Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
WIP

Texas Public School Bible Classes Teach Races Come from Noah’s Sons, B

Recommended Posts

The Bible is true, except for when parts are proven to be false, at which point they become "metaphorical".

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bible is true, except for when parts are proven to be false, at which point they become "metaphorical".

-k

God was not a literary master by the looks of it, otherwise I guess footnotes explaining things would have been used. Not even a glossary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bible is true, except for when parts are proven to be false, at which point they become "metaphorical".

-k

I don't think any have been proven to be false, since there is no proof that will satisfy the believers. Ancient fossils found in ancient geological strata? Why, God created that to test the faith of believers, who know the earth is only 6000 years old. He can do anything, you know. Geology and the physics and chemistry it's based on are obviously false. For one thing not all scientists agree with each other 100% on every facet of physics and chemistry, never mind evolution.

But, come on, we're having way too much fun here. As Betsy has said herself, we would just ignore her otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine if Christians fought against people who work on the Sabbath with the same ferocity they fight against homosexuality.

-k

rolleyes.gif

Yes, imagine that.

When people refuse to use their God-given freedom to choose and instead, bully their way in by invoking their so-called rights to be able to observe their Sabbath, and demand that Sabbath should be anyday that suits them....and that the Pastors and priests from all Christian churches should be preaching 24/7!

Of course to them, creating their own church that will cater to this demand is out of the question.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still waiting, dear....

Acceptance of homosexuality by some churches happened only in the last few decades or so...

You're advocating that just because others had done so, therefore we all should.


No....the Christian God does not bow to the ways of this world. I stand firmly by what I've stated before: To be a Christian is to agree and follow the stipulations of God.

That homosexuality has been deemed by some Christian denominations as not a sin only proves my point. In fact, the existence of so many different Christian denominations--Presbyterian, Anglican, Unitarian, Catholic, Evangelical, Calvinist, etc.--proves it even better. So too does the shift in practices within some of the aforementioned. There is no one, universal set of Christian rules or values.


I never once said it should be any different. I, along with Mighty AC, only said you have a choice and explained how that is. You are the one speaking about an absence of choice; there's one god and one set of rules issued by it. Taking that to its logical conclusion, you believe that just because you hold to the dogma of one particular Christian sect, all who call themselves Christians should so as to not be liars. Do you think members of the United Church are real Christians? Is anyone who follows a denomination other than your own?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No....the Christian God does not bow to the ways of this world. I stand firmly by what I've stated before: To be a Christian is to agree and follow the stipulations of God.

As previously discussed, the Bible calls for the death of nonbelievers and so the church slaughtered them for hundreds of years. You claimed these were the acts of evil men; but, weren't they just following the stipulations of your god?

I assume that you personally refrain from murdering witches, hindus and disobedient children; so, you or the leaders of your sect must have decided to ignore some of your god's stipulations at some point.

So, to hitch a ride on g_bambino's excellent question, are you sure that you are a 'real' Christian? If so, how can you be sure?

Edited by Mighty AC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does the Bible call for the death of non-believers? If it's in the old testament, Jesus specifically came to obviate it. (So I don't understand why it's part of he Christian bible.) I can't see Jesus calling for the death of non-believers - hell he was trying to make his followers better Jews, not Christians. He was real peeved that the non-Jews seemed to be following his teachings better than his Jewish followers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Acceptance of homosexuality by some churches happened only in the last few decades or so - due to pressures from the current societal climes, and as means to keep their churches intact - what with threats of split-ups.

You're advocating that just because others had done so, therefore we all should. Just because other churches had decided to veer away from the specific stipulation, therefore it should be an acceptable choice for a Christian to consider. Well, here's an old adage from my grandmother: just because your friend decided to eat poo doesn't mean it's alright to eat it.

No....the Christian God does not bow to the ways of this world. I stand firmly by what I've stated before: To be a Christian is to agree and follow the stipulations of God.

