Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Evolution and a supreme being.
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
philologos wrote: »
OK, Pushtrak, let's have a look at your three posts. Let me grab some coffee and begin
No. I can't get over this. Forget the matter at hand, you're just so annoying bro. I hadn't seen any of your posts before this thread, but I see you have 20,000 odd, and they are all creepy religious nonsense. I think you're insane. I genuinely wouldn't want to be around you, I wouldn't feel safe having seen what you've written all over this website. You are in denial, you're unhinged, you're just downright weird and make me feel terribly ill. I am terrified of you. You would do anything for your religious beliefs and that makes you extremely dangerous. You seem like the kind of dude who could just snap any day.0 -
Right Pushtrak, let's go through your post. What I'm going to do is divide your post into general topics, and address them one by one.
1. Denominations - how can they be all true? -In the stead of trying to counter this, I'll not be pointing out the manuscripts, et cetera, but to the fact of how many denominations exist. Many of them would say that others, if not all of the others are doomed to hellfire. Or, they might say doomed to absence from Christ in the afterlife, or even those who say nothingness in the afterlife. I've encountered all three.
I guess I've had a different perspective to you. I've believed and trusted in Jesus for about 5 years now. Over the extent of that time, I've read the Bible with Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Brethren, Baptists, Methodists, non-denominational Christians, and Evangelicals. I've studied the Bible with people from a huge range of countries and backgrounds. I've opened up the Bible face to face with Muslims, Buddhists, atheists and agnostics in addition to opening it with Christians. I can say I hope to again! I can honestly say I can count on the fingers of my hand as to how many times I've disagreed with a Christian over a fundamental doctrine of Christian faith. Indeed, I've served alongside Christians of many different denominations in ministry in the past. For 3 years during my time at university, I served with my Christian Union on campus with many people of differing denominations, I also served in Britain one summer. Now I and many other Christians who work in London meet together in the hope that we might talk about Jesus with our colleagues, looking to Scripture and studying the Bible in the process.
Most denominational differences come down to practice and style, rather than theological substance. Where differences do arise over theological issues, it tends to be over issues which are not concerning central Christian claims such as Jesus' virgin birth, or Jesus' death and resurrection, or the divine Creation of the world and so on.
Simply put I'm a Christian first and foremost, and I will work alongside anyone who believes and trusts in the Gospel. I think one of the most helpful and most basic outlines of the Gospel is still the one I signed as a student when I was serving with my Christian Union.The unity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the Godhead.
The sovereignty of God in creation, revelation, redemption and final judgment.
The divine inspiration and entire trustworthiness of Holy Scripture, as originally given, and its supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct.
The universal sinfulness and guilt of all people since the fall, rendering them subject to God's wrath and condemnation.
Redemption from the guilt, penalty, dominion and pollution of sin, solely through the sacrificial death (as our representative and substitute) of the Lord Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God.
The bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead and his ascension to the right hand of God the Father.
The presence and power of the Holy Spirit in the work of regeneration.
The justification of the sinner by the grace of God through faith alone.
The indwelling and work of the Holy Spirit in the believer.
The one holy universal Church which is the body of Christ and to which all true believers belong.
The expectation of the personal return of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Let me know if you want me to go into more depth about what I think about the saving grace of Jesus. From my perspective Bible clearly says that Jesus is the only way to know God the Father (e.g John 14:6), and the Bible clearly says that one must believe and trust in Him to be saved (e.g John 3:16-18). There's not many ways one can twist those verses to justify universalism (which is a concept which was invented in the 19th century).It goes back to the supposed absolute truth.. I am figuring that the absolute truth is supposed to be independent of what we think of it, is it? As in all the subjective opinions that are not of the particular faith one goes with are just subjective. But the one that whichever person has is the absolute truth. What makes any human the arbiter of truth? There is a landscape of these "absolute truths" within the one faith. You will doubtless argue that it is the holy text that is the absolute truth. But, from this book comes the very subjective. If I were to read it, I'd have my own subjective interpretation. And on, and on it goes.
