The Hazards of Belief

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Maintaining Christian morality is far more important than health. Much better that those who are having unprotected sex contract HIV, rather than watch something that promotes immorality. If they are behaving in an immoral fashion god will punish them. Condoms must not interfere with God's punishment. And if they pass HIV to their children? Never mind, the 'sins of the fathers' and all! Anyway who cares about children. Only unwanted foetuses in Western countries are important. Kenyan foetuses at risk of contracting HIV are surely not of enough significance to allow the promotion of condoms!

Wait a minute. The best laid plan of the omnipotent creator of the universe, can be scuppered by a mere mortal with a rubber johnny?
Are you sure this guy is omnipotent? He doesn't even seem particularly smart to me!

I mean if i was god, i just wouldn't make any gays if they disturbed me that much. For example i don't like cheese cake, so i don't make it - seems so much easier than filling my house with them, and then threatening the kids with smallpox if they eat one.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I mean if i was god, i just wouldn't make any gays if they disturbed me that much. For example i don't like cheese cake, so i don't make it - seems so much easier than filling my house with them, and then threatening the kids with smallpox if they eat one.

Please make that your signature.


It's very good.:o

the_eman wrote: »

Thats not true, I posted this already, its from Psalm 24, Seeking the Lord.



Excerpt from Commentary by Art Katz


When you state "There aren't any other instances.." you are wrong.

And just as I have posted previously, language is your problem. This quote doesn't support your argument in the way that you think it does.

Firstly, the word

דּ֣וֹר

or dor in Hebrew occurs several times in the OT. The problem for your argument is that a definition of generation which matches with the one you are claiming does not explain the other uses of dor in the OT, particularly where dor is used to refer to all generations (Exodus 3:15, Deuteronomy 32:7) or to specific future generations (Deuteronomy 23:8, 1 Chronicles 16:15).

Secondly, the problem is that, even if we accept the use of dor in Psalm 24 to mean the same as the claimed meaning of Matthew 24:34, there are still two large obstacles to explain. Firstly, this usage is unique in the OT and yet is offered without any context or parenthetical statement to explain what the author means. Secondly, it doesn't explain why the author if he meant generation in the sense you understand it, didn't use a more appropriate hebrew word such as ummah or ethnos in the Septuagint.

Ultimately, this passage doesn't resolve the problems with your interpretation of Matthew 24. I have outlined the big problems below, which you have yet to address in any meaningful way.

1. The author of Matthew's gospel in the very first chapter (1:17) uses the word generation in the accepted sense of a period of approximately 40 years. Later on, you argue that he uses the same word in an entirely different sense but there is no parenthetical statement or other context to suggest that the meaning should be different.
2. Using your alternate definition of generation doesn't explain your original quote from 2 Peter 3. The passage here is quite clear that Matthew's gospel refers to generation in the accepted sense: "Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.”
3. Your suggested definition of generation makes any sense of prophecy meaningless. In Matthew 24:34 Jesus talks about his second coming (or his first depending on some interpretations of Paul) and says that it will happen before the people he is speaking to have died. However, if you take that to mean humanity then where is the prophecy. So, humanity will still be around for the second coming? So what? You've stretched the prophecy to the point of tautology.

the_eman wrote: »

I'm sure you are aware scientists from NASA have investigated this and the results prove without a shadow of a doubt the validity of the miracle. There is a bunch of scientific evidence about this miracle. Are NASA a Catholic organization? ... ....


Many scientific studies have been done and there is much data available if you seek it out. There are links to such data off this site:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/F034_OLGuadalupe.html

OK, I'm going to keep this to bullet points again to explain why this is not a miracle.

• To date, there have been four actual studies done on the tilma: Miguel Cabrera in 1756, Jose Gomez in 1947, Philip Callahan in 1979 and Jose Rosales in 1982.
• Optical stereomicroscopy of the tilma shows that it is actually composed of a hemp-linen weave and not agave fibre as traditionally believed.
• The surface of the tilma was prepared with a coat (albeit uneven) of calcium sulphate primer.
• Infrared photography has revealed sketch lines underneath the painting as well as suggesting that many of the more elaborate features of the painting are later additions.
• The painting contains numerous features typical of paintings but which are absent in reality such as outlines around the irises.

Then there is the painting itself.




The problem with this image is that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense as a miraculous image. First of all, the image is of "Our Lady of Guadalupe". The reference to Guadalupe is a reference to the marian shrine of Extremadura in Spain. This was the home of Hernan Cortes and when he went to the New World, he and his associates distributed pamphlets about our Lady of Guadalupe. However, the image above bears no resemblance to the traditional representation of Our Lady of Guadalupe seen here.



However, it bears no resemblance to an actual 14-year old Palestinian girl either. (The red hair is the dead giveaway).



The thing is though, the image does bear a remarkable resemblance to other paintings of Mary from the period, particularly this one:



This is a painting by Bonanat Zoartiga, a prominent Spanish painter in the century leading up to Cortes' invasion.

