A Soldier Under Duress [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

Equineer

12-01-2004, 04:42 AM

What is going on here... seems like a lot of short memories.

====>
During Vietnam, numerous doctored photos of President Johnson smiling amidst flag-draped caskets or in a sea of white military crosses abounded. I saw them taped to lunchboxes carried by school kids.

We officially instructed our troops to ignore the anti-war protestors and peaceniks, reminding them that our job was to defend freedom, not suppress it. That is what makes American great!

====>
Linked below is the haunting Pulitzer Prize winning photo of the Vietnamese girl, Kim Phuc Phan Thi, screaming as she fled down a road after a napalm attack. The photo appeared in American news reports and all over the world. Minutes before the picture, Thi had been engulfed in flames, and the news photo became one of the Vietnam war's most enduring images.

After taking the photograph, the photographer promptly took Thi to a hospital in Saigon where it was determined that her burns were so severe that she would not survive. However, after 14 months of medical attention, she returned home. In 1996, as a political refugee in Canada, Thi met with (and expressed forgiveness to) the napalm bomber pilot; she also was re-united with the surgeons who saved her life.

This photo sparked worldwide condemnation of napalm, leading to the U.N. treaty banning napalm. Today, America is the only nation in the world which has refused to sign this treaty. The U.K. and all our coalition partners in Iraq condemn the use of napalm... and the news reports from Fallujah may well doom Tony Blair in the forthcoming election.

====>
From the U.K.

US troops are secretly using outlawed napalm gas to wipe out remaining insurgents in and around Fallujah.

News that President George W. Bush has sanctioned the use of napalm, a deadly cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel banned by the United Nations in 1980, will stun governments around the world.

And last night Tony Blair was dragged into the row as furious Labour MPs demanded he face the Commons over it. Reports claim that innocent civilians have died in napalm attacks, which turn victims into human fireballs as the gel bonds flames to flesh.

Outraged critics have also demanded that Mr Blair threatens to withdraw British troops from Iraq unless the US abandons one of the world's most reviled weapons. Halifax Labour MP Alice Mahon said: "I am calling on Mr Blair to make an emergency statement to the Commons to explain why this is happening. It begs the question: 'Did we know about this hideous weapon's use in Iraq?'"

Since the American assault on Fallujah there have been reports of "melted" corpses, which appeared to have napalm injuries.

Last August the US was forced to admit using the gas in Iraq.

A 1980 UN convention banned the use of napalm against civilians - after pictures of a naked girl victim fleeing in Vietnam shocked the world.

America, which didn't ratify the treaty, is the only country in the world still using the weapon.

====>
From Christianity Today, here is one Marine's memory of Kim Phuc Phan Thi:
"Victory Over Napalm"
Charles "Chuck" Colson
http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/1997/mar3/7t3096.html

As an aide to President Richard Nixon, Colson was "incapable of humanitarian thought," according to the media of the mid-1970s.

He was known as the White House hatchet man... feared by even the most powerful politicians during his four years of service to President Nixon. Ultimately, Colson served prison time for his part in the Watergate scandal.

When news of Colson's conversion to Christianity leaked to the press, the Boston Globe reported, "If Mr. Colson can repent of his sins, there just has to be hope for everybody."

====>
Kim Phuc Phan Thi, as she appeared in hundreds of newspapers and national news magazines... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Phuc_Phan_Thi

Equineer

12-01-2004, 05:04 AM

Lsbets,

There is no dissent about the valor or patriotism of our troops in Iraq.

The debate is about whether Iraq is a "strategic blunder" in the war on international terrorism. You know full well that many top-notch professional soldiers and military strategists are opposed to the Iraqi model for combatting international terrorism.

lsbets

12-01-2004, 05:22 AM

From Equiscratch - "You know full well that many top-notch professional soldiers and military strategists are opposed to the Iraqi model for combatting international terrorism"

I know full well? I know there have been a few, but many - no. Nice try, but not true. Your gift for hyperbole and exageration remains unsurpassed.

hcap

12-01-2004, 06:32 AM

I am anti-war. I makes no bones about it. Dissent is an American tradition.

You gung ho types should realize that war is hell, and unless you subscribe to the hollywood stereotype of guts and glory, even military men have to gauge the use of war as a political and global realpolitik solution to problems that might be solved in other ways. Peaceful ways. Of course that means emotional understanding of universal wants of your fellow man, balanced against a "perceived threat" against the "homeland". Emotional is NOT a bad word. Allowing ones conscience to weigh in on matters of war and peace is I think one of the higher faculties of the human spirit. And brings us closer to however we define in our own ways, the Almighty.

Yeah flowers don't work the same as napalm, but when your on the receiving end, the excess death and untold pain to the innocent is spread to those we are trying to convince of our "rightfull war", and "mission to democratize the downtrodden". Maybe it works in the short term, but the long term is what counts.

When Sec posts a biting picture bringing problems of this war into focus, the underlying problems of this war should be questioned, not the messenger that irritates the "faithfull", and stirs dissent.

hcap

12-01-2004, 08:04 AM

JustMissed,

Ah, so your the guys with demons as a main topic.

As you so eloquently said...
"Secretary is an demonic possessed asshole and a complete embarassment to this board. "

Are YOU being "channeled". Do you touch base with higher powers?. Often?.

Try touching base with the appropriate psychiatric practioner.
And maybe YOU should be voted out and banned due to demonic delusions.

Do you replay "THE EXORCIST" between races?

:eek:

JustMissed

12-01-2004, 10:59 AM

hcap, as far as I'm concerned you are just another P.O.S. like your jerk pal Secretary.

I hope you get banned or boycotted also.

JM

boxcar

12-01-2004, 12:52 PM

hcap wrote:
JustMissed,

Ah, so your the guys with demons as a main topic.

As you so eloquently said...
"Secretary is an demonic possessed asshole and a complete embarassment to this board. "

Are YOU being "channeled". Do you touch base with higher powers?. Often?.

Try touching base with the appropriate psychiatric practioner.
And maybe YOU should be voted out and banned due to demonic delusions.

Do you replay "THE EXORCIST" between races?

:eek:

Just remember your words, 'cap, the next time you go to demonize Bush. If you don't, I will. ;)

Boxcar

PaceAdvantage

12-01-2004, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Secretariat
(This month has been the 2nd most costly of the war in American lives and the media barely reports it).

Wrong again Sec. It was the top story on the Yahoo home page either yesterday or the day before.

And BTW, I thought about responding to the picture you posted, which I also found quite objectionable. But I've given up. You are beyond reasoning with.

kenwoodallpromos

12-01-2004, 03:16 PM

According to his post, Sec considers "insurgents" and other terrorists as civilians. That is why he claims we are napalming illegally.
He has the same slanted view Bridges TV has claiming they are not favoring Muslims and extremists. Sec is, and in contradiction to the U.N.

CryingForTheHorses

12-01-2004, 04:55 PM

WOW talk about being BLASTED!!

Equineer

12-01-2004, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by McSchell_Racing
WOW talk about being BLASTED!! I hope you didn't read this whole thread expecting the "S" word.

Every once in a while, they actually do give Stronach some slack. :)

Tom

12-01-2004, 10:39 PM

Hcap slimes in with:
"When Sec posts a biting picture bringing problems of this war into focus, the underlying problems of this war should be questioned, not the messenger that irritates the "faithfull", and stirs dissent."

The only question here is why anyone even bothers to reply to you two disusting slimeballs. Anyone who posts the doctored phot sec did, and anyone who defends it, like you did, is not worth the bother. You two guys are very sick people-mental defectives.

BTW....napalm, agent orange, whatever we got, use it.

Equineer

12-01-2004, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by Tom
Hcap slimes in with:
"When Sec posts a biting picture bringing problems of this war into focus, the underlying problems of this war should be questioned, not the messenger that irritates the "faithfull", and stirs dissent."

The only question here is why anyone even bothers to reply to you two disusting slimeballs. Anyone who posts the doctored phot sec did, and anyone who defends it, like you did, is not worth the bother. You two guys are very sick people-mental defectives.

BTW....napalm, agent orange, whatever we got, use it. Even outrageous minority dissent must be protected.

We probably won't like it when Congress starts drafting legislation in Spanish... but at least we can b**ch like hell until we all have to learn it. :)

Tom

12-01-2004, 11:38 PM

Everyone has the right to free speech....and everyone has the right to call a slimeball a slimeball. When Congress starts legislating in spainish, you will be thankfull for the NRA......;)

boxcar

12-02-2004, 12:40 AM

hcap wrote:

I am anti-war. I makes no bones about it. Dissent is an American tradition.

So...you're "anti-war", and that makes the rest of us who aren't...what? Or let me rephrase that, since I don't want to presume to speak for anyone else. What does that make me? Pro war? "Gung ho" for war?

There are few things seriously wrong with your unconditional "I am anti-war" stance, which is why I'm most emphatically not anti-war. For openers, it's a simple-minded position for a very complex problem --the problem mainly being the human condition. Therefore, it logically flows from this fatal flaw, that an unconditional anti-war ideology necessarily isn't grounded in reality -- in the way things are in the real world. And it's unrealistic because it does largely ignore human history, human nature, nature generally, and last but not least what God's revelation has to say about war.

So, what does this make me -- now that I've make "no bones" about not being an anti-war advocate? Because I have taken into very serious consideration all the aforementioned salient elements that comprise this complex problem, I consider myself an anti-peace-at-any-price advocate. In your eyes that probably makes me a war monger. That's fine with me. But I know there is such a thing as a just war -- that some wars are morally justifiable. And I know that there comes a time when talking must cease, and the killing must begin. I'm a realist.

Even King Solomon, who in all probablilty penned the OT Wisdom Book of Ecclesiastes, fully realized that there is indeed a time for "everything under the sun" -- even warfare! And this coming from a king who reigned peacefully over his kingdom! Here is what he wrote:

Eccl 3:1-8
1 There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven--
2 A time to give birth, and a time to die; A time to plant, and a time to uproot what is planted. 3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; A time to tear down, and a time to build up. 4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; A time to mourn, and a time to dance. 5 A time to throw stones, and a time to gather stones; A time to embrace, and a time to shun embracing. 6 A time to search, and a time to give up as lost; A time to keep, and a time to throw away. 7 A time to tear apart, and a time to sew together; A time to be silent, and a time to speak. 8 A time to love, and a time to hate; A time for war, and a time for peace.
NAS

Solomon, unlike you anti-war activitis, appears to have had a very solid grip on reality. You would have an easier time 'cap of getting an Ethiopian to change the color of his skin than you would getting the peoples, and tribes and nations of this fallen world to wholeheartedly embrace peace.

Boxcar

Secretariat

12-02-2004, 02:00 AM

Originally posted by lsbets
Sec,

Every once in a while I thiink you're not that bad, and than you do something to reaffirm my belief that you are indeed that bad. One - napalm is not illegal. Who gives a crap if the rest of the world signs a treaty, we need to use the best weapons we have to get the job done, and if that means napalm, so be it. Our responsibility is to our troops, not to the UN. I love the insinuation from the article you posted that those of us over here are war criminals. You have showed real class.

Two - that picture was flat out disgusting.