If God exists, absolute truth concerning Him exists. This isn't all that remarkable. If God doesn't exist, then no absolute truth exists whatsoever. In the light of God's existence, absolute truth would exist in two ways - 1) truth about Him exists, 2) truth that He has spoken exists. The first is a lot harder to determine than the second. The second is easier because we have something to look at. The former is commonly called natural theology, and the latter is simply Biblical study and what we can learn from it.
Personally I don't pay blind allegiance to any denomination. Simply put I have one standard and one standard alone for determining what is truly Christian and what isn't, and that's through looking to the Bible, and walking through it. If someone disagrees with a position I hold, I'm more than happy to have them correct me Biblically showing me the logic from step to step. If someone can do that, I will thank them, I will really appreciate that someone has corrected a mistake of mine, and I will really appreciate that someone will have helped me understand more of what the truth is.
If God has spoken, it matters little if nobody believed in Him, even if people had a variety of subjective ideas which deny Him, ultimately His existence would be still real even if we didn't believe in Him. Even if people have subjective beliefs, truth will still hit home.
2. Miracles - how could one reasonably believe in them?A historic account of the times, if written can be taken or left. It isn't ultimately going to make much difference if it were just that. The issue comes in with the arrival of the miracles. My making the claim is merely pointing out that is where it stands on the scale of literacy.
The issue of miracles is simply tied to whether or not you believe in a Creator God.
If I didn't believe in a Creator God, I wouldn't believe in miracles. If there was no Creator it wouldn't be reasonable that there could be any manipulation of observable laws.
Since I do, it is entirely reasonable, it is entirely reasonable that a Creator God, being omniscience and omnipotent in respect to His creation could not manipulate these laws, particularly as a means to reveal something of Himself to man.
The crux of the question is whether or not there is good reason to believe in Creation, and good reason to believe in a God given the nature of reality. I've touched on some of those reasons previously in this thread.
3. On the logical neccessity of a CreatorThere are a number of possibilities in terms of us being here. To start with, the idea of a creator. Well, within this, the creator could be the deistic concept, for one, or it could be an interventionist deity. Within the idea of an interventionist deity, it could be any one. And of course, it could be a naturalistic answer in the form of the universe always existed or is part of the multiverse.
I guess my issues with either of those approaches is firstly, a multiverse doesn't explain this one, it merely sets the question one step further back. We can rightfully ask what cased the multiverse. It also seems a violation of Ockham's Razor, not multiplying entities beyond necessity. The commonly accepted age of the universe is 13.7 billion years old, that is a finite amount of time. The Big Bang happened a finite time ago, therefore we can rightfully ask questions about what caused that to happen 13.7 billion years old. The universe under this traditional definition is finite, not infinite.
I've asked you about deism, I don't get why you think that a deist God who doesn't care about Creation is any more sensible than a living and active God who cares deeply for what He has made, and actively cares for us.
4. Did God change his plans in respect to the salvation of mankind? -So god changed its mind? There is a point here about how perfect plans ought not be altered.
Can you explain this a little bit more? - I don't believe God changed his mind in respect to us. He had one plan to reveal His truth to mankind. He did so in several stages. This is why we can see Biblical prophesy all pointing to its fulfilment in Jesus. I'm more than happy to discuss this with you in more depth is you can tell me what exactly it is you want to know in more detail.
5. What does the Bible say about morality? -It was close, though, and I didn't feel it appropriate to let it slide just because it wasn't directly stated. If I was heavily implying towards something you took exception to you'd call me out on it too, and rightly so.
I never said once that atheists cannot do what is moral. This is the general framework that is presented in the New Testament in respect to ethical behaviour:Romans 2:12-16 wrote:For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
6. Does the Bible advocate the inferiority of women?If the eternal hellfire afterlife is credible to a person, that person is more likely to accept things they otherwise would not. Also, human emotion isn't always conducive to the correct application of logic.
Firstly, if the Bible were specifically against women, I would expect most people who were leaving churches to be women rather than men. How come it is the other way around? - I don't think your explanation is all that satisfactory.
