|
"The bible test" Answered.
|
 (December 6, 2013 at 9:12 pm)Godschild Wrote: Good job Drich, they're afraid to take you on, they beg for answers and when you give them answers they run and hide just like scripture described over 2000+ years ago. They are living proof of prophecy.So why hasn't Drich the Giant Killer responded to my latest post, where I pointed out that much of the Old Testament reads like a manual for the Taliban? 
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people — House
RE: "The bible test" Answered.
December 7, 2013 at 4:52 pm
(This post was last modified: December 7, 2013 at 5:28 pm by xpastor.)
(December 6, 2013 at 11:19 am)Drich Wrote:Drich, language is not one of your strong points. I did not attack my own argument, so what the hell do you mean?xpastor Wrote:Drich, you are putting your ignorance of biblical scholarship on display. I was summarizing a theory held by some reputable OT scholars; it originated with the anthropologistAnd you applied this closed minded arguement to what I said, dispite the details of my arguement. and then you attack your arguement as a way to invalidate mine. Still not star ship captian behaivor. Quote:That was exactly the sense of my original remark, that I was not going to make a big fuss about this inaccuracy in the OT, but then YOU made a big issue about chewing the cud versus just eating grass. The fact remains, the Hebrew uses the same phrase (chew the cud) for both rabbit and "clean" animals, so the only distinction that sets the rabbit apart is that it does not have a cloven hoof. This is what makes it ritually unclean for the ancient Israelites.xpastor Wrote:Well, Drich, you have just proved my contention that you cannot read. YOUR Bible says that the rabbit "chews its cud"Maybe the Jews back then did not know of the rules we would eventually apply (4000 years or so later) to the practice of "rumination." Maybe to them the simple chewing motion that rock rabbits make was enough for them to identify it as "gerah." Quote:These diseases were first identified in modern times, but it is very unlikely that they did not exist in some form in ancient times. You tried to claim H1N1 as a threat from pork which the dietary laws guarded against. There is no chance of transmission from the meat if it is properly cooked.xpastor Wrote:"There are numerous diseases that humans may contract from endogenously infected meat, such as anthrax, bovine tuberculosis, brucellosis, salmonellosis, listeriosis, trichinosis or taeniasis."was this true 4000 years ago? Quote:Avian influenza is just as new and just as old as swine flu. As a matter of fact, many strains of avian influenza are H1N1, though there is also H5N1. Wikipedia says that influenza has been with us throughout human history. Mad cow disease (BSE) has come to the fore in modern times, and probably spread because of the recent practice of putting animal parts into cattle feed. However, few diseases are totally new.xpastor Wrote:And to bring this list up to date we might also instance mad cow disease. And then there is "bird flu" which is contracted from bird types considered clean.You do understand that both of these are 'new' diseases right? You also know these laws only applied to the Jews who live thousands of years ago right? Quote:Two leading hypotheses suggest it may have jumped species from the disease scrapie in sheep, or that it evolved from a spontaneous form of "mad cow disease" that has been seen occasionally in cattle for many centuries. In the fifth century BC, Hippocrates described a similar illness in cattle and sheep, which he believed also occurred in man (Wikipedia)So this disease has been present for centuries as scrapie in your ritually pure sheep. Gee, maybe you should take time to check your facts before you pose as the great expert. Quote:And what about a 100 lb sheep or a 1500 lb beef carcass. Actually the whole thing about shelf life is a red herring and I am sorry I wasted time on it. I presume that a large animal like a beef would often be eaten by a large crowd of people, or it might be preserved by some method such as smoking or salting.xpastor Wrote:I concede that I was wrong about pork having a shelf life as good as beef, which is more than you will ever do on any point, no matter how egregiously stupid it was. However, I note that you have not a word to say about the shelf life of poultry, which was accepted as clean.How big were birds back then compared to pig or camels? How much self life does one need on a 1 lb chicken? verse how much self life is needed on a 100 lb pig or a 1400 lb camel? Quote:Same recipe as above for 1500 lb. of beef.xpastor Wrote:In any case, the biblical laws were NOT instituted for health reasons. Pork and camel and rabbit would be considered unclean even if they were thoroughly cooked immediately after slaughter. By the way, just to touch on your earlier report of people contracting bubonic plague from