Three - spare me your righteous indignation about the soldiers over here. Tell me, just how do you support us? What do you do? Both CJ and I have made our wishes quite clear on this issue before - if either one of us were to be killed in war, we both have said that we would not want our coffins used by those of us who oppose what we do as a political tool. CJ, sorry if I misrepresented what I believe to be your past statements on this. If I were to get killed here, the grieving of my family is a private matter for them, and don't pretend that you would be honoring my sacrifice. You would be exploiting my death for your agenda, and I and my family want no part of that. Your picture of the war over here is so far off base it is laughable. You want to honor us? Acknowledge all the good that we have done and are doing here, and acknowledge the progress that is being made every day. You are not interested in that however, your agenda hinges on our mission failing here, and that means our soldiers failing here. I hate to break it to you Sec, but we will not fail, as much as you and your DU friends might hope we do. Don't try to lecture me about the cost of this war, I know that cost first hand. I've had to put my soldiers in for Purple Hearts, and one of my college roomates was killed over here in August. I've also put many of my soldiers in for awards for valor, and know firsthand all the good that we are doing here. Every day my soldiers wake up knowing the dangers that they face, and they meet those dangers head on. Keep your pity and condescension to yourself, we do not need it.

1. I never said napalm was illegal. The article says it was banned by the UN in 1980, but the US was the only country that refused to ratify the treaty. Our outrage at Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons (which we supplied him) against the Kurds becomes moot, when we in fact employ chemical weapons against Iraqis. The quotes from servicemen and embedded reporters document their perceptions that napalm was in use. Recently, reports indicate napalm (or a hybrid of it) was used on the outskirts of Fallujah. I’m not going to get into the fact that the US remained outside the world which condemned the use of napalm. In my opinion napalm is immoral, especially IF used against civilians. The problem with Iraq (as in Vietnam) is that it is/was sometimes difficult to make that distinction easily. Using it anyway is the logic of a Stalin who basically raised whole towns if they thought one traitor existed there.

2. Yes, that picture is disgusting, and that’s why it needs to be seen. We can’t have a Commander in Chief proclaiming “Bring It On” when in fact he wishes to hide the costs of war from the people. When the coffins of servicemen who served their nation honorably are forbidden to even be photographed. When the President only recently decides to attend a soldiers funeral. When the amount of american soldiers killed in Iraq in November ties the highest amount since the war began we have got a problem. Isbets, you state you would not want a photograph taken if - God forbid - something happened to you over there. I respect that, but Bush has taken that free choice out of your hands. What if a family wanted the sacrifice of their son shown to the world, the cost of that soldier’s courage. Bush refuses to allow that family that freedom. That did not occur in Vietnam, or any recent war I can remember. The problem is that Bush’s restrictions paint a sanitized view of war. A war where Bush can say “Bring It On” whereby he and other politcal leaders and their children make no “sacrifice”, but he still restricts the freedom of our nation to truly know that sacrifice. I remember in Drivers Education they often showed us films of Traffic Accidents. Why did they do that? Because they wanted us to realize viscerally what the irresponsible drinking and driving could cause. They showed us the blood and the bodies and that registered in us because we knew that “could” happen to us.

3. I have contributed both money and time to our local charites gathering foods and materials to send to fellas on the front. I have attended funerals of soldeirs killed over there here. I have met with some vets wounded from over there and talked with them. They are terrific guys. My qualm has never been with the soldiers. I respect them, their courage, their guts, their putting it on the line. The only time I have criticzed soldiers has been Abu Ghraib, and their miltary trials seem to be bearing out that criticism. What I AM indignant about is “policy”. Much like the flawed McNamara policy which continued into the Nixon adminstration; I see an extremely flawed policy by this administration. I’m not lecturing you or any soldier on the cost of what war is. You’re there. You know. I am concerned about those who have never been there, and who don’t know, yet insist on running their cowboy policy of destruction.

I am certain there are good things being done there. I am not interested in an agenda of a failed mission. I’ve heard these same things said back in Vietnam. Your comments in this regard are nothing new. The Bush policy has been one of simply “win at any cost” and justify as you go along. I think America deserves better.

I am also surprised that not one person who criticized my picture criticized Boxcar’s photoshop of our former first lady who visited soldiers in Iraq. At least Dick Schmidt pointed up it was photoshopped. But I am called a jerk, classless, a tasteless SOB, scum of the earth, told to get in a box, asked to apolgize, accused of being an Arab, threatened to be voted off the board ,called a demonic pssessed asshole, a slimeball, and lectured on the justification of war by King Solomon (funny how Jesus got left out) who posted the Hilary photo. I wonder why no one criticized Boxcar’s photo (Dick Schmidt’s comment excepted).

Well, the name calling rolls off me. And unlike Hcap, I am not anti-war. I am anti-Iraq war. I have stated over and over on this board I support the Afghanstan invasion. I am not a Peacenik as Boxcar has labeled everyone against the Iraq War. I am against the policy of the Iraq War. And I am against hiding the costs of war from the American people. And I am against leaders who ask our enemy to bring it on when in fact he and his elite group do not participate in the actual fight. I do thank Equineer and Hcap’s posts.

JustRalph

12-02-2004, 02:16 AM

Originally posted by Secretariat
1. I never said napalm was illegal. The article says it was banned by the UN in 1980, but the US was the only country that refused to ratify the treaty. Our outrage at Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons (which we supplied him) against the Kurds becomes moot, when we in fact employ chemical weapons against Iraqis.

Talking out your rear again? Napalm is not considered a Chemical weapon. It is an incendiary munition. Not a Chem/Bio weapon.

You failed to mention earlier that we did not go along with the treaty outlawing Napalm. You just acted as if Pres. Bush had ordered us to break the U.N. ban..........funny how you leave these things out until you are called on it.............typical

ElKabong

12-02-2004, 02:18 AM

Originally posted by Pace Cap'n
Time for another vote.

I just now saw sec's tasteless pic, and I agree, Pace Cap'n.

We have two members of this board risking their lives for the welfare of us all & the country as a whole, one in the heart of it all on a daily basis, and THIS is what sec contributes?

To top it all off, there's no apology by Sec.

Over the line. Way over the line.

Secretariat

12-02-2004, 03:06 AM

Elk,

I've nothing to apolgize for. I'm still waiting for your apology on the Swift Boat ads.

JustRalph

12-02-2004, 03:08 AM

Originally posted by Secretariat
I'm still waiting for your apology on the Swift Boat ads.

Now that is funny!

Secretariat

12-02-2004, 03:15 AM

Originally posted by JustRalph
Talking out your rear again? Napalm is not considered a Chemical weapon. It is an incendiary munition. Not a Chem/Bio weapon.

You failed to mention earlier that we did not go along with the treaty outlawing Napalm. You just acted as if Pres. Bush had ordered us to break the U.N. ban..........funny how you leave these things out until you are called on it.............typical

Read the article again JR.

As napalm, here's what Wilkepedia the free encycopedia on the Net says directly on their site:

"In 1942, researchers at Harvard University (led by Dr. Louis Fieser) and the U.S. Army Chemical Warfare Service found a rubber-less solution: mixing an aluminum soap powder of naphthene and palmitate (naphthenic and palmitic acids) with gasoline. This produced a substance which was highly flammable, yet slow burning. In World War II, incendiary bombs using napalm as their fuel were used against the German city of Dresden and during the firebombings of Japan.

After World War II, further refinement and development of napalm was undertaken by the government and its affiliated laboratories. Modern "napalm" contains neither napthenic nor palmitic acids (despite the name), but often uses a bevy of other CHEMICALS to stablize the gasoline base. It is manufactured by Dow CHEMICAL Company.

See Bombing of Tokyo in World War II and Bombing of Dresden in World War II for more information on the usage of napalm in the second World War and chemical warfare for more details on chemical weaponry.

[edit]
Usage in warfare
In World War II, Allied Forces bombed cities in Japan with napalm, and used it in bombs and flamethrowers in Germany. It was used by United Nations forces in Korea, by Mexico in the late 1960's against guerilla fighters in Guerrero and by the United States during the Vietnam War.

The use of napalm and other incendiaries against civilian populations was banned by a United Nations convention in 1980 [1] (http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multi/texts/BH790.txt). The United States did not sign the agreement, but claimed to have destroyed its arsenal in 2001.

The United States has reportedly been using napalm in the 2003 invasion of Iraq [2] (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/21/1047749944836.html). In August 2003, the Pentagon stopped denying the charge, admitting it did use "Mark 77 firebombs".

"We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches," said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. "Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the cockpit video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."
These bombs contain a substance "remarkably similar" to napalm. This substance is made with kerosene and polystyrene. [3] (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20030805-9999_1n5bomb.html)

A generic form of napalm can be produced with gasoline and polystyrene. A common recipe circulated on the Internet for a thickened gasoline substance (technically not napalm but considered similar), involves mixing gasoline and styrofoam. Actually producing such a substance is highly dangerous and may be illegal."

Call it incendiary if you want, it's a chemical weapon, and that's why every country on the face of the earth wanted it banned, but us.

PaceAdvantage

12-02-2004, 03:16 AM

Originally posted by Secretariat
I am also surprised that not one person who criticized my picture criticized Boxcar’s photoshop of our former first lady who visited soldiers in Iraq. At least Dick Schmidt pointed up it was photoshopped. But I am called a jerk, classless, a tasteless SOB, scum of the earth, told to get in a box, asked to apolgize, accused of being an Arab, threatened to be voted off the board ,called a demonic pssessed asshole, a slimeball, and lectured on the justification of war by King Solomon (funny how Jesus got left out) who posted the Hilary photo. I wonder why no one criticized Boxcar’s photo (Dick Schmidt’s comment excepted).

Are you kidding me? You are daring to compare the two photos, as if they are equals? Have you gone completely mad?

I suggest you take a deep breath, think about what you just posted, and use your brain this time. Thrashing about like a drowning person is never a pleasant sight to behold.

Ps. Was your image photoshopped?

JustRalph

12-02-2004, 03:30 AM

Hey Sec........ when you get NBC training in the service........and I had a ton of it.........you don't learn a damn thing about Napalm. You learn about Nuke/Bio/Chem weapons. Thus/ NBC

There is a big difference. You are stretching the definition to fit your agenda.........once again..............

ElKabong

12-02-2004, 04:04 AM

Originally posted by Secretariat
Elk,

I've nothing to apolgize for. I'm still waiting for your apology on the Swift Boat ads.

HEHEHE.

The truth bit your boy on the arse. "Apologize", my ass. He had his chance to be thruthful and sign his sf180....He didn't, just like the swifts knew he wouldn't.

If Kerry had signed the sf180, the swifts would have disappeared into thin air. Hoffman said as much in July and August. Kerry lost the 'un-loseable election' and has no one to blame but himself.

In the end, America trusted W more than the Beacon Hill conman. Kerry has only himself to blame.

boxcar

12-02-2004, 12:39 PM

Secretariat wrote:

I am also surprised that not one person who criticized my picture criticized Boxcar’s photoshop of our former first lady who visited soldiers in Iraq. At least Dick Schmidt pointed up it was photoshopped.

Hey, Classless Wonder, if you can rent a crowbar to pry your head from out of your anus long enough to read my response to Schmidt, you'll discover a few things:

a) Dick, in all probability, was blowing smoking up our butts by giving us his personal, uninformed opinion of that photo. Coming right out of the shoot, the picture hasn't been in circulation in cyberspace for "several years", as Dick claims. Clinton visited the troops 1 year ago this past Thanksgiving, and as Snopes.Com pointed out, the photo was, in all probability, taken in Afghanistan, Iraq or Kuwait during that tour.

