not sure if I'll have time to get on the net, or even what the internet facilities will be like). So I'll respond to your post with my thoughts, but I just wanted you to know that I probably won't be replying any time in the next few months. So with that said:

Guidelines as to sell your daughter as a sex-slave - I find the term "sex-slave" in this comment to be highly misleading. In a society where arranged marriages are the norm the concept of "sex slavery" is illogical. Last year I worked with a woman who came from a country where arranged marriages were still practised. She met her husband only shortly before their marriage, and it was her family and her husband's family who arranged the marriage between them - she was quite happy with her situation in life because she grew up expecting it and not thinking in Western terms of Hollywood-ised love. Can the system be abused so that one or the other partner is abuse (sexually/physically/emotionally/etc)? Of course it can, but it was not the norm and certainly not the intention of the rules governing arranged marriages.

The intentions of this set of rules was to outline a stable family unit which people could model their family on, thus providing stability for the tribe. Since arranged marriages are not the norm in most parts of the world today (some still do, such as the person I referenced earlier) the ideal Christian family should include a mother and a father in lifelong union with the other, raising their children together.

Kill homosexuals (male; women aren't mentioned, of course) - Ah, the good ol' Leviticus 18 and 20 passages. You are aware that the passage is not referring to homosexuals but actually referring to homosexual practises solely in the context of idol worship? I dealt with this in THIS POST (link) a couple of years back, so I’ll let you have a look at that.

As for the intentions of this rule, it was in a society that thrived largely because of a united religious outlook. Worship of other deities destabilised Israelite society, it is a recurring issue that often caused Israel to go astray. In modern society, we are neither destabilised by alternative viewpoints, nor is our way of life endangered by different views, so Christians can take from this a reminder that God is the only God and that we should not pursue worship of other deities, but the actual punishment is no longer valid.

Which brings me to one other point of note – punishments and laws are not the same thing. You’ll see this in a couple of other points – underlying laws remain the same, but the punishments do not. In this case the law is “you shall have no other gods before Yahweh”. The punishment is left up to God, who has set out consequences for not following this.

Set your Jewish slaves free after seven years (unless you buy them a wife), but keep non-Jewish slaves forever – First, slavery no longer exists in most parts of the world, so the question of Jewish and non-Jewish slaves is not of consequence. As to the intention of the law there are two ways to address it:

1. The law existed in the first place because Jews (at the time) were God’s chosen people. They had a special relationship with God, thus had different treatment in certain matters
   
2. Non-Jewish slaves were usually a result of prisoners of war. Jewish slaves, in contrast, were usually people who volunteered to serve a master. Setting free a Jewish slave meant that the Jew would either take up as a slave with another master (or remain in service with their master as is), or they may have enough to support themselves. Setting free a non-Jewish slave would lead to one of two possibilities: either 1- if the tribe/nation still existed, the non-Jew would return to their people and once again begin to fight against Israel, or 2- If it no longer existed (destroyed by Israel or another nation) they would have no people to go back to and thus live out their lives as outcasts, which was a virtual death sentence since they had no way to support themselves.
   

Don't wear mixed fabrics – A rule made for the Israelites when they were first emerging as a nation from under the feet of larger superpowers. They were setting up a national identity declaring "this is who we are and we are different than others". Since the time of Jesus the separation between Jew and Gentile no longer exists. Our intention should be to live a life that is different to non-Christians but this is reflected in our action and not our dress.

Don’t eat shellfish – Jesus addressed this issue in THIS PASSAGE (link). The rule was originally a simple health law – in those days, it was hard to keep seafood fresh and it would spoil thus causing harm. Even today keeping it fresh is hard and in the case of sickness many doctors will suggest right from kickoff to not eat shellfish (or any of the other foods listed in Leviticus 11).

The intention of the law was (firstly) a health law, but it also served as a reminder that when Israel sat down and ate their meals they would meditate on God's wishes. Jesus gave this a fuller meaning so that whenever we even open our mouths we should meditate on God's wishes.

Don’t eat pork – see above concerning shellfish, same issue.

Kill "witches" – See homosexuality, focusing on the “don’t worship any God but Yahweh” section.

If you get into a fight, and your wife interferes, and grabs the testicles of your opponent, cut your wife's hand off – I’ll have to check the context of this, I’m not certain of the passage you are referring to, if you have one can you provide it (as I said though, I’ll be gone for three months so I probably won’t actually be able to respond, I’ll try though – maybe send a PM if you still actually care about my answer in October, lol).