Secondly, I propose doing two things here. Looking at a larger scale at what the Bible says about the nature of a relationship, and looking to each of your passages.
6A. A Biblical perspective on the relationship between men and women
I think the Christian perspective of gender roles is complementarianism by and large.
I'll let the Bible speak for itself. A good case in point is that of marriage:Ephesians 5:15-33 wrote:Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
The best way is if you can point out how this presents the view that women are lesser than men. From what I can tell, this presents a two way relationship.
Here's some posts I've already done on the topic of how Christianity regards gender roles particularly in a marriage. URL=http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72182546&postcount=133]1[/URL URL=http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72184037&postcount=135]2[/URL URL=http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72189117&postcount=140]3[/URL URL=http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72189984&postcount=149]4[/URL
6B. Genesis 2:18-22Genesis 2:18-22 wrote:Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.
We need to go back to Genesis 1 and do some ground work before we discuss this. In Genesis 1:26-27 God gives his mission to mankind, namely that man has dominion over all Creation, and that man was commanded to be fruitful and multiply.
Firstly in the obvious sense, man is going to have a bit of difficult being fruitful and multiplying with anyone if he doesn't have a partner with which to do so
Secondly, in the other sense, man needs a partner a helper to serve in the mission of God. That is participating in being stewards over Creation, and in the Christian sense, in proclaiming the Gospel to others so that they might be saved and living for Him in daily life rather than living for the selfish aims of the world around us. Adam in order to fulfill God's mission needs a helper to do so. That doesn't mean that the woman is inferior to Adam, or indeed should be regarded as such.
Christian marriage is a concept that goes beyond a secular union, insofar as Christianity is concerned not only is marriage for a man and a woman to participate in the benefits of knowing and loving one another and all the things that go with it, but it is for glorifying God, that man and wife will be partners for the Gospel, and that their marriage will be a witness to others to tell them about Jesus Christ, that the husband and wife might encourage one another to tell others about Jesus, that the marriage might be rooted in the teaching of Jesus, and that both would be enthusiastic to see others come to know Him.
6C. Genesis 19:6-8 -Genesis 19:6-8 wrote:Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him, and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.”
(Genesis 19:6-8 ESV)
To post this to claim that God advocates the inferiority of women is to misunderstand the purpose of why the Bible actually includes such passages. Much as Genesis 38 does not advocate prostitution just because it notes that Judah did so, in the same way Genesis 19 does not advocate this kind of treatment because Lot did so. There are a large number of passages included in the Bible to show us what we should not do. For example David committing adultery with Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11.
The Bible does not present every character in its pages as being completely blameless before God. In fact it is the opposite, every character in its pages is a sinner, like we are. God shows His favour and mercy to sinners and those who repent and believe in Him, through all ages. God shows us the nature of this sinfulness in order to demonstrate to us what not to do.
6D. Christianity is an abusive ideology towards women?If the point you are trying to make is that women would never be part of an abusive ideology then that is an error. The point should stand on its own, if I were to explicitly state what I meant then there might be accusation I'm trying to equivocate one with the other. This is not my intent.
What grounds do you have for believing that Christianity is an abusive ideology towards women? - At the moment I just see this being presented as a claim.
7. Christianity promotes sex slavery. Really?There was sex slavery in the bible, so I'm not really buying this line.
Again, what substance do you have for this. You're just making a claim and providing nothing to explain why you think that to be true.
This is kind of related to point 6, but I don't see any basis for this claim, or the claim that the Biblical text advocates rape. In fact there are a number of arguments on the basis of the Old Testament as to why one would reject this conclusion. The Bible uneqivocally condemns rape.
The Jewish law provided protection against it:Deuteronomy 22:25-27 wrote:“But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her.
In Judges, the Bible says that there was a shameful thing done in all Israel when a member of the tribe of Benjamin raped someone. If you read Judges 19 - 20 and actually right to the end of that book, you'll see this very clearly.