Secondly, Snopes.Com is one of the leading "urban legend" type sites (if not the premier site) on the Web. Their schtick is to investigate, to the the best of their abillity, these urban legends (so called), and upon completion of an invetigation classify the status of each as being either True, False, Undetermined or Incomplete.

Thirdly, Snopes couldn't say one way or the other with certainity that the photo was definitively "true" or "false". The best classification they could give it was "incomplete" -- probably due to insufficient information to render a more determinative status. However, Snopes did say that it didn't appear that the photo was altered -- an opinion, incidentially, shared by my wife, who is an excellent amateur photographer and well acquainted with various graphics programs -- having a few herself.

In addition to all this, Snopes also pointed out that the "crossed fingers" is actually a coded sign taught in Survival School that stands for "coercion". This fact lends credibility to the photo.

And finally...I don't know how to break this "news" to you since you have obviously been living with your head buried up your butt for so long...but a very large majority of military personnel don't care much for Liberals -- don't hold Libs in very high esteem, and when a military person has the misfortune of coming into close proximity with one (as that most unfortunate young trooper did) it's quite likely that he or she will mentally, at the very least, either cross their fingers or hold their noses. This fact also lends credibility to the shot. Given the military's general sentiment toward Libs, the photo, threrefore, should not come as a surprise to anyone. Nor should it come as a shocker, as many of the other photos classified as "true" on Snope's site are.

In fact, I have to believe that most military folks, if encouraged to let down their hair and forget about being a gentlman or lady for a moment would tell scumbuckets like you to take you smug, self-righteous indigination and all your flowery lip service to the military and shove them far up in that dark, foul place to keep company with your head.

But I am called a jerk, classless, a tasteless SOB, scum of the earth, told to get in a box, asked to apolgize, accused of being an Arab, threatened to be voted off the board ,called a demonic pssessed asshole, a slimeball, and lectured on the justification of war by King Solomon (funny how Jesus got left out) who posted the Hilary photo. I wonder why no one criticized Boxcar’s photo (Dick Schmidt’s comment excepted).

Well...now you don't have to wonder any more. In fact, you moron, if you had clicked on the Snopes link that I included in my reply to Dick, you would have known the reason why "no one criticized Boxcar's photo". Even Dick backed off when he replied to me -- essentially saying, "Well, it isn't tht important" (to paraphrase the guy).

This makes your very much off topic anti-war statement vis-a-vis your doctored photo a very cheap shot at the military. You're so despicable, I have to think that even disgusting maggots would want to give you a wide berth if they had the misfortune of crossing paths with you -- very wide.

Boxcar

boxcar

12-02-2004, 01:02 PM

Hey, Sec, you wanted to know what Jesus had to say about war? (I'm amused that you're suddendly intrested in finding out what Jesus had to say about anything...but that's a subject for another time.) Anyhoo...how's this for starters?:

Matt 24:3-31
3 And as He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?" 4 And Jesus answered and said to them, "See to it that no one misleads you. 5 "For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and will mislead many. 6 "And you will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end. 7 "For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes. 8 "But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs. 9 "Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations on account of My name. 10 "And at that time many will fall away and will deliver up one another and hate one another. 11 "And many false prophets will arise, and will mislead many. 12 "And because lawlessness is increased, most people's love will grow cold. 13 "But the one who endures to the end, he shall be saved. 14 "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a witness to all the nations, and then the end shall come.

15 "Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains; 17 let him who is on the housetop not go down to get the things out that are in his house; 18 and let him who is in the field not turn back to get his cloak. 19 "But woe to those who are with child and to those who nurse babes in those days! 20 "But pray that your flight may not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath; 21 for then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall. 22 "And unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days shall be cut short. 23 "Then if anyone says to you, 'Behold, here is the Christ,' or 'There He is,' do not believe him. 24 "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. 25 "Behold, I have told you in advance. 26 "If therefore they say to you, 'Behold, He is in the wilderness,' do not go forth, or, 'Behold, He is in the inner rooms,' do not believe them. 27 "For just as the lightning comes from the east, and flashes even to the west, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be. 28 "Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.

29 "But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken, 30 and then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. 31 "And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.
NAS

Secretariat

12-02-2004, 04:15 PM

Box,

For a man so versed in the Bible I'm surprised at your tolerant attitude:

"if you can rent a crowbar to pry your head from out of your anus long enough to read my response to Schmidt, you'll discover a few things:

you have obviously been living with your head buried up your butt for so long...but a very large majority of military personnel don't care much for Liberals –

In fact, you moron

I have to think that even disgusting maggots"

As for military service, I've been in the military, and my nephew just left the military after being in Iraq. Your perceptions are your own, but I'm not hearing just one story out of there, but many.

delayjf

12-02-2004, 04:40 PM

Sec,

By your own definition, any explosive could be labeled a "chemical weapon". A fuel air explosion currently being used in afgan could be considered a chemical weapon or even Willy Peet (White phosphorous).

Tom

12-02-2004, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by Secretariat
Elk,

I've nothing to apolgize for. I'm still waiting for your apology on the Swift Boat ads.

I am sorry. Sorry a handfull of Swiftboat vets lied and dishoinered the hundreds who called Kerry for what he is.
How's that?

boxcar

12-02-2004, 11:50 PM

Secretariat complains:

Box,

For a man so versed in the Bible I'm surprised at your tolerant attitude:

Far more tolerant than most Liberals who incessantly preach tolerance in one breath, then turn right around and either in speech or action show just how intolerant they are of people who don't subscribe to their views.

Me:
"if you can rent a crowbar to pry your head from out of your anus long enough to read my response to Schmidt, you'll discover a few things:

This is what set me off: willful, self-induced ignorance is pitiful and inexecusable, most especially when, like Schmidt
you jumped to conclusions about the photo I posted, but unlike Schmidt, went even further by refusing to stop and pause to think that the photo could be the real deal per Snopes' review of it, and then heap more insult onto injury by using the photo as a feeble excuse to post your disgusting photo.

As for military service, I've been in the military, and my nephew just left the military after being in Iraq. Your perceptions are your own, but I'm not hearing just one story out of there, but many.

Evidently, just about the whole world knows that Liberals aren't exactly the "favorite sons" of most military personnel. The last numbers I recall hearing was that about 2 out of 3 do tend to look favorably upon Conservatives.

Also, you seem to have coveniently forgotten how the Democrats, when contesting the Florida results in 2000, fought tooth and nail to have the courts toss out a large number of overseas absentee ballots from military personnel due to some legal technicality, while out of the other side of their mouth they were chanting that every vote must be counted and every vote must count when it came to the heavy Democratic counties. Why do you think they wanted to get those absentee ballots banned? Because they thought the tally would favor Gore!?

Boxcar

hcap

12-05-2004, 10:17 AM

I have said I am anti-war. I suppose a JUST WAR is definable, and in fact there have been numerous attempts from a an ethical humanitarian view, as well as from a religeous point of view to define a "JUST WAR".

My problem with most of these presciptions is that MAINLY they are ignored, and in fact manipulated by each warring party generally staking out the ethical, or usually religeous high ground, in each their respective favor.

History is full of justifications for war, many to fall apart as time and jingoism moves on. As wars are fought, each side props up their version of just cause to their own people/soldiers. Most historical accounts of war are written by the victors, further obscuring the truth.

African Proverb:

"Until the lions have their historians, tales of the hunt shall always glorify the hunter."

Throughout history war has rarely been a last resort To question current events as portrayed by our side as truthful and without ulterior motives, flies in the face of what we have learned from previous misadventures, originally touted as "just wars".

If during a court hearing the offense mentions previous behaviour by the defendent, showing that numerous times the defendents' stories have been untruthfull, and actions taken for so-called legitimate or justified reasons were in fact taken for personal gain, the jury is allowed to factor in these past performances.

In an attempt to dissuade Bush from attacking Iraq, this letter was written by Catholic Bishops. Pointing out that Iraq does not fit a jusified war.

Excerpts...

Bishop Wilton D. Gregory, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Office of Social Development & World Peace, Letter to President Bush on Iraq, September 13, 2002

"The Honorable George W. Bush
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

"At its meeting last week, the 60-member Administrative Committee the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops asked me to write you about the situation in Iraq. We welcome your efforts to focus the world's attention on the need to address Iraq's repression and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction in defiance of the United Nations. The Committee met before your speech at the United Nations, but I thought it was important that I express our serious questions about the moral legitimacy of any preemptive, unilateral use of military force to overthrow the government of Iraq.

A year ago, my predecessor Bishop Joseph Fiorenza wrote you about the U.S. response to the horrific attacks we commemorated last week. He told you then that, in our judgment, the use of force against Afghanistan could be justified, if it were carried out in accord with just war norms and as one part of a much broader, mostly non-military effort to deal with terrorism. We believe Iraq is a different case. Given the precedents and risks involved, we find it difficult to justify extending the war on terrorism to Iraq, absent clear and adequate evidence of Iraqi involvement in the attacks of September 11th or of an imminent attack of a grave nature. "

....."There are no easy answers. People of good will may apply ethical principles and come to different prudential judgments, depending upon their assessment of the facts at hand and other issues. We conclude, based on the facts that are known to us, that a preemptive, unilateral use of force is difficult to justify at this time. We fear that resort to force, under these circumstances, would not meet the strict conditions in Catholic teaching for overriding the strong presumption against the use of military force. Of particular concern are the traditional just war criteria of just cause, right authority, probability of success, proportionality and noncombatant immunity."

No WMDs. No connection to Al Qaida. Now no Democracy?
When Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and other senior American officials arrive at a summit meeting in Morocco next week that is intended to promote democracy across the Arab world, they have no plans to introduce any political initiatives to encourage democratic change.

Bush started speaking in 2002 about the need to bring democracy to the Arab nations. Since then, however, the popular view of the United States in the region has grown so dark, even hateful, that American officials are approaching the meeting with caution and with a package of financial and social initiatives that have only a scant relationship to the original goal of political change

So, the reasons for invading have been, and are being changed one after another. Yep we got rid of Saddam, but are responsible for maybe more than 100,000 deaths.
And have destroyed our standing among Arabs and Muslems throughout the region, not to mention relations with Europe, and even Canada. War as a last resort was NOT our policy in Iraq. It almost seems that the neocon philosophy of re-making the Midle East in our image, approaches the Tower of Babble story in the Bible Trying to reach Heaven thru a tower failed from the first brick.

Hubris the vanity of ego, is much more deadly in war, than in let's say getting a blow job in the White house

Tom

12-05-2004, 11:52 AM

Speaking as a Catholic, the Bishop's tme might better be spent addressing the child molestatin mess that exist in thier own house befreo they get involved in national security. I thought you were in favor of seperation of church and state? The bishops have been condonig and hiding not only mortal sins, but felonies as well for decades. This is the last group I would l ook to for moral opinions.

boxcar

12-05-2004, 11:56 AM

hcap wrote:

" but I thought it was important that I express our serious questions about the moral legitimacy of any preemptive, unilateral use of military force to overthrow the government of Iraq...He told you then that, in our judgment, the use of force against Afghanistan could be justified, if it were carried out in accord with just war norms and as one part of a much broader, mostly non-military effort to deal with terrorism...We conclude, based on the facts that are known to us, that a preemptive, unilateral use of force is difficult to justify at this time. We fear that resort to force, under these circumstances, would not meet the strict conditions in Catholic teaching for overriding the strong presumption against the use of military force. Of particular concern are the traditional just war criteria of just cause...