Anyway....I have no wish to argue the doctrine with anyone who has no understanding of it. It's futile.

The same could be said of the acceptance of abolishing slavery a couple of centuries ago. The progressives who began the abolishionist movements in England did not have tradition behind them when they were preaching reforms. In the U.S., entire churches like the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians etc. split over the slavery issue and have remained divided ever since. Why is slavery today considered unchristian by most, when it was sanctioned up until the 1800's in America? The most likely answer was that the change was needed because of the changing attitudes that were seeded by recognizing and expanding the rights of the individual. Even the framers of the Constitution, who were trying to figure out how to put together a secular, democratic state when it was made up of abolitionist and slave-holding states could not resolve that question and put it off for future generations to deal with....which they did with the bloody Civil War of the 1860's!

Today, even young evangelicals are pulling away from their churches and demanding changes on social issues such as gay rights, because they are growing up in a world where previously secretive, shamed and closeted homosexuals no longer have to hide in the shadows or flee to gay ghettos in major cities. Today, in many areas, they can live openly and let everyone know they are homosexuals. The younger evangelicals may also have some awareness of the new science which has shed much light on how our sexual orientations are determined. The takeaway from the reports I have read is that while there is quite a bit of fluidity in female sexual orientation (many more women than men identify as bisexual, or switch orientation during their lives) it does not happen with gay men....no different than heterosexual men suddenly deciding that they are gay! That, btw is why we are always suspicious of the fervent evangelists who are the most obsessed with 'the sin of homosexuality.' How many times have they turned out to be gays themselves who spent a life brainwashed to hate themselves and their feelings and seeking relief by railing against homosexuality. Most of us who are straight have never considered this issue priority#1 regardless of how we felt about the issue.

So, if younger evangelicals are being turned off by the churches that preach that their gay friends are sinners going to hell, and they feel have unrealistic sexual morality standards to begin with, not to mention see these churches as too political - too close to Republican politics in the U.S., where the majority of young evangelicals consider climate change a real and serious issue...after all, they will spend more of their lives dealing with it than we will....then it looks like it is time for the zeitgeist of church thinking to edge forward also! Just as with slavery, it will divide churches, leaving some on both sides of a bitter dispute; but eventually the rejectionist holdouts die of old age, just as the pro-slavery segrationists died out until they had no more influence.

Why Young Evangelicals Are Leaving The Church - CNN

And the most recent episode of PBS's Religion and Ethics Newsweekly had an interesting report on the problems that Focus on the Family and evangelical churches in their home base of Colorado Springs Colorado are facing in trying to deal with younger evangelicals who are drifting away or demanding change, and the leaders who are trying to respond to the challenge while maintaining what they see as biblical principles. I listen to the audio podcast upload of the show; the PBS video is posted here. This feature begins about 3 minutes in to the broadcast.

Regarding the wider issue of what we consider secularism, I have done much reading in recent weeks, but haven't felt the time to post challenges to how secularism is presented by both the religious opponents of secularism, and the non-religious and atheist supporters of secularism. What I am finding of late, reading through the history of where the notion of secularism began in western culture is that it is a product of the Enlightenment, and if it has an absolute beginning, it would be with the dualistic philosophy of Rene Descartes 300 years ago, when he, like virtually all of his contemporaries were Christians, but seen the prevailing thinking of the time which believed in animist life forces pervading nature, as being a hindrance to progress. Descartes wanted a clear line drawn between what is divine and what is natural; so in dealing with the human mind, he created a philosophy to try to explain mental function now known as Cartesian Dualism - here, the brain (what little was understood during his time) as well as the body are inert matter, no different than the rocks and the soil around us. But, what made us alive was the infusion of soul, or mind - interfacing with the pineal gland under the brain according to his theory so that the soul could direct the body.