eating raw camel liver as reported by the Saudi government. Sounds fishy to me. Flea bites are virtually always the vector by which bubonic plague is spread. The Saudi government is not high on my list of reliable sources. They would lie very readily to avoid scaring the foreign workers on whom their economy relies. The distinction between clean and unclean animals had no known health benefits, and give the Bible credit that it makes no such claims. It's just one of those weird ritual things found among superstitious ancient peoples, like the other prohibition against weaving cloth from two different types of fiber. The Israelites were not unique in having such strange ideas of what makes a person unclean. The Romans certainly matched them on that, and probably just about every other nation living ca 700 - 500 BCE when these biblical texts were assembled. (December 6, 2013 at 10:18 pm)Aractus Wrote: The passage of the rich young man is one of my favourites in the Bible.Aractus, 30+ years ago I would have agreed with you entirely. In fact, I would probably have beaten you to the punch, because "the proper distinction between law and gospel" is at the heart of Lutheran theology. However, now, I have to disagree on a number of grounds. Most importantly, you have misrepresented the passage by means of an omission. Here is the full text of Matthew 19:16-21. Quote:16 Once a man came to Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what good thing must I do to receive eternal life?”Jesus does not tell him anything resembling the gospel of forgiveness of sins. He tells the young man to obey the commandments as the way to receive eternal life. And when the young man says he has kept all these commandments (even the summary to love your neighbor as yourself) Jesus does not contradict him as Paul would have (There is none righteous, not one) he just gives him, as the Catholics would call it, a work of supererogation. Obviously, we have to just agree to disagree about the New Testament. As I have said before, I do not think any of the gospels were put in written form earlier than 30 years after the crucifixion, after oral traditions had a long time to build up legends and change the story. I believe the only authentic teaching of Jesus which is preserved in the synoptic gospels is comprised of the apocalyptic prophecies, the moral teaching (e.g. sermon on the mount) and the parables. Jesus did not imagine that he was going to give his life as a ransom for the many; that was injected into his teaching later, but Jesus himself did not have the benefit of reading Paul's epistles.  He thought that the world was going to end within that generation. I personally do not think he even identified himself with the Son of Man who would come in judgment. All his parables breathe urgency, the end is nigh, and all his moral teaching is extreme: "Sell all that you have and give it to the poor. Make yourself a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." (No thanks!) It is not practical for the long haul. Unfortunately, extremism of all types is very eye-catching. Most Christians thrill to it and then utterly ignore it in their lives. They can always fall back on Pauline theology to practice Christianity and the Art of RV Maintenance.
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people — House
 (December 7, 2013 at 3:15 pm)xpastor Wrote:(December 6, 2013 at 9:12 pm)Godschild Wrote: Good job Drich, they're afraid to take you on, they beg for answers and when you give them answers they run and hide just like scripture described over 2000+ years ago. They are living proof of prophecy.So why hasn't Drich the Giant Killer responded to my latest post, where I pointed out that much of the Old Testament reads like a manual for the Taliban? You believe that because you have never experienced God and His truth. GC
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
(December 7, 2013 at 6:03 pm)Godschild Wrote:In other words, you have no answer. No one can know what I experienced, certainly not you who have never met me.(December 7, 2013 at 3:15 pm)xpastor Wrote: So why hasn't Drich the Giant Killer responded to my latest post, where I pointed out that much of the Old Testament reads like a manual for the Taliban? Going by externals, when I was a Christian, I sacrificed far more than most Christians ever do. I entered a three-year seminary program at the age of 36 with a family of a wife and two children, paid all my own costs, and tithed on my income such as it was. As for the Old Testament passages ... if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. Murdering babies, stoning people who change their religion, cutting off hands, forcing a young woman to marry her rapist, you tell me how to distinguish this from the Taliban. And telling me that it is printed in a book with black covers and gold lettering which someone told you is the word of God doesn't amount to anything.