Err...so, just what's your point, 'cap? So, now you, too, like that hypocrite Kerry, play the religious card when you think it suits your ends -- when you think it justifies your pacificist ideology?

Too bad the good Methodist bishops are either ignorant of what the bible teaches about war, or more likely than not simply ignore that large body of scripture because it doesn't fit their flowery religious mold. Note carefully that this guy says that force would not meet the "strict conditions in CATHOLIC teaching". He didn't say biblical teaching, did he? I strongly suspect this guy would perform great feats of mental gymnastics to try to demonstrate that numerous OT wars had no "moral legitimacy" and weren't conducted within "just war norms".

....."There are no easy answers

He has that right! I'd dearly love to see him come with some explanations for these biblical passages:

Deut 2:33-34
33 And the LORD our God delivered him over to us; and we defeated him with his sons and all his people. 34 So we captured all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, women and children of every city. We left no survivor.
NAS

Deut 3:6-7
6 And we utterly destroyed them, as we did to Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women and children of every city. 7 But all the animals and the spoil of the cities we took as our booty.
NAS

Josh 6:21
21 And they utterly destroyed everything in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword.
NAS

Josh 8:24-27
24 Now it came about when Israel had finished killing all the inhabitants of Ai in the field in the wilderness where they pursued them, and all of them were fallen by the edge of the sword until they were destroyed, then all Israel returned to Ai and struck it with the edge of the sword. 25 And all who fell that day, both men and women, were 12,000-- all the people of Ai. 26 For Joshua did not withdraw his hand with which he stretched out the javelin until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai. 27 Israel took only the cattle and the spoil of that city as plunder for themselves, according to the word of the LORD which He had commanded Joshua.
NAS

Josh 11:11-15
11 And they struck every person who was in it with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them; there was no one left who breathed. And he burned Hazor with fire. 12 And Joshua captured all the cities of these kings, and all their kings, and he struck them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed them; just as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded. 13 However, Israel did not burn any cities that stood on their mounds, except Hazor alone, which Joshua burned. 14 And all the spoil of these cities and the cattle, the sons of Israel took as their plunder; but they struck every man with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them. They left no one who breathed. 15 Just as the LORD had commanded Moses his servant, so Moses commanded Joshua, and so Joshua did; he left nothing undone of all that the LORD had commanded Moses.
NAS

1 Sam 15:3
3'Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' "
NAS

1 Sam 27:8-9
8 Now David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites and the Girzites and the Amalekites; for they were the inhabitants of the land from ancient times, as you come to Shur even as far as the land of Egypt. 9 And David attacked the land and did not leave a man or a woman alive, and he took away the sheep, the cattle, the donkeys, the camels, and the clothing
NAS

Bitter pill to swallow? Perhaps. But this pill is absolute nothing compared to actually facing God's justice.

Boxcar

hcap

12-05-2004, 05:23 PM

Boxhead,

I never said I was a pacifist. I said I was anti-war.

You seem to enjoy boasting of your Biblical insights.
Choosing passages to affirm your point of view may be open to question. As the saying goes..."Even the devil can quote scripture"

Deut 3:6-7
6 And we utterly destroyed them, as we did to Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women and children of every city. 7 But all the animals and the spoil of the cities we took as our booty.
NAS

Josh 6:21
21 And they utterly destroyed everything in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword.
NAS

Are you proposing that this allows us the liberty to use Napalm on innocents, as we did in Veitnam? And possibly did in Iraq? I guess your counterparts--fanatical Jihadists also can use the Koran in similiar ways in justifying murder of children. It should be obvious that the higher ideals of all religions teach love and compassion, not violence and mutilation. The discernment of these "higher ideals" requires an active conscience, and an active ability to use empathy. The emotionial mind, when tuned and in touch with love and compassion does not count the number of Angels that can dance on the head of a pin. Instead recognizes the inner meaning and possible goodness of Angels as described in stories and parables.

I think that words written for other times and other cultures, are not always applicable when viewed thru the distortion of time. I would argue that the truth of the Judeo-Christian scriptures and probably all major religions resides not in words to be "interpreted" according to ones current political view, but rather the emotional impact of stories and parables passed down by each tradition. I believe those that wrote those stories, wrote them for the ages, and that their audience would be the conscience of man first, and then the intellect. I would suggest that parables are a longer lived vehichle for truth. Less likely to be distorted than apparently "historical" passages describing "utterly destroying the men, women and children".

They were aware that their words would be misinterpreted by literal minded "Pharisees" who would always manage to squeeze the words written for humanity by these much more enlightened men, into the current and more fashionable world view. John the Baptist ranked them along with the Sadducees as a "generation of vipers. I would add literal interpretation of the law vipers.

I always thought the vitality of major religions only lasts so long, and then as distortions and "re-writes" creep in, only the parable or fables remaining still hold the essence of truth. As though we are standing on the shore of a lake, and are trying to deciipher from the ripples only now reaching us, the size and color of a massive rock tossed 2,000 years ago, into the middle of the lake. Kinda tough to understand the exact nature of that event. But the changes in hiistorical events closer to that event is undeniable. We can assume something very important did occur, and altered the course of history.

I am not playing the "religious card", as you claim. I could have used humanitarian definitions of a "just war" as well.
But since you play the "religious card" in almost every post, I thought I would show you the more compassionate
side of the "religious card".

You said...
" Too bad the good Methodist bishops are either ignorant of what the bible teaches about war, or more likely than not simply ignore that large body of scripture because it doesn't fit their flowery religious mold. Note carefully that this guy says that force would not meet the "strict conditions in CATHOLIC teaching". He didn't say biblical teaching, did he? I strongly suspect this guy would perform great feats of mental gymnastics to try to demonstrate that numerous OT wars had no "moral legitimacy" and weren't conducted within "just war norms".
No Methodists here Box, just Catholics. And yes Catholics have been known to "perform great feats of mental gymnastics" in supporting all sorts of doctrine. As all religous folks tend to do. The problem is when the doctrine looses touch with the essence of the teaching and meanders off in support of all sorts of foolishness. The Crusades, The Inquistion, and the Salem witch hunts.
All supported by the fathers of their respective churches all, done in fanatical denial of truer teachings.

That is the danger of removing compassion by judiciously choosing passges to support the Bible as indifferent, and according to you, apparent neutrality towards war.

The Bible or other scriptures-The Koran- should not be employed as an argument to disengage ones' conscience, and emotional understanding of our fellow human beings.

The bible says you will know false prophets by the fruits of their works. I guess I gotta wait a hundred years and repost. After all according to the prez, no false prophets yet.

George W. Bush, when asked by Bob Woodward "how is history likely to judge your Iraq war?" replied, "History, we don't know. We'll all be dead." ....(Woodward Shares War Secrets, CBS News, 60 Minutes, April 18, 2004).

hcap

12-05-2004, 06:05 PM

Boxcar, you also posted 1 Sam 15:3
3 'Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'
NAS

Bitter pill to swallow? Perhaps. But this pill is absolute nothing compared to actually facing God's justice.Do you really believe this passage is applicable in the 21st century?

And what do you mean by " facing God's justice"? Are you talking fire and brimstone, or perhaps end times and the rapture?

By the way Thomas Jefferson weighed in on "ecclesiastical establishments"

Jefferson.....

What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

boxcar

12-06-2004, 06:36 PM

hcap wrote:

Boxhead,

I never said I was a pacifist. I said I was anti-war.

Then it follows logically, sir,that if you're anti-[all]-war that you're indeed a pacifist, whether you care to admit it or not. But what I find curious is your denial of something that you so clearly are. Why? Are you ashamed?

Main Entry: pacifist

1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of pacifism or pacifists
2 : strongly and actively opposed to conflict and especially war

So...tell me, sir, how are you not a pacifist based on your unconditional anti-war stance?

You seem to enjoy boasting of your Biblical insights.
Choosing passages to affirm your point of view may be open to question. As the saying goes..."Even the devil can quote scripture"

Ahh...so you would rather have me demonstrate my "ecclesiastical" insights, as you have done? My internet prowess by digging up material that supports my position? No thanks. I'll stick with the Word of God because it's authoratative.

Also, unlike the shrewd and deceiving devil, I haven't quoted anything out of context, as he did when he tempted Christ on the mount.

Deut 3:6-7
6 And we utterly destroyed them, as we did to Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women and children of every city. 7 But all the animals and the spoil of the cities we took as our booty.
NAS

Josh 6:21
21 And they utterly destroyed everything in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword.
NAS

Are you proposing that this allows us the liberty to use Napalm on innocents, as we did in Veitnam? And possibly did in Iraq? I guess your counterparts--fanatical Jihadists also can use the Koran in similiar ways in justifying murder of children.

I'm not proposing anything of the sort. I quoted those kinds of texts to show you that when we look at the problem or the supposed moral dilemma of war from God's perspective, we will clearly see that God has historically ordained wars to achieve his soteriological and eschatolgical ends, both of which include his divine justice. God excutes temporal justice in this world and will also execute it at the end of this age. You would find, for example, in the larger contexts of the OT passages I quoted that he used his Chosen People (Israel) as instuments (means) to achieve his just ends.

It should be obvious that the higher ideals of all religions teach love and compassion, not violence and mutilation. The discernment of these "higher ideals" requires an active conscience, and an active ability to use empathy. The emotionial mind, when tuned and in touch with love and compassion does not count the number of Angels that can dance on the head of a pin. Instead recognizes the inner meaning and possible goodness of Angels as described in stories and parables.

I have a couple of problems with your statements. I don't give a flip about what "all religions teach". Religions (even most sects with Chrstendom) are simply instintutionalized systems of beliefs and practices that reflect man's vain attempts at understanding the mind (or will) of God. The fallen, darkened, finite mind can no more understand the perfect, holy, infinite mind of God anymore than a chimpanzee would be able to bang out War and Peace in a word processor. Man's attempts to reaching out to God is the ultimate vanity of all vanities. Man, for the most part, has this all backwards. It is God who must reach out to his elect (chosen ones) before they can begin to understand him and his revelation! And I'm on very solid biblical ground (again, in contradistinction from mere religious beliefs) for saying this, for there is a large body of scriptural support for my statements. In fact, since there is so much, I'll simply cite several NT passages which you may peruse at your leisure, if so inclined: Rom 8:7,8; 1 Cor 2:14; 2 Cor 4:3-7; Eph 4:18,19; Col 1:21; 2 Tim 3:4,5. Nor was this strictly a Pauline doctrine. (See what Jesus taught in this regard in Jn 3:1-12)

The second problem I have is your idea of "higher ideals". While it is true that the bible has much to say on the subjects of "love and compassion", it might suprise you to find out that the bible has more to say on the subject (or ideal, if you will) of God's Justice. To my way of thinking, anyhow, I'm very comfortable with the twin ideals peacefully coexisting side-by-side, as they are presented in the bible. I see no inherent conflicts between these two ideals. A holy and righteous God must also be a Just God; therefore, both "ideals" are equally important and necessary!

Since we're we're basically discussing your philosophy of pacificism and my conditional anti-peace beliefs, I will refrain from engaging you in your strawman argument concerning any specific acts of "violence or mutilation" in any particular war.