Then there are the other issues with this "miracle" story.

Firstly, there is Juan Diego and the record of his revelation. The problem is that there is no supporting evidence. While the story of Juan Diego is reported to have taken place in December 1531, the first recorded mention of the event isn't found until the writings of Antonio Valeriano, sometime after 1556. Indeed Valeriano himself wasn't born until 1531. Valeriano's writings themselves are only preserved in a collection of writings dated to 1649. So the question is where did Valeriano come by his information? There are no other writings to support this event.

Secondly, we have a pretty good idea where this story comes from. According to the Guadalupe miracle story, Juan Diego sees the apparition at the foot of the hill of Tepeyac, once home to a shrine to the Aztec goddess Tonantzin. The later story of the miracle is grafted on to the wider mythological framework of Tonantzin as a method of syncretical revisioning. This is nothing new in mythological terms and serves as a method to advertise and promote your new religion to unbelievers but in a way which will be familiar to them. The bible itself is replete with examples of such syncretism with parallels between Jesus and Elijah and Moses and even Egyptian and Greek myth to be found in the gospels.

the_eman wrote: »

There is an absolute raft of commentaries with OT and NT references placing Mary as the new Ark of the covenant the New Covenant. If you knew the teachings of the largest bodies of Christian churches that uphold the apostolic succession you would find these references. Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and probably Church of England and Lutheran.

Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant

Catholics also view Mary as the New Testament Ark of the Covenant. The Old Testament Ark of the Covenant contained three items – The Word of God in the form of stone tablets (the 10 Commandments), manna (bread) from Heaven, and the rod of Aaron that resprouted and came back to life (Hebrews 9:4). Just so, the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary contained Jesus Christ – The living Word of God (John 1:1), the bread of life (John 6:48), and the ruler with a rod of iron who also came back to life (Rev.12:5).

The New Ark the New Covenant

Also remember, the chapter and verse numbers were added to the Bible in the Middle Ages by monks to make reading and copying the Bible easier. So in the original writing of Revelation, there is no separation of ch.11 verse 19, and ch.12 verse 1. (12:1 A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, ..., ...)

OK, I think we've lost sight of the overall topic here.

This all started because I pointed out that 2 Peter 3:3 refers to the idea which prevailed in early Christianity that Jesus' prophecy of his second coming had failed. In addition to disputing that it had failed, you posted a number of other bible prophecies which you claim had been fulfilled in support of the bible's authenticity.

The problem is that your argument consists of claiming that Revelation 12:1 is a prophecy which is somehow fulfilled through the apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe. However, that's not the prophecy at all. The prophecy, such as it is, is highlighted below.

"A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.” And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. The woman fled into the wilderness to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him."


You see a prophecy is comprised of two components: sign and fulfillment. Take one of your failed prophecies from earlier on, the Immanuel prophecy. This prophecy consists of Isaiah predicting to Ahaz that God will destroy Judah's enemies. The sign (a "virgin" giving birth to a son who she names Immanuel) is supposed to indicate that the prophecy is about to be fulfilled.


In the case of the Revelation passage above, the apparition at Teyepac, even were it substantiated, is only evidence of the sign. The prophecy claims that armageddon will begin 1260 days after this appearance. So far, we're 175,00 days after the supposed apparition and yet no war in heaven, so again, another failed prophecy.


Since you're in the A&A forum, you may want to come up with some better arguments if you want to proselytise. Miracles and prophecies are poor arguments at best and your efforts in supporting them haven't helped your case.

It's the mystery of faith. :rolleyes:

Links234 wrote: »

Family values disaster in Paris as anti-gay protesters attack police, use kids as human shields

The same ****ing people who bang on and on about "family" show what family really means to them. Well done. :mad:

I'm sure there a meme in there somewhere but its put me in too bad mood to even attempt one..

robindch wrote: »

Anyhow, while I can't imagine there are any laws against instructing children to hand out political propaganda, it still seemed yet another typically unpleasant thing for the "pro-life" side to do.

Have you seen Jesus Camp? That was one of the most sinister parts of that for me. They of course claim that the kids "want" to do it but it was creepy as fcuk. Effective, though. No-one's going to ignore a child who comes up to them in case they need help or something.

Nodin wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/mar/19/michelle-shocked-anti-gay-rant

This is the problem when they find Jesus...you're always wondering which Jesus it is that they've found. Well, this is one where the mystery is over.

I am shocked...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21873978

Buddhists are also engaged in ethnic cleansing in Burma.

Just because a few alternative-lifestylers in the west have promoted Buddhism as a trendy pastime, doesn't make it any less a religion with all the nastiness of the others.

Atheist shoes? WTF??
Tailor made to perfectly fit your cloven hoof i suppose!:D

'You don't have to take our claims on faith'.

Dades wrote: »

They're not actually manufactured. They just evolve.

I heard they're created by a Blind Shoemaker.