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people — House
 (December 7, 2013 at 4:52 pm)xpastor Wrote: Aractus, 30+ years ago I would have agreed with you entirely. In fact, I would probably have beaten you to the punch, because "the proper distinction between law and gospel" is at the heart of Lutheran theology. However, now, I have to disagree on a number of grounds.I didn't misrepresent the text by omission. The answer Jesus gives is "keep the commandments". The rich young ruler would believe that he has accomplished this, although in other parts of the New Testament we're told that not even the Scribes and Pharisees who study the law to the letter, nor Rabbis, have been able to live a perfect and righteous sinless life.
Quote:Jesus does not tell him anything resembling the gospel of forgiveness of sins. He tells the young man to obey the commandments as the way to receive eternal life. And when the young man says he has kept all these commandments (even the summary to love your neighbour as yourself) Jesus does not contradict him as Paul would have (There is none righteous, not one) he just gives him, as the Catholics would call it, a work of supererogation.
The Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1-17) Then God spoke all these words:
For Religion & Health see:[/b][/size] Williams & Sternthal. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: Evidence and research directions. Med. J. Aust., 186(10), S47-S50. -LINK
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK "That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke  RE: "The bible test" Answered.
December 7, 2013 at 8:29 pm
(This post was last modified: December 7, 2013 at 8:30 pm by Ryantology.)
 RE: "The bible test" Answered.
December 8, 2013 at 2:51 am
(This post was last modified: December 8, 2013 at 2:57 am by Cinjin.)
The Bible Test?
meh, the Bible failed my test ![[Image: Evolution.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk619%2Fjcincain%2FPublic%2FEvolution.png) Aractus Wrote:In short, Jesus is teaching that the ruler lacks love for his neighbour - not that he lacks love for God. He loves his wealth and riches more than his neighbour, and that's why he wouldn't when asked sacrifice his riches for the good of his neighbours. This is a strange argument from silence, that since Jesus does not quote the table of the law applying to God, he accepts that the young man obeys these commands, but since he does quote much of the table applying to fellow men, he is saying that the young man lacks love for his neighbor. Seems like tortuous logic to me. The fact is the young man says that he has obeyed the commands to love his neighbor and Jesus does not contradict him. Neither does Jesus imply, as you seem to suggest, that the Scribes and Pharisees came close to fulfilling the law, but no one can fulfill it so perfectly as to deserve eternal life. On the contrary, he says that they did a very bad job of fulfilling the law: they were very good at the minor details but ignored the major duties: "You pay a tenth of mint, dill, and cumin, yet you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy, and faith. These things should have been done without neglecting the others." He does tell the young man to sell all that he has and give it to the poor. That's quite an extreme demand, but by your logic total sacrifice to help your neighbor is the only way to obey God's law.
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people — House
 (December 7, 2013 at 3:15 pm)xpastor Wrote:(December 6, 2013 at 9:12 pm)Godschild Wrote: Good job Drich, they're afraid to take you on, they beg for answers and when you give them answers they run and hide just like scripture described over 2000+ years ago. They are living proof of prophecy.So why hasn't Drich the Giant Killer responded to my latest post, where I pointed out that much of the Old Testament reads like a manual for the Taliban? Because drich has a life wife and family to care for, and decided to spend the weekend with them. Maybe Monday. (December 8, 2013 at 2:56 pm)xpastor Wrote:Okay, well:
And:
For Religion & Health see:[/b][/size] Williams & Sternthal. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: Evidence and research directions. Med. J. Aust., 186(10), S47-S50. -LINK
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK "That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
) orginated in England in the 20th century, brucellosis another 20th century plague. As far as the rest I did not look up their orgin dates, you can if you want. The reason I did not look these up is because salmonellosis, listeriosis, trichinosis, taeniasis cease to be a threat if the rest of the dietary laws concerning food prep and avoidance of certain parts is practiced.