I think that words written for other times and other cultures, are not always applicable when viewed thru the distortion of time. I would argue that the truth of the Judeo-Christian scriptures and probably all major religions resides not in words to be "interpreted" according to ones current political view, but rather the emotional impact of stories and parables passed down by each tradition. I believe those that wrote those stories, wrote them for the ages, and that their audience would be the conscience of man first, and then the intellect. I would suggest that parables are a longer lived vehichle for truth. Less likely to be distorted than apparently "historical" passages describing [b] "utterly destroying the men, women and children".

Ahh...spoken like the true liberal you are. Let's "think" or "interpret" through the emotions rather than through the intellect -- the mind. People like you seem to always be searching for a Great Visceral Experience. (As I have long maintained: When you say "Liberal", think "Visceral".) It's very obvious to me how much emphasis you have placed on the faculty of emotion over that of the mind -- exactly opposite, incidentially, of the bible's emphasis! Here are some more passages for you to check out, as your emotions lead you: Mat 16:23; Rom 7:25, 8:6,7; 12:2; 1Cor 2:16; 14:14-19; Eph 2:3; 4:17; Phil 4:8; Col 1:21, 2:18, 3:2; 1Tim 6:5; 2 Tim 3:8; Heb 10:6, etc., etc.

Also, if words written "for other times and other cutltures are not always applicable" -- then how do we determine just when they are and when they aren't? (I'll say more about this at the end of this post.)

They were aware that their words would be misinterpreted by literal minded "Pharisees" who would always manage to squeeze the words written for humanity by these much more enlightened men, into the current and more fashionable world view. John the Baptist ranked them along with the Sadducees as a "generation of vipers. I would add literal interpretation of the law vipers

Neither John the Baptist nor Christ, for that matter, had a problem with the Pharisees' or Sadducees' method or interpretation. per se. The large axe these two had to grind with both these religious sects was how they cherry-picked the law in order to avoid obeying the "weightier measures" of it -- how they would strain at gnats just to swallow camels.

I always thought the vitality of major religions only lasts so long, and then as distortions and "re-writes" creep in, only the parable or fables remaining still hold the essence of truth. As though we are standing on the shore of a lake, and are trying to deciipher from the ripples only now reaching us, the size and color of a massive rock tossed 2,000 years ago, into the middle of the lake. Kinda tough to understand the exact nature of that event. But the changes in hiistorical events closer to that event is undeniable. We can assume something very important did occur, and altered the course of history.

Ahh..you think, eh? I betcha I could show you some parables in the bible that you wouldn't like very much. But as far as fables are concerned...that's another matter completely, since there aren't any in the bible to my knowledge.

I am not playing the "religious card", as you claim. I could have used humanitarian definitions of a "just war" as well. But since you play the "religious card" in almost every post, I thought I would show you the more compassionate side of the "religious card".

I have never played the "religious card". I'm a biblicist, not a religionist.

That is the danger of removing compassion by judiciously choosing passges to support the Bible as indifferent, and according to you, apparent neutrality towards war.

Au contraire! I did not present those prooftexts to show that the bible takes a "neutural" stand towards war. I presented those texts to offrsett your very lopsided, horizontal-only view of war. Nor did I offer those texts as proof that the bible generally supports, endorses or condones warfare, but to illustrate that there is another perspective to looking at war, namely a vertical or divine one! And that God's perspective is precisely the reason I'm a conditional anti-peacenik. Stated differently, 'Cap, my view is "fair and balanced", while yours is off the map. :)

Then in another post, you wrote:

Boxcar, you also posted Do you really believe this passage is applicable in the 21st century?

Sure, I do. Why not? All those passages are applicable for today. God's word is as eternal as he is. I have refrained, until now, for posting any scriptures, but this is such such an important fundamental question to definitively resolve that I will now make the exception: Here is what Paul had to say about the roll of ALL scripture in a believer's life:

2 Tim 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
NAS

I wish I had the time to tear into this passage and exegete it for you, but, alas, I do not. But I will say this much: The word translated "teaching" in the New American Standard version comes from the Greek term "didaskalia", which is quite often rendered "doctrine" in numerous other places in the NT. In fact, sir, from this Gr. term, we get our our English word "didactic", which means "designed or intended to teach" and "intended to convey instruction or information".

Whenever see a string of words or phrases in a passage (such as the one in question), you can be certain that because God is not the author of confusion (1Cor 14:33), and that it is his desire that his people have their mind transformed to the mind of Christ (Rom. 12:2; 1Cor 2:16; 2Cor 3:18) ) that there is a perfectly logical progression from one word or phrase to the next. The fact, therefore, that the word "doctrine" or "teaching" is the first word in the string of four is no accident or mere coincidence. The fundamentally important foundation of "doctrine"or "teaching" must first be laid before we can logically progress to the more practical aspects of applying scripture in a believer's every day life. This exactly why the bible places so much emphasis on the mind, as opposed to emotions or even conscience. Everything (including moral conduct) begins in the mind -- in the intellect.

Even Jesus stated, in no uncertain terms, that he didn't come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill the inspired OT scriptures, to wit:

Matt 5:17-18
17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. 18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.
NAS

As usual, Pauline doctrine harmonizes nicely with Jesus' teachings. The fact that the NT epistles do specifically abolish some portions of the Law and the Prophets does not contradict what Jesus taught because whatever has passed away, we can be certain that Jesus has already fulfilled those scriptures through his death, burial and resurrection. But its equally noteworthy to understand just when everything will pass away from the Law: Everything will pass away when all is accomplished, which won't occur until Christ's second advent.

And what do you mean by " facing God's justice"? Are you talking fire and brimstone, or perhaps end times and the rapture?

Several "big events" (to say the least) will happen at the end of this age: Christ will return in all his glory to judge the "quick" and the "dead" (believers and unbelievers, resepctively), but not before the rapture of the dead, which will consist of all people who were ever born. At the end of the judgment, the unbelievers will be cast away into "outer darkeness" to suffer the torments of hell forever and forever. Conversely, the true believers will be ushered into the final phase of God's kingdom in which they will see God face-to-face and live in perfect happiness, bliss and peace for all eternity.

Now...a very brief word about this place called "hell". I have good news and bad news for you. The good is that from my extensive study of this subject, I don't believe that the wicked's suffering will be physical in nature, e.g. in literal "fire and brimstone". The bad news, however, is that I believe the torment will be much more severe than this. The suffering will be more mental in nature, for the very essence of the "second death" spoken of in scripture is eternal separation from God and from even his common grace -- grace which currently restrains evil in this age. The wicked will reside with only other uttlerly wicked and evil people...for all eternity -- with no hope whatsoever of ever escaping from the presence of the wicked angels and other evil human beings. Therefore, the absence or lack of any hope, in any way, shape or form will probably be the unspeakable and unimaginable horror of hell. As bad as things can be in this age, we can still cling to hope, even if it's an infinitesimal amount; but for the Lost in the next age, there won't even be this. (And if this thought doesn't scare the hell out of you, nothing will, I suppose.)

By the way Thomas Jefferson weighed in on "ecclesiastical establishments"

As I recall, Jefferson was a Deist, was he not? Jefferson and I woudn't see eye-to-eye on too much of anything, in that case.

Boxcar

Equineer

12-06-2004, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by Boxcar,
As I recall, Jefferson was a Deist, was he not? Jefferson and I woudn't see eye-to-eye on too much of anything, in that case.As you know, Jefferson and Einstein were both Deists, as are most intelligent and contemplative thinkers.

And by my observation, the majority of mainstream monotheists conduct their mortal affairs as if a date with divine judgment is a baldfaced myth.

I am amazed that you seem mired in Guiding Hand fundamentalism.

On the other hand, if your are a professional cleric, I can't fault you for shrewd pragmatism.

Given your intellect, have you ever considered a career as a Unitarian Universalist?

Albert Einstein -
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own - a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in Nature."

Tom

12-06-2004, 09:52 PM

I'm getting carpel tunnel in my scroll finger from trying to get past these looooooooong posts.
Commandment #11 - Thou shalt be brief! :rolleyes:

boxcar

12-07-2004, 12:04 AM

Equineer wrote:

As you know, Jefferson and Einstein were both Deists, as are most intelligent and contemplative thinkers.

You say, "as are most..."? Grossly exaggerated, sir. Intelligent and contemplative thinkers subscribe to all manner of humanistic philosophies, religions and world views, included but not limited to Atheism, Agnosticism, Pragmatism, Fideism, Rationalism, Evidentialism, Deism, Theism, etc., etc. (Yes, I did say Theism because it, too, has had its fair share of great intellectual adherents -- and still does!)

And by my observation, the majority of mainstream monotheists conduct their mortal affairs as if a date with divine judgment is a baldfaced myth.

Bravo, Eq! An astute observation at that. But...while the observation is very good, how you reached your conclusionis are, in all probability, way off base. The reason why so many professing Christians (or "mainstream monotheists") to borrow your phrase) live as children of the devil (i.e. as though there will be no eternal punishment) is because the Christian church is, for the most part, thoroughly (and sadly, I might add) in a state of apostasy -- just as the bible predicted it would be in these "end times".

I am amazed that you seem mired in Guiding Hand fundamentalism.

I am far removed from any kind of "fundamentalism". Too many problems with that school of thought.

On the other hand, if your are a professional cleric, I can't fault you for shrewd pragmatism.

Nope. Just a mere student of God's word.

Given your intellect, have you ever considered a career as a Unitarian Universalist?

Ohh...I'm cut to the quick. You should know by now there's not a liberal bone in my body. Plus you insult my intelligence with such a recommendation. :)

Albert Einstein -
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, - a Godwhose purposes are modeled after our own, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in Nature."

You see, here is the problem in a nutshell, Eq: Just because someone is a "great thinker" (as admittedly Einstein was) presents no guarantees whatsoever that that person will be able to reason his way to God or understand God's ways. In fact, a very intelligent and wise man named Jesus taught:

Matt 18:2-4
And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, 3 and said, "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 "Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
NAS

Do you now see what Einstein's problem was? His problem was not one of the intellect. It was not intellectual in nature, although his true condition adversely affected his intellect. Einstein's problem was spiritual/moral in nature! Einstein had such a great mind, he couldn't bring himself to a true state of humility!
His very own words condemn him, i.e. "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation.."

Again, it bears repeating: b]"I CANNOT IMAGINE[/b]..." His words betray his arrogance and pride -- because at the end of the day his utter lack of ability to grapple successfully with the problem of evil, God's justice, etc. became the cause of his downfall -- the reason for his rejection of God who condescended to reveal himself to mankind in the bible and through the person, work and life of his son Jesus Christ. And the megabytes or irony is that his words also betray his weakness, his human frailities -- his personal limitations -- severe spiritual limitations talked about at great length in the bible.

One would have to reasonably think that a great scientific mind like that of Einstein failed to understand many mysteries of the universe. Yet, I also have to think that he successfully dealt with those kinds of problems intellecutally, otherwise he would not have been the great scientist he was. But the far more important spiritual problems in life, such as the problems of Good and Evil, God's Justice, Eternal Punishment, etc., etc. he was not able to resolve satisfactorily, and so he did the only "logical" thing a spiritually dead mind could do -- turn to Deism for his belief system, since that religious belief system removes God far from man.

The second item in his staement which bears mentioning is this observation:

...a God whose purposes are modeled after our own, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty.