Stone unruly children to death – As you can probably guess these type of questions turn up fairly often on this site. I answered this question in another thread a while back and you can check the answer I gave HERE (link). Also worth noting is that this is a punishment and not a law. The law (“honour your mother and father”) is still just as valid today as ever.

Cure leprosy by slaughtering pigeons and splashing their blood about – I’d have to check this further, do you have a passage you can reference? As above, if you still care in October I’ll PM you

Menstruating women are "unclean" – This hails from a time when procreation and producing children was an absolute necessity (no children means a tribe dies out). Thus having sex with a woman during her menstruation period was forbidden in order that sex would lead to children. Unless a woman in Hebrew society must walk around with a sign saying "I am unclean right now" a person walking by won't even know she is menstruating. Thus the comments on "touching" a menstruating woman are in the context of husband/wife relations and do not reflect a wider context.

Pregnant women are "unclean" – Does the Bible actually specify this? It does say that a woman is unclean for a period of time after giving birth, but I can't recall the actual pregnancy being unclean. I could be wrong, so if I am let me know (though as already noted I'll have to get back to you much later about a response).

Force a rape victim to marry her rapist – see earlier comment on sex slavery arranged marriage, focus on the stability in terms of tribal unity. It's hard for us in our society to understand, but people in these ancient societies were more interested in unity than the Rights of any one individual. If a woman has her virginity stolen (even via rape) for tribal societies it was more important to keep the tribe united.

Don't work on Saturday (under pain of death by stoning) – The underlying law here is "Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy". That has not changed. But the way in which we understand the Sabbath is different than how the Israelites viewed it. While many Christians labour under the mistaken impression that Sunday is the Sabbath, some Christians understand that originally it was Saturday but contextualise this in terms of Hebrews 4:1-11 (link). In this passage, the author writes of a "Sabbath rest" that we strive to enter and even currently reside in. For us, the Sabbath of the Jews was a foreshadowing of a much greater Rest period - instead of participating in a time of rest once a week we believe that we constantly participate in God's Sabbath rest, first in the present by having the Holy Spirit dwelling in our lives, and secondly in the future when we enter God's kingdom.

That said, there is wisdom in setting aside a "rest day" in our weekly schedule, otherwise we may be susceptible to burnout or other fatigue related problems, but most Christians don't feel it necessary that we do so.

Finally, on the point of "under pain of death by stoning" I once again remind you of the difference between a law and a punishment. The law ("Remember the Sabbath") still remains true. The punishment (death) no longer is relevant in a society that is not striving for tribal unity (a necessity back in ancient times, but today in a global community totally unnecessary).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, Arb, I hope you have plenty of food for thought here. I know you won't agree with it, but I hope you can at least see my side of things on at least some of the points. Enjoy, feel free to respond if you wish, I'll be interested to see what may or may not come of this. But as noted, I won't be replying until probably October (and by then this thread and the point/s will be dead and I'll probably send you a PM, if you are still interested).

~ Regards, PA

[Arbitran]

You are correct in saying that I disagree with these precepts, but it is note-worthy that I no indeed see your side now, at the very least. Certainly food-for-thought, as you say.

[woopypooky]

i guess even Pope also cant answer this topic

[Ever Learning]

Bible mentions dinosaurs, leviathan and behemoth.

[Yamato]

I'm not sure that punishments are always distinct from laws. In my state we have the death penalty and that is a law. If punishment keeps showing up as a theme in ancient society it just shows the punitive nature of ancient society. Maybe that's not a very good reason for religious disbelief, or for some maybe it is. I think some people use the Bible's utility as a science textbook the way other people use ancient laws (punishments) they don't agree with as a slippery slope to deny the whole ball of wax.

Ironically, in other countries like China today they have the death penalty for victimless non-violent crimes --Christianity has nothing to do with it-- and Buddhism has nothing to do with stopping it. People who identify themselves as Buddhists might want to take this fact into account while they're poo-pooing Christianity for long-obsolescent OT laws/punishments in existence thousands of years ago. One might say that Buddhism doesn't instruct anyone to kill anyone in the execution of their laws but neither does modern-day Christianity, so that self-assured convenience that says "my opinions are best" drones ever on.

[+Paranoid Android]

You are correct in saying that I disagree with these precepts, but it is note-worthy that I no indeed see your side now, at the very least. Certainly food-for-thought, as you say.