What has been missed regarding the separation of divine and matter by Descartes and later philosophers like Immanuel Kant, who thought out a complete separation of science from religion....putting them in the separate magisterias where religion would run the spiritual life, while science and government would function in a secular realm where religion is kept out. Over the years, the scientific establishment found less and less of merit regarding religion and even philosophy - as many of the harshest critics of religion today, like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, have as much contempt for philosophy as they do for theology. They want a world where science answers all questions and is even the source of spiritual contemplation.

So, it's worth taking a step back and look at the history of modern secularism and consider that it didn't begin with dogmatic atheists trying to destroy religion! Instead, secularism which wants an unenchanted world that we can freely exploit, was the product of earlier religious thinkers who wanted religion out of the way of development - which at that time was exploiting the land, mining and building factories. The change in thinking about nature was every bit as much a catalyst for the Industrial Era as any inventions that the Enlightenment created.

So, after Christianity created this Frankenstein monster of a secular world devoid of any spiritual appreciation of nature and life itself, I would like to know how religion finds its place again. One place it won't be found is in the modern fundamentalist theologies that follow right along with the secular libertarian dismantling and destruction of nature for useable products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does the Bible call for the death of non-believers? If it's in the old testament, Jesus specifically came to obviate it. (So I don't understand why it's part of he Christian bible.) I can't see Jesus calling for the death of non-believers - hell he was trying to make his followers better Jews, not Christians. He was real peeved that the non-Jews seemed to be following his teachings better than his Jewish followers.

Betsy said that to "be a Christian is to agree and follow the stipulations of God." Are God and Jesus not the same dude? Can we scrap the old testament now or does some of it still apply? If some of it does apply, who decides which parts?

According to Matthew and Luke, Jesus says the old testament applies. However, Romans and Galatians say that the OT no longer counts. How do Christians know that they are the 'real' deal and that the other sects are just posers?

Some sects accept evolution but Betsy's group only partially accepts it based on passages in Genesis. In both cases men made the distinction between God's word and metaphor. How do we know who made the right call? Are both groups still 'real' Christians?

Jesus condoned slavery but men have decided that slavery is immoral. Are we more ethical than Jesus or is slavery not a big deal?

In short, there are endless sects, doctrines and personal interpretations that fall under the blanket of Christianity. They can't agree on the wishes or their own god yet many feel confident enough in their own interpretation to impose it on society and deny rights to others.

Edited by Mighty AC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we scrap the old testament now or does some of it still apply?

Some of it still applies, obviously, since betsy has "proven" that parts of it are, according to science, true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same could be said of the acceptance of abolishing slavery a couple of centuries ago. The progressives who began the abolishionist movements in England did not have tradition behind them when they were preaching reforms. In the U.S., entire churches like the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians etc. split over the slavery issue and have remained divided ever since. Why is slavery today considered unchristian by most, when it was sanctioned up until the 1800's in America? The most likely answer was that the change was needed because of the changing attitudes that were seeded by recognizing and expanding the rights of the individual. Even the framers of the Constitution, who were trying to figure out how to put together a secular, democratic state when it was made up of abolitionist and slave-holding states could not resolve that question and put it off for future generations to deal with....which they did with the bloody Civil War of the 1860's!

Today, even young evangelicals are pulling away from their churches and demanding changes on social issues such as gay rights, because they are growing up in a world where previously secretive, shamed and closeted homosexuals no longer have to hide in the shadows or flee to gay ghettos in major cities. Today, in many areas, they can live openly and let everyone know they are homosexuals. The younger evangelicals may also have some awareness of the new science which has shed much light on how our sexual orientations are determined. The takeaway from the reports I have read is that while there is quite a bit of fluidity in female sexual orientation (many more women than men identify as bisexual, or switch orientation during their lives) it does not happen with gay men....no different than heterosexual men suddenly deciding that they are gay! That, btw is why we are always suspicious of the fervent evangelists who are the most obsessed with 'the sin of homosexuality.' How many times have they turned out to be gays themselves who spent a life brainwashed to hate themselves and their feelings and seeking relief by railing against homosexuality. Most of us who are straight have never considered this issue priority#1 regardless of how we felt about the issue.