This statement, even more than the first, betrays an overbearing arrogance, insolence and pride that rivals that of the devil himself! Einstein, evidently, thought it perfectly okay to devise a god after his own image -- one complete with human frailities to boot! (But who in the world would want to worship such a god!?) Yet, the bible teaches that man is made in God's image -- an image which we all bear, even though it has been very badly marred by the Fall.

Here is one of the central passages in all scripture that describes man's pitiful and woeful spiritual condion. In Einstein's case he manifested symptons of his Fallen Condition through his belief in Deism. Others, of course, manifest different symptons (due to different belief systems), but the root cause to all remains the same, according to Paul:

Rom 1:18-32
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

We all have a God-consciousness because we're all made in his image. Call this Intuitiive Revelation.

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

We know God exists through nature -- through his creation. This is called Natural Revelation.

21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

Now, Eq, read this next verse carefully:

23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

This is precisely what Einstein did! He molded the "incorruptible God" into an image "in the form of corruptible man" -- as though God's purposes are a mirror image of our own -- as though God possesses human frailities. (Gotta admit, Eq, the apostle Paul was no intellectual slouch either, right!?)

24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,

In other words, they did not acknowledge the God of the bible -- the one and only true God.

29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
NAS

In other portions of scripture, as cited to 'Cap earlier, man is utterly without spiritual understanding. Because man is in a state of spiritual death, man cannot understand the mind (or will) of God.

One of the key things to take away from this lengthy passage is that every single human being will be worthy of God's righteous judgment because God has revealed himself in three ways:

a) Intuitive Revelation (made in God's image)
b) Natural Revlation (through God's creation)
c) Special Revelation (both Christ and the Bible)

This last type of revelation is not available to everyone, but even when someone is exposed to the bible, mere exposure is no guarantee that the fallen mind will understand the spiritual truth therein.

You might want to reconsider going the way of those "great, contemplative thinkers" that embraced Deism, Eq.

Boxcar

boxcar

12-07-2004, 12:08 AM

Tom wrote:

I'm getting carpel tunnel in my scroll finger from trying to get past these looooooooong posts.
Commandment #11 - Thou shalt be brief! :rolleyes:

No, no, Tom. The 11th reads:

Thou shalt lengthen your attention span daily. ;)

Boxcar

Equineer

12-07-2004, 01:29 AM

Boxcar,

Just a mere ascetic student of God's word? Your posts suggest that you could consider turning pro. :)

Professional theism admittedly attracts a few gifted intellects, especially those that are poor, lazy, and/or socially awkward. Theist rituals mask awkwardness, and the pulpit is a tried and true magnet for money and chicks. Moreover, since laziness isn't one of your sins, power and influence should be attainable.

If case you don't turn pro, I have to wonder about your support for the invasion of Iraq. If Bush is after oil, what will be your reward... an Eremite's cave in the desert? :)

Equineer

12-07-2004, 10:07 AM

Boxcar,

Furthermore....

Our American democracy was principally founded by Deists in the 18th century "Age of Reason"... not by devout Christian Theists.

Since then, Theists have tried to deceive Americans by introducing the myth that America was founded by devout Christian Theists.

However, "In Reason We Trust" more so than "In God We Trust" was the motto of our founders, and the goddess of liberty was their symbol.

Much later, an obscure Civil War era minister speculated how history might view the horrors of such a conflict. Accordingly, in 1861, he wrote to Treasury Secretary Chase: "Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation?" He proposed coinage that replaced the goddess of liberty with a tribute to God.

Advocates of this change preached that the Civil War was an expression of God's wrath. From their perspective, mottos that begged for divine protection were needed to thwart further punishment by a wrathful God.

Thus, "In God We Trust" first appeared in 1864 on our two-cent coin. However, in view of all our adversities since then, it appears that God was not impressed.

boxcar

12-07-2004, 10:56 AM

Equineer asks:

Boxcar,

Just a mere ascetic student of God's word? Your posts suggest that you could consider turning pro. :)

Well...if I'm ever in need of a day job, I might consider it. :)

If case you don't turn pro, I have to wonder about your support for the invasion of Iraq. If Bush is after oil, what will be your reward... an Eremite's cave in the desert? :)

Ah, come on. Give me more credit than than, will ya? An Eremite's cave??? I expect nothing more than cheap gas at the pump, my friend.

Boxcar

boxcar

12-07-2004, 11:27 AM

Equineer wrote:

Furthermore....

Our American democracy was principally founded by Deists in the 18th century "Age of Reason"... not by devout Christian Theists.

Since then, Theists have tried to deceive Americans by introducing the myth that America was founded by devout Christian Theists.

Hear! Hear! Spoken like the true Revisionist you are! But here are the facts, as I recall (without bothering to look them up again):

I believe there were 55 Founding Fathers, i.e. signers of the Constitution. (However, I'll toss in Jefferson, even though he wasn't a signer but one of the main architects of that document.) In this group, there was only one (1) other Deist (I believe that was Franklin). Again...going from memory...I think there were 2 -- maybe as many as 3 Catholics in the mix. The rest consisted mainly of Protestants, Episcopaleans, Lutherans, Methodists and Congregationalists! In fact, the largest group consisted of Presbyterians who primarily held to the Reformed Doctrines of the Christian Faith -- keeping in mind, also, that Puratinism is a form of Calvinism.

For you info, sir, Deism in America was pretty much quelled by that period of American history known as the Great Awakening. The first Great Revival took place in the middle part of the 18th century and played a large part in stemming the tide of Deism.

Deism simply never exerted any great influence in American thinking at that time -- certainly nothing compared to the role that Orthodox Christianity did.

Boxcar

Equineer

12-07-2004, 12:26 PM

Boxcar,

You keep insisting that nominal sectarians always "practice" your brand of Theism.

In fact, in 18th century Revolutionary times, many sectarians were much closer to Deism than your strict biblical Theism.

Meanwhile, Atheism wasn't very politically correct. And most Deists don't publicly renounce all aspects of their sectarian affiliations when they attain enlightenment.

Because Deists seldom "organize" to evangelize and congregate, your classified list of Revolutionary Protestants, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists and Congregationalists is not meaningful.

You treat Deism as if doesn't encompass millions of enlightened Americans who nominally retain a sectarian association as a matter of convenience.

The Landlord has long been absent, and "In Reason We Trust" is alive and well!

Secretariat

12-07-2004, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by Equineer
Boxcar,

Furthermore....

Our American democracy was principally founded by Deists in the 18th century "Age of Reason"... not by devout Christian Theists.

Since then, Theists have tried to deceive Americans by introducing the myth that America was founded by devout Christian Theists.

However, "In Reason We Trust" more so than "In God We Trust" was the motto of our founders, and the goddess of liberty was their symbol.

Much later, an obscure Civil War era minister speculated how history might view the horrors of such a conflict. Accordingly, in 1861, he wrote to Treasury Secretary Chase: "Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation?" He proposed coinage that replaced the goddess of liberty with a tribute to God.

Advocates of this change preached that the Civil War was an expression of God's wrath. From their perspective, mottos that begged for divine protection were needed to thwart further punishment by a wrathful God.

Thus, "In God We Trust" first appeared in 1864 on our two-cent coin. However, in view of all our adversities since then, it appears that God was not impressed.

Excellent post. Reason was the shining beacon of The Enlightenment, something Jefferson and Franklin, two of the architects of the Declaration of Independence were storngly influenced by.

There have always been strong religious pressures to have the church affect government policy though. It will and does continue.

I was unaware of the Civil War change on coinage. Thanks

boxcar

12-07-2004, 02:14 PM

Secretariat wrote:

Excellent post. Reason was the shining beacon of The Enlightenment, something Jefferson and Franklin, two of the architects of the Declaration of Independence were storngly influenced by.

Before you wear out your knees at the Dual Altars of Reason and Enlightenment, I'll be glad to perform an act of kindness for you by demonstrating how Deism is a thoroughly self-defeating philosophy and how it, therefore, logically reduces to Skepticism. You can be charitable to yourself and take me up on my offer by making only a simple request of me for some true enlightenment.

Boxcar

Secretariat

12-07-2004, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by boxcar
Secretariat wrote:

Excellent post. Reason was the shining beacon of The Enlightenment, something Jefferson and Franklin, two of the architects of the Declaration of Independence were storngly influenced by.

Before you wear out your knees at the Dual Altars of Reason and Enlightenment, I'll be glad to perform an act of kindness for you by demonstrating how Deism is a thoroughly self-defeating philosophy and how it, therefore, logically reduces to Skepticism. You can be charitable to yourself and take me up on my offer by making only a simple request of me for some true enlightenment.

Boxcar

Save your demonstrations and "act of kindness" for Jefferson and Franklin when and if you get to Heaven.

boxcar

12-07-2004, 11:56 PM

Secretariat wrote:

Save your demonstrations and "act of kindness" for Jefferson and Franklin when and if you get to Heaven.

What makes you think Jeff and Frank are in heaven? It would have taken a couple of miracles to get them there...and neither of these "great, contemplative thinkers" believed in miracles.

Boxcar

boxcar

12-08-2004, 12:33 AM

Equineer wrote:

Boxcar,

[b]You keep insisting that nominal sectarians always "practice" your brand of Theism

Yeah, yeah. Keep repeating this lie to yourself often enough, and you'll actually start to believe it.

There was nothing "nominal" about those mainstream denominations. In fact, back in those days, when a churchgoer wanted to actually become a member of a congregation, s/he was, more often than not, screened pretty carefully to make sure their beliefs closely matched those of that particular church. In addition to this, it was also a common practice back then to have these nonmembers (often referred to as "friends" of the church) to enter into a signed compact (or covenant) with the existing members of the church before the congregation would allow these nonmembers to become church "family"
(a "brother" or sister").

Only in your pipedreams were the vast majority of those denominations during that period of time "nominal".

You treat Deism as if doesn't encompass millions of enlightened Americans who nominally retain a sectarian association as a matter of convenience

Not back in that era did they "nominally retain a sectarian association". Furthermore, what you're suggesting makes no sense at all. Why in the world would "millions" of any sect or religion want to join up with a congregation that is not like-minded? There is nothing worse than sitting in a church Sunday after Sunday listening to sermons and teachings that are based on doctrines that differ signficantly from your own. The natural, reasonable and logical tendacy is to actively seek out other like-minded people and worship with them. You are truly without a clue.

The Landlord has long been absent, and "In Reason We Trust" is alive and well!

Then surely, sir, since you have all this great faith in human reason, surely you woudn't mind if I demonstrated how impoverished a philosophy this Deism is, would you? Your faith would not be threatened in any way, would it?
Human Reason should be able to withstand any test, shouldn't it?

Boxcar

Equineer

12-08-2004, 02:08 AM

Originally posted by Boxcar,
Why in the world would "millions" of any sect or religion want to join up with a congregation that is not like-minded? There is nothing worse than sitting in a church Sunday after Sunday listening to sermons and teachings that are based on doctrines that differ significantly from your own. The natural, reasonable and logical tendency is to actively seek out other like-minded people and worship with them. You are truly without a clue.You are persistent! Most Deists merely relinquish full-scale spiritual immersement in the Theist sects they were conscripted into as children. Deists don't need to repudiate the beliefs of anyone else to justify their enlightened perspectives, which probably explains why they don't seek excuses to form alternative congregations.