I'm glad that even if we disagree that you can see my side of things and even entertain the possibility. Some I have conversed with over time have not been able to do that. And believe it or not, I can see your side of things also, even if I stringently disagree with it.

I'm headed to bed, and in six hours I'm heading off to my new and hopefully temporary life away from UM. See you in October.

So long, and thanks for all the fish (if you're a Hitch-hiker's fan, you'll get my meaning and incidentally my username). Chow

[Arbitran]

Bible mentions dinosaurs, leviathan and behemoth.

Again, those are mythical. (Behemot could have been a distorted hearsay account of an elephant)

[Arbitran]

I'm glad that even if we disagree that you can see my side of things and even entertain the possibility. Some I have conversed with over time have not been able to do that. And believe it or not, I can see your side of things also, even if I stringently disagree with it.

I'm headed to bed, and in six hours I'm heading off to my new and hopefully temporary life away from UM. See you in October.

So long, and thanks for all the fish (if you're a Hitch-hiker's fan, you'll get my meaning and incidentally my username). Chow

Indeed. I wish you luck, by the way, in your new venture.

[Beckys_Mom]

Behemot and Livyathan were not dinosaurs; they were mythical animals.

Correct indeed they were just mythical creatures invents ...Not real live animals or even close to a dinosaur.. And to show anyone else interested as to what these things once were...info below

Behemoth

The Behemoth is a huge and hairy creature that has super strength. It has very big claws and sharp teeth.

It was a creature in the Heroes Might and Magic series.

Element/sin : demon of lust and gluttony

Shape : elephant or hippopotamus, a cat

Rank : a headwaiter, or the caretaker of wine cellars of Hell

Origin : Egyptian deity Taueret.

Myths : One of the first monster created by God to guard the Earth

Magic : "his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly"

Association : Leviathan

Source : Book of Job, Enoch, Apocalypse, Jean Wier’s Pseudomonarchia Daemonum, Boulgakov, Blake ... http://www.mythicalc...m/page/Behemoth

Conclusion is - it doesn't sound like a real dinosaur to me..Just an invented made up scarey monster invented by mankind.. Most likely to share in old ancient folk tales ... But not what we can class as an actual dinosaur .. !!

[Beckys_Mom]

As was mentioned by libstaK, chances are that most people in this thread will no longer be here (including my dear late friend cadetak, RIP). In the end, a fresh start sounds like a great idea, so that new members can participate in these threads.

I have to agree with you PA ..In memory of our friend * the OP starter of this fine thread -> Cadetak ..It is good to keep something from him going strong again...May he RIP ...Lets hope his thread goes strong...We will not forget him.....We salute you Cadetak..Hope you are smiling on us all..

The OP asked a question, but it would seem that the question was just an agenda to bait Christians into another killing field. I would certainly hope that's not what was intended.

You may not have known but - The OP starter passed away some time ago.. We, that knew him. all deeply miss and respect him.. Seeing this old thread again makes many of us smile and glad to see something of his going strong... I assure you despite what you wish to complain in ref to his OP.. he was not in any way looking to bait anyone.. The thread indeed is a good one and hopefully continue that way....Now you may not have known..but now you do..

Edited June 24, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[Arbitran]

Correct indeed they were just mythical creatures invents ...Not real live animals or even close to a dinosaur.. And to show anyone else interested as to what these things once were...info below

Behemoth

The Behemoth is a huge and hairy creature that has super strength. It has very big claws and sharp teeth.

It was a creature in the Heroes Might and Magic series.

Element/sin : demon of lust and gluttony

Shape : elephant or hippopotamus, a cat

Rank : a headwaiter, or the caretaker of wine cellars of Hell

Origin : Egyptian deity Taueret.

Myths : One of the first monster created by God to guard the Earth

Magic : "his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly"

Association : Leviathan

Source : Book of Job, Enoch, Apocalypse, Jean Wier’s Pseudomonarchia Daemonum, Boulgakov, Blake ... http://www.mythicalc...m/page/Behemoth

Conclusion is - it doesn't sound like a real dinosaur to me..Just an invented made up scarey monster invented by mankind.. Most likely to share in old ancient folk tales ... But not what we can class as an actual dinosaur .. !!

That, and a very notable fact that no Christian wants to deal with: the literal interpretation of Job 40:17:

"His phallus stiffens like a cedar; the sinews of his testicles are tightly together."