So, if younger evangelicals are being turned off by the churches that preach that their gay friends are sinners going to hell, and they feel have unrealistic sexual morality standards to begin with, not to mention see these churches as too political - too close to Republican politics in the U.S., where the majority of young evangelicals consider climate change a real and serious issue...after all, they will spend more of their lives dealing with it than we will....then it looks like it is time for the zeitgeist of church thinking to edge forward also! Just as with slavery, it will divide churches, leaving some on both sides of a bitter dispute; but eventually the rejectionist holdouts die of old age, just as the pro-slavery segrationists died out until they had no more influence.

Why Young Evangelicals Are Leaving The Church - CNN

And the most recent episode of PBS's Religion and Ethics Newsweekly had an interesting report on the problems that Focus on the Family and evangelical churches in their home base of Colorado Springs Colorado are facing in trying to deal with younger evangelicals who are drifting away or demanding change, and the leaders who are trying to respond to the challenge while maintaining what they see as biblical principles. I listen to the audio podcast upload of the show; the PBS video is posted here. This feature begins about 3 minutes in to the broadcast.

Regarding the wider issue of what we consider secularism, I have done much reading in recent weeks, but haven't felt the time to post challenges to how secularism is presented by both the religious opponents of secularism, and the non-religious and atheist supporters of secularism. What I am finding of late, reading through the history of where the notion of secularism began in western culture is that it is a product of the Enlightenment, and if it has an absolute beginning, it would be with the dualistic philosophy of Rene Descartes 300 years ago, when he, like virtually all of his contemporaries were Christians, but seen the prevailing thinking of the time which believed in animist life forces pervading nature, as being a hindrance to progress. Descartes wanted a clear line drawn between what is divine and what is natural; so in dealing with the human mind, he created a philosophy to try to explain mental function now known as Cartesian Dualism - here, the brain (what little was understood during his time) as well as the body are inert matter, no different than the rocks and the soil around us. But, what made us alive was the infusion of soul, or mind - interfacing with the pineal gland under the brain according to his theory so that the soul could direct the body.

What has been missed regarding the separation of divine and matter by Descartes and later philosophers like Immanuel Kant, who thought out a complete separation of science from religion....putting them in the separate magisterias where religion would run the spiritual life, while science and government would function in a secular realm where religion is kept out. Over the years, the scientific establishment found less and less of merit regarding religion and even philosophy - as many of the harshest critics of religion today, like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, have as much contempt for philosophy as they do for theology. They want a world where science answers all questions and is even the source of spiritual contemplation.

So, it's worth taking a step back and look at the history of modern secularism and consider that it didn't begin with dogmatic atheists trying to destroy religion! Instead, secularism which wants an unenchanted world that we can freely exploit, was the product of earlier religious thinkers who wanted religion out of the way of development - which at that time was exploiting the land, mining and building factories. The change in thinking about nature was every bit as much a catalyst for the Industrial Era as any inventions that the Enlightenment created.

So, after Christianity created this Frankenstein monster of a secular world devoid of any spiritual appreciation of nature and life itself, I would like to know how religion finds its place again. One place it won't be found is in the modern fundamentalist theologies that follow right along with the secular libertarian dismantling and destruction of nature for useable products.

Apostasy is very much in the Bible. Christians - including priests - turning their backs on the faith.

Nothing new about The Church being under siege - nor other interpretations of Christianity. They had that problem during the time of Paul. Jesus had warned us of those things.

WIP

The takeaway from the reports I have read is that while there is quite a bit of fluidity in female sexual orientation (many more women than men identify as bisexual, or switch orientation during their lives) it does not happen with gay men....no different than heterosexual men suddenly deciding that they are gay! That, btw is why we are always suspicious of the fervent evangelists who are the most obsessed with 'the sin of homosexuality.'