In 2 Samuel the Bible clearly says that rape is a shameful thing. King David's daughter is raped by his son, it says it was a shameful thing in all Israel. You can read this in 2 Samuel 13. Why is it included in the Bible? - To teach future generations in Israel and beyond that this is not acceptable.
8: One more thingTo restate what this was about it was in reference to the bible verse where it was postulated that all know god, as if god reveals himself to all. This is evidently not true owing to the fact there are atheists and people of other faiths.
Where did you get this from what I posted? I'm more than happy to discuss this, but I need to go back and try and understand the point you were making. Perhaps explain your logic in respect to it from the top. Is this on the basis of something I've said or is it a new point.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Christian plurality of interpretation
Depending on how far away from fundamental doctrine one is, I'd presume one might be so off the beaten path that it could be radically different from what most would understand a member of the faith to be. But even for the lesser ones, I wasn't even trying to go for the big ones on this point. Christianity, considering the plurality of denominations seems to just be a highly subjective, what makes one comfortable.philologos wrote: »I can honestly say I can count on the fingers of my hand as to how many times I've disagreed with a Christian over a fundamental doctrine of Christian faith.
It being a book of its time, there are adherents who will cling to it and its old ways. And social progressives who will find just as much meaning in the contradictory view.
Seeing as you have been involved in the theist/atheist debate for quite a long time, I expect you have come across the phrase, "You know your god isn't real when it hates the same things you do". As in, it is the extension of bigotries, for instance.
Again, my contention was more along the lines that to be theologically considered a Christian is a fairly wide range. As is evidenced by denominations calling others "not the true path" or some similarly rooted idea. Though, then this brings to mind how profitable a business religion is, and how profitable propagating such ideas could be.Most denominational differences come down to practice and style, rather than theological substance. Where differences do arise over theological issues, it tends to be over issues which are not concerning central Christian claims such as Jesus' virgin birth, or Jesus' death and resurrection, or the divine Creation of the world and so on.
Omni-Nonsense?If I didn't believe in a Creator God, I wouldn't believe in miracles. If there was no Creator it wouldn't be reasonable that there could be any manipulation of observable laws.
Since I do, it is entirely reasonable, it is entirely reasonable that a Creator God, being omniscience and omnipotent in respect to His creation could not manipulate these laws, particularly as a means to reveal something of Himself to man.
Related to this, I don't think we have discussed the point of the conflict of all the omni- qualities. For instance, the rock so heavy he can't lift it, make himself forget something, et cetera.
Related to this would be seeming contradictions with these qualities. For instance, in Genesis, not knowing where Adam and Eve are. There are other examples, but I don't really want to spend time looking for them on google tonight... Will either edit this post, or post them in the next post. Or perhaps someone else here could point out ones I've missed.
Certainty isn't there before the big bang
I don't. I haven't hedged my bets on anything prior to the big bang. It is the point at which I don't have any knowledge. This is a different statement than knowledge isn't out there.I've asked you about deism, I don't get why you think that a deist God who doesn't care about Creation is any more sensible than a living and active God who cares deeply for what He has made, and actively cares for us.
An alterable divine plan?
Well, lets look back at what you posted that made me state it seemed like the biblical narrative shows god changing its mind:4. Did God change his plans in respect to the salvation of mankind?[
Can you explain this a little bit more? - I don't believe God changed his mind in respect to us.
If they were extended, they were less before. That makes a big jump from:These last days thankfully have been extended, (Jesus also backs this up in Matthew 24:22), so that we have the opportunity to know Jesus, repent of our sin before God, so that we might be forgiven. Jesus Himself explains that He will not return until the Gospel has come to all nations (Matthew 24:14).
Yes, there is backing for other things, but these other things too contradict with the above. So, it was one thing, and then it was another.Matt 16:28 There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.
Matt 10:23 When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
Matt 24:34 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
Mark 13:30 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
Luke 21:32 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
Subjugation of women A
I would attribute this assumption to a poor understanding of human nature, honestly. The same logic ought to suggest that people in abusive relationships would flee such violence but reality does not bear this out.Firstly, if the Bible were specifically against women, I would expect most people who were leaving churches to be women rather than men.