You seem historically misguided: "One of the embarrassing problems for the early nineteenth-century champions of the Christian faith was that not one of the first six Presidents of the United States was an orthodox Christian." --The Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1968, p. 420

At best, Freemasons like Washington, Franklin, Hancock, Hamilton, and Lafayette have sometimes been called Christian Deists to differentiate them from orthodox Christians. While modern Christian fundamentalists attempt to convince us that early Americans were fervent Christians, according to historian, Robert T. Handy, "No more than 10 percent-- probably less-- of Americans in 1800 were members of congregations."

=======>

Thomas Jefferson - the Big Jeff among contemporary Deists. :)

George Washington - a Freemason Deist.

John Adams - avowed Unitarian (worse than a Christian Deist from your perspective).

James Madison - a non-sectarian for most of his life, had this to say:

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

Benjamin Franklin - a Freemason Deist.

Thomas Paine - wrote in the his The Age of Reason:

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church. Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity.

John Hancock - a Freemason Deist.

Alexander Hamilton - a Freemason Deist.

Secretariat

12-08-2004, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by boxcar
Secretariat wrote:

Save your demonstrations and "act of kindness" for Jefferson and Franklin when and if you get to Heaven.

What makes you think Jeff and Frank are in heaven? It would have taken a couple of miracles to get them there...and neither of these "great, contemplative thinkers" believed in miracles.

Boxcar

Well if Jefferson and Franklin didn't warrant heaven, and you're gonna be there, then I think I'll pass. It'll be a lot more interesting conversation in the other place.

Steve 'StatMan'

12-08-2004, 04:27 PM

Looks like James Madison and Thomas Payne are at least 20/1 shots to make it there.

boxcar

12-09-2004, 12:17 AM

Secretariat wrote:

Well if Jefferson and Franklin didn't warrant heaven, and you're gonna be there, then I think I'll pass. It'll be a lot more interesting conversation in the other place.

Yes indeed...It was well said that "misery loves company."
But I don't think you'll be spending too much time casually conversing with your lost soul brothers and sisters in hell, for it is a place of unimaginable torment, according to scripture. However, if you're into a bunch of weeping and gnashing of teeth forever and forever, then you should feel right at home.

Matt 13:37-43
37 And He answered and said, "The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, 38 and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels. 40 "Therefore just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. 41 "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 "Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.
NAS

Boxcar
P.S. 'Cap, this is one those parables -- you know "stories" in the bible that you seem to be so fond of. I gotta ask: What do you think of Jesus' interpreation of his own parable??????

As a Christian philosopher basically once said about this guy Jesus: There are only three possible conclusions one could reach about this man -- these being that he was Lord as he often claimed, or a Lunatic or a Liar. What sayest thou?

boxcar

12-09-2004, 12:45 AM

Eq, this thread has taken so many different twists and turns and detours and has gone off into more different tangents than I can count. In short: we're all off-topic. Therefore, what I'm going to do, out of consideration for other folks, such as Tom, who either don't like wading through lengthy posts or others who may not have much interest for this latest tangent in which we find ourselves, I'm going to start a new thread with a more appropriate topic heading. So...stay tuned, for I intend to show that you're merely cherry-picking, to the exclusion of larger contexts, various quotes provided by other revisionist historians.

But before, I take my leave for the moment, Eq, I must say that I'm not suprised that you have wimped out on my challenge whereby I offered to irrefutably invalidate that less-than-enlightneing philosophy called Deism. As I anticipated, you ignored my challenge altogether and cower along with your cowardly buddy Sec. (Two peas in a pod, fer sure.)

Boxcar

Equineer

12-09-2004, 03:11 AM

Boxcar,

We don't need another thread where you pitch your snake oil!

Your historical distortions will never slay the Goddess of Liberty.

hcap

12-09-2004, 06:48 AM

Boxcar
P.S. 'Cap, this is one those parables -- you know "stories" in the bible that you seem to be so fond of. I gotta ask: What do you think of Jesus' interpreation of his own parable?????? The language of symbols is evident in all religious scriptures. Including he oldest Hindu, Buddist, and Christian, Islamic traditions. Among others.

In fact the inner core of all these teachings are much closer in spirit than all "literal-minded" pointifications. These truths are not encapsulated in words, but rather the unique construction of symbolic ideas. There are teachings that indicate that all parables and fables in all major scriptures mostly point to an inner journey, a quest for spirituality that eventually re-unites one with the Almighty. The "name" of God is what we don't know. And can not know in our current state of "sleep". To awaken is the journey.

The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field; Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof. (Matthew 13:31-32)

This parable operates on many levels. The first and most important refers to ones own inner growth and journey. The second is the growth of a community of like souls. And the third is the growth into the external world.

The distortion and usual failure of interpretation is the second and third levels. Violence and hatred arise when competing teachings become "stale" on these levels. The first level is also subject to misinterpretation, but usually little damage is done because full understanding of "how" to make this inner journey is reserved for direct instruction from teacher to pupil. However the essence and inner power of these parables is what awakens the yearning to make this journey.

This is the "net" cast out to bring those who have "ears to hear", to the inner teachings.

Some of us compare all major religions and teachings to the spokes on a wheel. The perimeter being where all of us start, and where all traditions APPEAR to be at odds. As we travel inward towards the center or hub of the wheel, we move closer to the truth, and each other. There is an old Sufi story of when in ancient times, men of different lanquages and cultures, would meet in the barren desert, by drawing SYMBOLS in the the sand, immediate understanding of each would be achieved.

These are from older traditions than Christianity.
There are similarities to the "The Mustard Seed" parable.

My Self Within the Heart
The Chhandogya Upanishad...

He is my self within the heart, smaller than a corn of rice, smaller than a corn of barley, smaller than a mustard seed, smaller than a canary seed or the kernel of a canary seed. He also is my self within the heart, greater than the earth, greater than the sky, greater than heaven, greater than all these worlds.

A Journey of a Thousand Leagues
Lao Tse

A tree as big as a man's embrace springs from a tiny sprout. A tower nine stories high begins with a heap of earth. A journey of a thousand leagues starts from where your feet stand.

Cultivate Virtue
Lao Tzu

Cultivate Virtue in your own person,
And it becomes a genuine part of you.
Cultivate it in the family,
And it will abide.
Cultivate it in the community,
And it will live and grow.
Cultivate it in the state,
And it will flourish abundantly.
Cultivate it in the world,
And it will become universal.

JustRalph

12-09-2004, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by Equineer
Boxcar,

We don't need another thread where you pitch your snake oil!

Your historical distortions will never slay the Goddess of Liberty.

Pot.........meet the Kettle. Now.........call him Black!

Equineer

12-09-2004, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by JustRalph
Pot.........meet the Kettle. Now.........call him Black! JR......... meet my friend Gene Pool. He bids fare thee well to you. :)

ljb

12-09-2004, 01:11 PM

EQ,
LOL !:D :D :D

boxcar

12-09-2004, 03:10 PM

Equineer wrote:

Boxcar,

We don't need another thread where you pitch your snake oil!

Your historical distortions will never slay the Goddess of Liberty.

And you, sir, will remain in the bondage of your iniquities unless you come to understand that true liberty comes from God's truth.

Paul in writing to the church at Rome said:

Rom 6:17-18
17 But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

An absolutely essential element to obtaining this liberty -- this freedom from sin is understanding and apprehending God's truth, for Jesus taught:

John 8:31-37
31 Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32 and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. " 33 They answered Him, "We are Abraham's offspring, and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, 'You shall become free'?" 34 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. 35 "And the slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. 36 "If therefore the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed. 37 "I know that you are Abraham's offspring; yet you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you.

As I have decided to show later, you most certainly will not find freedom or liberty in the self-annhilating philosophy of Deism, which is nothing less than a synthesis of Naturalism and Rationalism.

Boxcar

boxcar

12-09-2004, 03:19 PM

hcap wrote:

The language of symbols is evident in all religious scriptures. Including he oldest Hindu, Buddist, and Christian, Islamic traditions. Among others

And yada, yada, yada.

Geesh...you're one to talk about pontificating! I asked you a simple question about a particular parable that Jesus himself interpreted, and instead of answering specifically, you give us a lecture about the supposed esoteric nature of parables.

I was right, wasn't I, when I said earlier that I can show you parables that wouldn't be to your liking?

Boxcar

JustRalph

12-09-2004, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by ljb
EQ,
LOL !:D :D :D

yeah, that was hysterical..............:rolleyes:

boxcar

12-09-2004, 08:32 PM

Peter, in his First Epistle, told the brethren that they should always be ready to give a defense for the hope that is in them. The Gr. word translated "defense" in this NT text is "apologia", from which we get our English term "apologetics". But a Christian cannot merely give intelligent, reasoned answers for why he believes what he believes, but must also be able to successfully refute a whole host of competing truth claims. Therefore, a Christian's task is twofold: When necessary he must be able to test for falsity (and, threrfore, invalidate) opposing truth claims; and he must be able to set forth an adequate test for truth (and, therefore, validate truth claims.

Deism, like all other competing truth claims, self-destructs because one or more of its premises is inconsistent with itself or because violates the Law of Noncontradiction. Therefore, all truth claims that compete against the claims of biblical Christianity are self-defeating, and fail the falsity test.

Here is one brief example of a self-defeating premise in Agnosticism, for the sake of discussion: When an agnostic says that Reality (or truth or God) cannot be known, his statement immediately self-destructs; for this statement actually presupposes that the agnostic knows something about Reality to be able to make the statement in the first place. If the agnostic denies that he knows anything at all about reality, then his statement is meaningless -- absurd. How can anyone make any meaningful statement (truth claim) about something for which he has no knowldedge? On the other hand, if the agnostic concedes that something can be known about Reality, then, obviously, this presents a possibility for knowing whether or not there is such thing as "absolute truth" or a divine being as "God".

But before I get ahead of myself and show how Deism is a self-defeating world view, we should first define the philosophy. In Deism's diametrically opposed theolgoical system of Theism, this latter system believes that God is both beyond and within the world -- that he at once transcends his creation and is also immanent with it. (Btw, this theistic belief does not violate the aforementioned Law of Noncontradiction, which states: A thing cannot exist and not exist at the same place, at the same time and in the same sense. While Deism holds with Theism that God created the world (ex nihilo, I might add), it denies his supernatural intervention in it on the grounds that the world operates by natural and self-sustaining laws of the Creator.

The late Dr. Russell Kirk in his Roots of American Order wrote of Deism:

QUOTE
Throughout Europe and even America, the disillusionment that followed upon the end of the Wars of Religion had brought some toleration with it-but also apathy or indifference of spirit. Scientific and metaphysical speculation, late in the seventeenth century and throughout the eighteenth, had weakened Christian belief among many of the educated. Christian churches often seemed dull and smug, and many clergymen were content to collect their stipends but not eager to perform their duties. In much of Europe, a confused popular resentment against established churches began to stir; quite as serious was the contempt for Christianity that grew among not a few members of the upper classes. Anti-Christian feeling was one of the forces that would explode in Paris in 1789, and thereafter would sweep across other European nations. Men must believe in something more than themselves; and if the Christian churches seemed whited sepulchres, men would seek another form of faith. So it was that during the first half of the eighteenth century, in England and America, the mode of thought called Deism made inroads upon the Christianity of the Apostles' Creed.