While there could be homosexual priests struggling with their homosexuality (thus to some of us they seem "obsessed" with the sin of homosexuality).....unfortunately, only to succumb to it (perhaps led astray by the homosexuals that's already in the church).

It is no stretch of the imagination to see that a lot of these homosexual priests are homosexual-pedophiles, who saw the church as a playground to be able to indulge in their perversities with children. There is a "magic age" that homosexuals prefer to introduce another male to homosexuality - if I'm not mistaken, it's 12 or 14? If I recall correctly, it's been in the topic that was posted years ago regarding NAMBLA (North America Man-Boy Love Association).

Why do we see men preferring to be boy scout leaders, or hockey coaches? The overwhelming majority of pedophiles are homosexual men. Lest someone says that most homosexuals are not pedophiles - nobody said they were.

So-called studies nowadays are of course, suspect - we've seen a lot of biased so-called studies that endorses their ideology - from evolution, to environment to lifestyles etc.,

Perhaps it wouldn't be long that we can justify the rape of an infant when some studies reveal that pedophiles who like infants and toddlers couldn't help what they are - and the all-inclusive society will try to accomodate to make such acts legal.

The homosexual scandal that's rocking the Vatican right now is just the latest. Italian newspapers allege that the reason the Pope resigned is due to more scandals that are about to erupt.

Tuesday, February 26, 2013 at 7:04 AM

Report on Gay Cabal in Vatican Forced Pope to Resign…?

http://www.theipinionsjournal.com/2013/02/report-on-gay-mafia-in-vatican-forced-pope-to-resign/

There was an investigated report on this homosexual cabal years ago, also in one of the old threads.

From a logical point of view, why would it be surprising to see the church as one of the choice places to infiltrate by homosexual predators and pedophiles? What better authority to have and abuse than wearing the frock that gives one the "power," being identified as a "representative" of God? It's better than being a teacher...or a daycare provider.

From a Christian point of view, it is but an evidence that Satan knows how to manipulate human weaknesses to do his bidding. We see the results of his works. What better way to turn people away from God?

And from a Christian point of view, too...one should feel compassion for a homosexual who struggles to be righteous in the eyes of God. It is the sin that is wrong, not the temptation.

So no, it didn't start with modern atheists/secularists except that the challenges and tactics being used by God-bashers these days are quite different....more sophisticated in the ways of politics and manipulations. There is no denying that it's the time of secularism, and relativism rules!

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Betsy said that to "be a Christian is to agree and follow the stipulations of God." Are God and Jesus not the same dude? Can we scrap the old testament now or does some of it still apply? If some of it does apply, who decides which parts?

Have I not explained this before in so many threads?

Who sez the Old Testament is being scrapped???? No need to read any farther....as no doubt, the rest are just ala-Dawkins claims complete with hysterics.

Like I said, like some of the new atheists here, you hardly understand anything about the Bible - therefore it's not something you should debate about. At least, do your homework and read some previous posts, and try to learn the basics. It doesn't make any sense that you'd argue about something you clearly have no understanding about.

And I have no wish to spoonfeed you the same things that had already been argued to death in other posts.

Try the thread "Questions, Criticisms etc..," Come to think of it, I should update that.....

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same could be said of the acceptance of abolishing slavery a couple of centuries ago. The progressives who began the abolishionist movements in England did not have tradition behind them when they were preaching reforms. In the U.S., entire churches like the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians etc. split over the slavery issue and have remained divided ever since. Why is slavery today considered unchristian by most, when it was sanctioned up until the 1800's in America? The most likely answer was that the change was needed because of the changing attitudes that were seeded by recognizing and expanding the rights of the individual. Even the framers of the Constitution, who were trying to figure out how to put together a secular, democratic state when it was made up of abolitionist and slave-holding states could not resolve that question and put it off for future generations to deal with....which they did with the bloody Civil War of the 1860's!

It's nothing about being progressives or not - but rather what is clearly wrong! That those who favored slavery then were like the relativists today?