Sounds a bit less like the "tail like a cedar" bull**** these people are vomiting up...

[Beckys_Mom]

That, and a very notable fact that no Christian wants to deal with: the literal interpretation of Job 40:17:

"His phallus stiffens like a cedar; the sinews of his testicles are tightly together."

Sounds a bit less like the "tail like a cedar" bull**** these people are vomiting up...

I see these creatures as nothing more than made up inventions told as tall tales like you would do around a camp fire... The TV show Supernatural based a season about the Leviathan ..They took it and used it to make a good story line for their show...Considering the show itself is based on all mythical monsters, demons and some angels.. it gives good ratings .. It is supposed to be that - God invented these creatures and sent then to purgatory because they got out of control ...Lucifer himself could not defeat them because he is an angel.. ( well fallen angel ) lol.. All tall tales but hey it makes money...I love the show ..

We have evidence of the actual dinosaurs.. but nothing of the made up creatures some like to mention..

[Arbitran]

I see these creatures as nothing more than made up inventions told as tall tales like you would do around a camp fire... The TV show Supernatural based a season about the Leviathan ..They took it and used it to make a good story line for their show...Considering the show itself is based on all mythical monsters, demons and some angels.. it gives good ratings .. It is supposed to be that - God invented these creatures and sent then to purgatory because they got out of control ...Lucifer himself could not defeat them because he is an angel.. ( well fallen angel ) lol.. All tall tales but hey it makes money...I love the show ..

We have evidence of the actual dinosaurs.. but nothing of the made up creatures some like to mention..

Indeed. Of course, I invariably have to mention to Christians that the story of Lucifer was invented almost entirely by John Milton for Paradise Lost in the 18th Century; the Bible doesn't say a word about any of that.

It seems Christians nowadays have a tendency to confuse Milton and C.S. Lewis for the Bible; but then, it isn't hard, considering so many of them have only read perhaps 10% of the actual Bible.

[Yamato]

Indeed. Of course, I invariably have to mention to Christians that the story of Lucifer was invented almost entirely by John Milton for Paradise Lost in the 18th Century; the Bible doesn't say a word about any of that.

It seems Christians nowadays have a tendency to confuse Milton and C.S. Lewis for the Bible; but then, it isn't hard, considering so many of them have only read perhaps 10% of the actual Bible.

If this topic wasn't meant to bait Christians that's what you're doing here anyway. Not exactly respecting the memory of the dearly departed or his true intention for this discussion, right?

No you don't have to remind me if something didn't come out of the Bible, or think you're qualified to assign me my beliefs as a Christian to be limited to things that are only in the Bible.

[Arbitran]

If this topic wasn't meant to bait Christians that's what you're doing here anyway. Not exactly respecting the memory of the dearly departed or his true intention for this discussion, right?

No you don't have to remind me if something didn't come out of the Bible, or think you're qualified to assign me my beliefs as a Christian to be limited to things that are only in the Bible.

I merely noted that I find it interesting that most Christians would like to have their beliefs be Bible-based, and many modern Christians who haven't studied have a notable proclivity towards imagining that things like Paradise Lost and C.S. Lewis' books are part of the Bible's text. That was all I said. I apologize if you read into it.

[Yamato]

I merely noted that I find it interesting that most Christians would like to have their beliefs be Bible-based, and many modern Christians who haven't studied have a notable proclivity towards imagining that things like Paradise Lost and C.S. Lewis' books are part of the Bible's text. That was all I said. I apologize if you read into it.

You've been noting a lot more than merely that, of late. Just so I understand the distinction in the note you're making here, you would find it uninteresting if most Christians would like to have their beliefs based on ______?

It's imagination on your part to think that "modern Christians" think C.S. Lewis is "part of the Bible's text". The Chronicles of Narnia contain well known Christian allegory. We understand allegorical concepts in religion that aren't data mined out of the Bible and regarded by their exact text. You almost answer your own question but can't quite land it. If Christians "only read perhaps 10% of the text" then obviously it's not as important to them as you keep rhetorically fluffing it up to be. Is the real point you're trying to make here that Christians are so ignorant, they just throw their beliefs on a book they've never read? If you want to find someone who takes their book seriously enough to read it, find a Muslim.

[Arbitran]

You've been noting a lot more than merely that, of late. Just so I understand the distinction in the note you're making here, you would find it uninteresting if most Christians would like to have their beliefs based on ______?