By way of analogy, human nature isn't necessarily going to go with the logical approach. This is not inherently a "So the bible is untrue" just that we can not assume any truth in it on the basis of one outcome. And obvious subjugation of women remains what it is. Another example:How come it is the other way around? - I don't think your explanation is all that satisfactory.
Where it is bold the 2nd time is a follow up to the first. As in, the same rule applies. The wrong has been done to the husband, not the wife.“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
(Exodus 21:22-25 ESV)
Speaks for itself...“If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.
(Exodus 22:16-17 ESV)
1:39, right now, so it will be tomorrow before I check out those threads.
Yes, but the dominion part of subjugating women isn't countered in any way here. Again, I'll have to check out the threads you link, but I'll respond to what is here as I see it.6B. Genesis 2:18-22
We need to go back to Genesis 1 and do some ground work before we discuss this. In Genesis 1:26-27 God gives his mission to mankind, namely that man has dominion over all Creation, and that man was commanded to be fruitful and multiply.
Firstly in the obvious sense, man is going to have a bit of difficult being fruitful and multiplying with anyone if he doesn't have a partner with which to do so
It is my understanding that the usage of helper in the OT has the intent of being used for subservience. And that one has authority over something in the process of naming it. As in, naming woman that, so having authority over woman.Secondly, in the other sense, man needs a partner a helper to serve in the mission of God. That is participating in being stewards over Creation, and in the Christian sense, in proclaiming the Gospel to others so that they might be saved and living for Him in daily life rather than living for the selfish aims of the world around us. Adam in order to fulfill God's mission needs a helper to do so. That doesn't mean that the woman is inferior to Adam, or indeed should be regarded as such.
Honestly, that is a very convenient "out".6C. Genesis 19:6-8 -
To post this to claim that God advocates the inferiority of women is to misunderstand the purpose of why the Bible actually includes such passages. Much as Genesis 38 does not advocate prostitution just because it notes that Judah did so, in the same way Genesis 19 does not advocate this kind of treatment because Lot did so. There are a large number of passages included in the Bible to show us what we should not do. For example David committing adultery with Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11.
Women who are with abusive significant others remain in the relationships much of the time. Something being to ones ill is not always a factor for one to remove themselves from a situation. People being brought up with something as accepted from birth and thinking something is acceptable, then is not surprising. In fact, we generally think that one who is mired in a subjugative role, but doesn't recognise it is in an even worse position.6D. Christianity is an abusive ideology towards women?
Any social progresses in this area is on account of changing morality through the ages, not on account of the bible. We look back on these negative things in the bible now, and while I say that is horrendous, you say well those horrors are examples of what not to do. In the book that is intended to be the book of what to do, the inerrant word of god. Perfect morals, you get the point. On what basis do we look back at these things and say now that they are bad? Examples of what not to do? Certainly not the bible. Something else. And that accounts for secular morality.
You can say that god gave us this innate morality, but when the dubiousness of the morality in the texts is such as it is, such a claim is really questionable.
Subjugation of women B: Sex Slavery
This is untrue, but before I go and prove this, will it really matter? After all, is it not just another example of the bible's do what we say, not what we say? I may end up making more than the sex slavery point bold. Not a particularly pleasant passage.7. Christianity promotes sex slavery. Really?
Again, what substance do you have for this. You're just making a claim and providing nothing to explain why you think that to be true.
* Not enough of them?So the congregation sent 12,000 of their bravest men there and commanded them, “Go and strike the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword; also the women and the little ones. This is what you shall do: every male and every woman that has lain with a male you shall devote to destruction.” And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead 400 young virgins who had not known a man by lying with him, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.
Then the whole congregation sent word to the people of Benjamin who were at the rock of Rimmon and proclaimed peace to them. And Benjamin returned at that time. And they gave them the women whom they had saved alive of the women of Jabesh-gilead, but they were not enough for them*. And the people had compassion on Benjamin because the LORD had made a breach in the tribes of Israel.