Then, it's all about the economic ramifications. Everybody knew it was wrong!

If I recall correctly, you studied the Bible, Wip....so you must know the analogy of slavery and sin (Israel's freedom from slavery), the point God was trying to make in the OT.

Speaking of economic ramifications - that's the new battlecry for same-sex marriage. That's in the news lately. It'll be good for the economy - sez advocates!

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who sez the Old Testament is being scrapped???? No need to read any farther....as no doubt, the rest are just ala-Dawkins claims complete with hysterics.

I didn't say the OT is being scrapped. In response to this statement by you:

I stand firmly by what I've stated before: To be a Christian is to agree and follow the stipulations of God.

I asked these questions:

As previously discussed, the Bible calls for the death of nonbelievers and so the church slaughtered them for hundreds of years. You claimed these were the acts of evil men; but, weren't they just following the stipulations of your god?

I assume that you personally refrain from murdering witches, hindus and disobedient children; so, you or the leaders of your sect must have decided to ignore some of your god's stipulations at some point.

So, to hitch a ride on g_bambino's excellent question, are you sure that you are a 'real' Christian? If so, how can you be sure?

Canuckistani then mentioned that Jesus came along to obviate the OT. Hence my questions about which parts still apply.

To be serious though, as a Christian how can you be certain which passages are acceptable to ignore and which must be followed? With over 40,000 Christian denominations why do you think your sect has interpreted and cherry picked the Bible more appropriately than the others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be serious though, as a Christian how can you be certain which passages are acceptable to ignore and which must be followed? With over 40,000 Christian denominations why do you think your sect has interpreted and cherry picked the Bible more appropriately than the others?

The core message of the Bible has never changed. Refer to th OP in the topic, The Bible (the explanation about the Bible).

The truth of the Scriptures come from the original manuscript, in Greek and Aramaic. Thus I advice you, if you truly want to understand the Bible, you've got to do some Bible Study, preferably the one that explains word translations, customs and cultures of the day, etc.., My Bible study is KJV. I am still studying...and will keep on.

KJV (1611) still stands as accurate as any English version.

Btw, we're still finding new manuscripts practically everyday......in fact one valuable manuscript was recently discovered in the New York Public Library - how is that for cool!smile.png

At the same time modern scholarship has improved so much nuances of the original language are being revealed, but nothing that has been discovered had changed historical doctrinal truths.

We're talking about translations here as opposed to manuscripts.

The original manuscripts - ranging in date from late 1st century up until Rennaissance time - are startlingly consistent, especially when you consider that these were copied over and over again - by dedicated scholars and monks in less than modern comfort - and copied from different manuscripts, and yet still they`re consistent.

Radical changes that accommodate homosexuality and feminism - since I suppose those are the issues you care about - were not in the older text but rather came about in modern times. That`s why now, it`s important for Christians to be aware of the existence of bibles that were manipulated to suit modern times.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The overwhelming majority of pedophiles are homosexual men.

Care to show us a link for this vile and stupid writing? Edited by guyser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're talking about translations here as opposed to manuscripts.

No. We're talking about interpretations and selective readings. (Do you expect us to believe the calls in the Bible for the death of non-believers were simply mis-translated?) You therefore haven't answered the question.

Radical changes that accommodate homosexuality and feminism - since I suppose those are the issues you care about - were not in the older text but rather came about in modern times. That`s why now, it`s important for Christians to be aware of the existence of bibles that were manipulated to suit modern times.

What, specifically, were these "radical changes" to the text of the Bible?

[ed.: +]

Edited by g_bambino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bible has always been a political document. OT stuff about why it was right for the Israelis to holocaust the Caananites - because God told them to - is just politica excuse making. The Gospels match the times they were written in, with John being much more anti Jewish because by that time the Jews were persectuing the Christians. The council of Nicea accepting only the 4 gospels out of the hundreds that exist, because they matched the aims of the council. Etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...