It's imagination on your part to think that "modern Christians" think C.S. Lewis is "part of the Bible's text". The Chronicles of Narnia contain well known Christian allegory. We understand allegorical concepts in religion that aren't data mined out of the Bible and regarded by their exact text. You almost answer your own question but can't quite land it. If Christians "only read perhaps 10% of the text" then obviously it's not as important to them as you keep rhetorically fluffing it up to be. Is the real point you're trying to make here that Christians are so ignorant, they just throw their beliefs on a book they've never read? If you want to find someone who takes their book seriously enough to read it, find a Muslim.

I'll ignore the utterly hypocritical switch-tactic about Islam there. You seem to think that Christians know the Bible better than Muslims know the Quran; I can't say that's not true, but I can say that I am very skeptical, given the fact that my observations reveal that Christians tend not to read very much of the Bible. And yes, they find it to be of utmost importance; I never said they didn't. Just because they find it important doesn't mean they read all of it. More often than not, they only read prescribed bits; ask a Christian who Jephthah was, for instance, and maybe 95% will have no idea what you're talking about (I tried it). And yes, I know that Christians don't literally think that C.S. Lewis is part of the Bible (they actually do seem to think that the narrative of Paradise Lost is in there somewhere; again, I tried it); I simply meant that a great deal of their modern interpretations and beliefs seem to have been sculpted and heavily influenced by these extra-biblical sources.

[Yamato]

I'll ignore the utterly hypocritical switch-tactic about Islam there. You seem to think that Christians know the Bible better than Muslims know the Quran; I can't say that's not true, but I can say that I am very skeptical, given the fact that my observations reveal that Christians tend not to read very much of the Bible. And yes, they find it to be of utmost importance; I never said they didn't. Just because they find it important doesn't mean they read all of it. More often than not, they only read prescribed bits; ask a Christian who Jephthah was, for instance, and maybe 95% will have no idea what you're talking about (I tried it). And yes, I know that Christians don't literally think that C.S. Lewis is part of the Bible (they actually do seem to think that the narrative of Paradise Lost is in there somewhere; again, I tried it); I simply meant that a great deal of their modern interpretations and beliefs seem to have been sculpted and heavily influenced by these extra-biblical sources.

There's nothing hypocritical about telling you to find a Muslim if you want a good chance to meet someone who reads their Holy Book, but your chronic habit of cherry picking obscure pieces of the Bible and making blanket judgments about Christians makes you look extremely ignorant.

Nothing I've said on this thread should have given you the idea that "Christians know the Bible better than Muslims know the Qu'ran".

Whether it's "most" or "many" or "a great deal" or "heavily", you sure get a lot of spoons and scales out when it comes to the "Christians" in your observations. They don't know who Jephthah was because they don't care who Jephthah was and that's the point. If their religious belief and practice is not Jephthah-dependent, why is that a bad thing? Why shouldn't an extra-biblical source influence me? Why shouldn't Aslan sculpt me? Maybe Aslan should sculpt you?

[Arbitran]

There's nothing hypocritical about telling you to find a Muslim if you want a good chance to meet someone who reads their Holy Book, but your chronic habit of cherry picking obscure pieces of the Bible and making blanket judgments about Christians makes you look extremely ignorant.

Nothing I've said on this thread should have given you the idea that "Christians know the Bible better than Muslims know the Qu'ran".

Whether it's "most" or "many" or "a great deal" or "heavily", you sure get a lot of spoons and scales out when it comes to the "Christians" in your observations. They don't know who Jephthah was because they don't care who Jephthah was and that's the point. If their religious belief and practice is not Jephthah-dependent, why is that a bad thing? Why shouldn't an extra-biblical source influence me? Why shouldn't Aslan sculpt me? Maybe Aslan should sculpt you?

My point was that they claim to follow the Bible, and yet display a deplorably-poor understanding of it. You submit that I cherry-pick; I submit that Christians cherry-pick the Bible, and I simply make note of the bits they leave out. And in what way does Aslan "sculpt" people?

[Yamato]

My point was that they claim to follow the Bible, and yet display a deplorably-poor understanding of it. You submit that I cherry-pick; I submit that Christians cherry-pick the Bible, and I simply make note of the bits they leave out. And in what way does Aslan "sculpt" people?