Then the elders of the congregation said, “What shall we do for wives for those who are left*, since the women are destroyed out of Benjamin?” And they said, “There must be an inheritance for the survivors of Benjamin, that a tribe not be blotted out from Israel. Yet we cannot give them wives from our daughters.” For the people of Israel had sworn, “Cursed be he who gives a wife to Benjamin.” So they said, “Behold, there is the yearly feast of the LORD at Shiloh, which is north of Bethel, on the east of the highway that goes up from Bethel to Shechem, and south of Lebonah.” And they commanded the people of Benjamin, saying, “Go and lie in ambush in the vineyards and watch. If the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in the dances, then come out of the vineyards and snatch each man his wife from the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin. And when their fathers or their brothers come to complain to us, we will say to them, ‘Grant them graciously to us, because we did not take for each man of them his wife in battle, neither did you give them to them, else you would now be guilty.’” And the people of Benjamin did so and took their wives, according to their number, from the dancers whom they carried off. Then they went and returned to their inheritance and rebuilt the towns and lived in them. And the people of Israel departed from there at that time, every man to his tribe and family, and they went out from there every man to his inheritance.
(Judges 21:10-24 ESV)
* I guess 400 doesn't go well considering how many were there for the slaughter.
I want to get this posted up soon, so will not parse through more and make more bold right now.
God revealing itself or not, more not
It was quoted scripture. Here is the part of it I bolded beforeWhere did you get this from what I posted? I'm more than happy to discuss this, but I need to go back and try and understand the point you were making. Perhaps explain your logic in respect to it from the top. Is this on the basis of something I've said or is it a new point.
My point essentially is there are plenty who have not been shown. And plenty of people who if this were true were shown wrong (i.e. other faiths).18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.0 -
-
-
-
philologos wrote: »
I'll try get to your posts at some stage at the weekend.The Corinthian wrote: »You forgot to capitalize the 'T' in truth.
If you respond to me you might simply stick to demonstrating how the New Testament is 'true' by referencing sources that are not the New Testament. That would help a lot, thank you.
The pattern is always going to reference the Bible. The objections are pointed to it, so how could I ignore it.
The best way of doing it is look to the passage and see what reasoning there is for that position being true. Expecting to discuss Christianity without reference to the Bible is like attempting to go sailing without a boat
I'm still going to do that. Moreover, I do as much as I can, I don't have to respond, but I will. I regard it as important actually. If you just give me the patience that is required, it will come.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
philologos wrote: »I think this is a really excellent question.
The world is still for the most part in darkness, in so far as people are under the burden of their sin and haven't repented and accepted Jesus as their Saviour. In so far as there is rejection of the Gospel, there is darkness.
As for what exact quote you looked at I don't know. I use PHP to randomly rotate between about 20 images. I suspect it was in Colossians:
Thank you
Their sin? The poor babies original sin or actual committed sin? What is a sin? Does it change or is it set in stone (huh huh, Moses reference)
PHP, kudos
As for the rest, "jesus loves me so, cos the bible tells me so" and is all very circular.
You skipped my main point perhaps I was too subtle? What happens to all the people who never got a chance to believe in Jesus? Hell? Even if you are a young earther there is a lot of people before the ADs and a lot of people who are not christian/catholic since. The light, as you say, took a long time to come on fully and even then has not overpowered the darkness. Seems unlikely if this was coming an omnipotent being, no?
We are they all sinners? Why is there are mention of only (?) 2 sinning cities then?0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Yeah, I'll read through tomorrow properly, but it does sound a little like 'religous' dedication thar from the noble atheist - has me in kinks..
:P0 -
-
conor.hogan.2 wrote: »Thank you
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
...........................
We are they all sinners? Why is there are mention of only (?) 2 sinning cities then?
Hey! I don't know why you are bringing Carrick On Suir into it0 -
-
-
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zXDo4dL7SU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQAR-nx4w88
Advertisement