Some people study things on the internet or at school and yet display a deplorably poor understanding of it. If you want to find people not living up to their own standards, they're everywhere. Putting that focus of yours in a Christian wrapper looks like a cheap shot (and waste of time) to me.

Yes, Christians cherry-pick and leave things out that you assign to them. You know how much Bible is right for them and you know them better than they know themselves. I don't know who these Christians are you're "observing" but I know they don't go to my church. People don't talk like that, and I can tell from knowing them that they don't think like that. Browbeating one another for how versed we are on the Bible misses the point. Sharing peace and community with others is much more important than what you enjoy doing here.

Aslan could sculpt others and did sculpt me (problem?) by suppositionally portraying Jesus in a different world than our own. First of all, if we believe Jesus's ideals are good for this world, why wouldn't they be good for another world? You see the creation of Narnia. You see parallels between Aslan and Jesus like whatsoever you do to the least of my creatures, that you do unto me. Treat even the dumb creatures who don't have the gift of enlightenment and the ability of speech with dignity and respect. It teaches us the virtue of benevolence and martyrdom, the meaning of sacrifice and resurrection and so on.

[Arbitran]

Some people study things on the internet or at school and yet display a deplorably poor understanding of it. If you want to find people not living up to their own standards, they're everywhere. Putting that focus of yours in a Christian wrapper looks like a cheap shot (and waste of time) to me.

Yes, Christians cherry-pick and leave things out that you assign to them. You know how much Bible is right for them and you know them better than they know themselves. I don't know who these Christians are you're "observing" but I know they don't go to my church. People don't talk like that, and I can tell from knowing them that they don't think like that. Browbeating one another for how versed we are on the Bible misses the point. Sharing peace and community with others is much more important than what you enjoy doing here.

Aslan could sculpt others and did sculpt me (problem?) by suppositionally portraying Jesus in a different world than our own. First of all, if we believe Jesus's ideals are good for this world, why wouldn't they be good for another world? You see the creation of Narnia. You see parallels between Aslan and Jesus like whatsoever you do to the least of my creatures, that you do unto me. Treat even the dumb creatures who don't have the gift of enlightenment and the ability of speech with dignity and respect. It teaches us the virtue of benevolence and martyrdom, the meaning of sacrifice and resurrection and so on.

First point: Aslan's behavior and actions are utterly disparate from Jesus'; where anyone could find similarities I can't even begin to imagine (apart perhaps for the seeming "resurrection" bit). Either way, that's irrelevant.

You seem to espouse the position that: because everyone makes mistakes, I should judge specific people for mistakes. That's perhaps a reasonable suggestion. But when there is a very large, influential group of people, which routinely makes extreme mistakes, is it not equally-reasonable to take note of their mistakes? So that one's-self, as well as others, can benefit from the knowledge of said mistakes?

I don't "know how much Bible is good for them" or "know them better than they know themselves" (an excellent point of blatant ad hominem attack though; I couldn't have done better myself). All I have noted is that they claim to wish to follow the Bible, and their actual, demonstrated knowledge and understanding of it is far beneath what one might reasonably expect from someone making such a claim.

And of course, predictably, you resort to the "the-Christians-you're-talking-about-aren't-the-kind-of-Christian-that-I-think-are-really-Christians" dodge. I do find it telling that you seem to consistently make the assumption that I've ever referred to your particular belief system or church; I prefer to comment on standard Christian ideology, not on you, or your church. And again, the only time I really refer to any particular people is when I was making note of specific behaviors I have commonly observed in Christians, which run contrary to their own proposals, or those of standard Christian ideology.

Also, it is intriguing that you bring up "sacrifice". Is it really a sacrifice, for Jesus/Aslan to be killed, if there was full-knowledge on the part of the subject, that they would resurrect (and, in Jesus' case, ascend to heaven for all eternity)? I propose that a true sacrifice cannot exist under these conditions. Yes, sacrifice can be considered virtuous; you seem to have convinced yourself that this is an objectively-true statement. Was it virtuous of all of the Nazi soldiers who died in WWII to "sacrifice" their lives in war, for, what they perceived to be, the greater good of the Reich? As I have stated before, objective morality is extremely rare, if it exists at all; for every virtue, there is a circumstance in which it can be found to be decidedly un-virtuous.

[ranrod]

Thought about this from a different thread...We've discussed a Christian's view on the dinosaur, how about the Christian view on the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs? Including the fact that it was 65 million years ago.