Deism was neither a Christian schism nor a systematic philosophy, but rather a way of looking at the human condition; the men called Deists differed among themselves on many points. (Thomas Paine often was called an atheist, but is more accurately described as a rather radical Deist.) Deism was an outgrowth of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century scientific speculation. The Deists professed belief in a single Supreme Being, but rejected a large part of Christian doctrine. Follow Nature, said the Deists (as the Stoics had said before them), not Revelation: all things must be tested by rational private judgment. The Deists relied especially upon mathematical approaches to reality, influenced in this by the thought of Sir Isaac Newton. For the Christian, the object of life was to know God and enjoy Him forever; for the Deist, the object of life was private happiness. For the Deists, the Supreme Being indeed was the creator of the universe, but He did not interfere with the functioning of His creation. The Deists denied that Old and New Testaments were divinely inspired; they doubted the reality of miracles; they held that Jesus of Nazareth was not the Redeemer, but a grand moral teacher merely. Thoroughly rationalistic, the Deists discarded all elements of mystery in religion, trying to reduce Christian teaching to a few simple truths. They, and the Unitarians who arose about the same time, declared that man was good by nature, not corrupt; they hoped to liberate mankind from superstition and fear. (emphases mine)
UNQUOTE

Many, but not all Deists, conceived God in terms of a mechanistic model. God was the Perfect Master watch-maker who simply wound up his perfect watch (creation), and stepped away from it because it's impossible for a Perfect Being to improve upon his perfect creation. Personal intervantion by God into his creation was entirely unnecessary.

But as Kirk points out, Deism was never really systemitized. Deists, therefore, were all over the map in the beliefs they held. For example, Herbert of Cerbury considred to be the "Father of English Deism" held to these five "tenets":

a.) There is one supreme God

b.) That he ought to be worshiped

c.) That virtue and piety are the cheif parts of divine worship

d.) That humans should be sorry for their sins and repent of them

e.) That divine goodness demands the dispensing of rewards and punishments both in his world and in the next.

We can readily see how Deism rapidly evolved into some of its more radical forms (such as held by Paine and Einstein) because these two all but denied that God is personal, and denied the existence of divine justice in this life or the next.

In my next post, we'll look at how Deism is an untenable religious philosophy.

Boxcar

boxcar

12-09-2004, 09:29 PM

Let's look for a while at some of the more serious (and insurmountable) difficulties of the world view known as Deism.

Deists' understanding of God is incompatible with their position on miracles, including the miracle of Special Revelation. Since they posit that God performed the miracle of creation ex nihilo, it follows logically from the very nature and power of this kind of God that other lesser miracles are possible! Walking on water is no problem for a God who created water. Multiplying loaves and fishes is no problem for a God who created all matter. To make a human being through a female ovum is no problem for a God who made the world from nothing. It is thoroughly self-defeating to admit the miracle of creation and, yet, deny the possibilities of other miracles.

Additionally, the Deists' mechanistic model of God is invalid. They posit this model based on the "perfection" of God. The Deists claim that a "perfect" creation would be one that does not demand his personal attention and miraculous intercommunication. The more perfect the mechanic, the more perfect the machine, they reason. And the most perfect mechanic could only create the most perfect machine -- a machine that would require no attention -- no "tuneups". However, most Deists will also concede that God is Personal. (Most deists believe in prayer, for example! But why pray if God is Impersonal and not going to hear, let alone answer!?) But once they admit to this, then this God would have to be Perfectly Personal, and, therefore, one who would interact, intervene and communciate with his creation. He would certainly be less than perfectly Personal, if he did not! Again, it is self-defeating to admit that God is Personal, yet disallow intercommunication from the supernatural realm to the natural realm.

But even more than this, Deists (even the more radical types who might not believe that God isn't Personal) appeal to Nature -- to the Natural Realm -- for their uderstanding of God. Yet, how can they ignore the fact that God must indeed be Personal since he was concerned enough and cared enough to create in the first place!? If he was concerned enough in the beginning when he created everything, why wouldn't he care now when mankind is desparately in need of his help? If God's dismissive attitude toward us is, "You've made your bed, now lie in it", how does this attitude speak to his Perfect Goodness? To his Perfect Love? And certainly, a God who is Wise enough and Powerful enough to create ex nihilio would have no problem in helping man out of his predicatament.

Again, Nature teaches ust that almost all his living creatures are "pesonal" to some extent. A very tiny percentage are solitary, autonomous creatures. We humans are most certainly personal and imperfect. Again, wouldn't a Perfectly Personal God demonstrate his Perfections by his miraculous and personal commerce with his creatures? Or would such a God leave us to "stew in our own juices" and provide no remedies for us?

I could go on with additional arguments, but this already too long. Suffice it to say that the period of human history known as the "Age of Enlightment", ironically, was one of the darkest. As the Apostle said,

Rom 1:21-23
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
NAS

And again,

Rom 3:10-18
There is none righteous, not even one; 11 There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; 12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one. " 13 "Their throat is an open grave, With their tongues they keep deceiving," "The poison of asps is under their lips"; 14 "Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness"; 15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood, 16 Destruction and misery are in their paths, 17 And the path of peace have they not known. " 18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes."
NAS

The unregenerate mind, no matter how smart, how great its IQ, is totally incapable of understanding spiritual realities. As Jesus said,

John 3:3
3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see (i.e. understand) the kingdom of God."
NAS

Boxcar

Secretariat

12-09-2004, 11:57 PM

Box,

After reading your posts here, and in the one where you keep posting to yourself, I realize more than ever why the Founders focused on Freedom of Religion in that First amendment and why the Supreme Court affirmed Seperation of Church and State. You are the reason.

boxcar

12-10-2004, 12:05 AM

Secretariat wrote:

Box,

After reading your posts here, and in the one where you keep posting to yourself, I realize more than ever why the Founders focused on Freedom of Religion in that First amendment and why the Supreme Court affirmed Seperation of Church and State. You are the reason.

And knowing you and concluding from reading many of your posts that you're a bit light in the loafers, I fully supsect that you still think that Deism is an enlightened philosophy.

And I wasn't aware that PA's forum here is the state from which I'm supposed to refrain from posting things pertaining to the Christian Faith...or even other faiths. You're a wee bit confused, aren't you? Why don't you appeal to a Higher Power...which in this case would be PA, since he runs this place?

Boxcar

Secretariat

12-10-2004, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by boxcar
Secretariat wrote:

Box,

After reading your posts here, and in the one where you keep posting to yourself, I realize more than ever why the Founders focused on Freedom of Religion in that First amendment and why the Supreme Court affirmed Seperation of Church and State. You are the reason.

And knowing you and concluding from reading many of your posts that you're a bit light in the loafers, I fully supsect that you still think that Deism is an enlightened philosophy.

And I wasn't aware that PA's forum here is the state from which I'm supposed to refrain from posting things pertaining to the Christian Faith...or even other faiths. You're a wee bit confused, aren't you? Why don't you appeal to a Higher Power...which in this case would be PA, since he runs this place?

Boxcar

I never said you shouldn't keep posting to yourself. By all means, please do.

btw..you'll be happy to know I will be out of town until next Friday so you can enjoy some tranquilty from my posts and focus on LJB and Eq and Form and Hcap.

Happy Holidays Box.

boxcar

12-10-2004, 12:23 AM

Secretariat wrote:

I never said you shouldn't keep posting to yourself. By all means, please do.

btw..you'll be happy to know I will be out of town until next Friday so you can enjoy some tranquilty from my posts and focus on LJB and Eq and Form and Hcap.

Happy Holidays Box.

You think too highly of yourself, sir. I rely not on finding "tranquility" on what you post or don't. Your posts are of no significance to me because your contributions to discussions are nominal at best.

'm sorry to say, especially at this time of the year.

But Merry CHRISTmas to you, Sec!

Boxcar

hcap

12-10-2004, 08:16 AM

BoxheadAnd yada, yada, yada.

Geesh...you're one to talk about pontificating! I asked you a simple question about a particular parable that Jesus himself interpreted, and instead of answering specifically, you give us a lecture about the supposed esoteric nature of parables.

I was right, wasn't I, when I said earlier that I can show you parables that wouldn't be to your liking?You can not say "this is what Jesus himself interpreted", without presuposing the literal understanding of the Bible as your starting point. Do you also conclude the earth was created in 7 days? Or Noah saved all the species on earth by building a very large boat? How far will you go to prop up your bible-totin' rhetoric?

Surely you must allow for some wiggle room claiming the Bible is the literal revelation of God to man. And what do you think of other scriptures being revelations as well?

boxcar

12-10-2004, 03:03 PM

hcap wrote:

BoxheadYou can not say "this is what Jesus himself interpreted", without presuposing the literal understanding of the Bible as your starting point. Do you also conclude the earth was created in 7 days? Or Noah saved all the species on earth by building a very large boat? How far will you go to prop up your bible-totin' rhetoric?

Another spinmeister and one who projects his failings unto me, as well! I "pressupose" nothing, sir. It is you who presuppose that the bible cannot and should not be trusted to say what it says.

I have no time to devote to your dishonest inquiries as to what I take literally and what I don't. I've already have explained succinctly what some of the major hermeneutical principles are that guide me in the interprative process.

I must ask you, 'cap: I take it that you have read secular books -- books of all stripes, fact, fiction, history, science, biographical, etc., etc.? Do you always call into question, at the reading of every other word, the author's intent, meaning and even integrity? Asked differently, do you believe that the author of any secular work is out to deceive you...to trick you...to spin...to fool you...to con you...to mislead you and, therefore, question at every turn whether you can believe what he or she is saying on an a priori basis?

Now back to parables of Jesus: If you can't bring yourself to believe that Jesus interpreted many (or perhaps in your case -- even any) of his parables, then what is your logical ground for thinking that Jesus uttered so much as one parable?

Surely you must allow for some wiggle room claiming the Bible is the literal revelation of God to man. And what do you think of other scriptures being revelations as well?

"Some wiggle room"? What a joke! In your case, you would probably take only about 1% of the bible literally!

But to answer your question: Yes! But...unlike you,..only if I have good hermeneutical reasons for interpreting figuratively or even alllegorically.

Boxcar

hcap

12-11-2004, 07:13 AM

To take anything in life as absolutely true, on face value, is silly. The more the "tale" is told, the more the tale changes. This doesn’t mean the tale is false, but that the tale originally told has, whether you like it or not "evolved". Or in most cases Devolved. The further back in time, the more distorted.

So, are these literally true?

1-Was the earth was created in 7 days?

2- Noah saved all the species on earth by building a very large boat?

3-The immediate appearance of man on earth?
Evolution having no place in the formation of man?

About Samuel and the murder of infants.

Samuel was elder statesman to Saul, the King of Israel. In the first days of Saul's reign, he told Saul that the Lord wanted the Amalekites--who hundreds of years earlier had been in conflict with Israel--destroyed utterly.

The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD. Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. (1 Samuel 15:1-3)

God urged the slaughter of suckling babes--infants feeding at the breasts of their mother. Because of something their ancestors did four centuries earlier? Did the Lord forget that he inspired the Kings and Ezekiel authors to command that the sins of the fathers should not be visited on the children?

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sins. (2 Kings 14:6)

The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. (Ezekiel 18:20)

Thomas Paine expressed his objection to Samuel's story in a letter from Paris to a Christian friend in 1797:

"What makes this pretended order to destroy the Amalekites appear the worse, is the reason given for it. The Amalekites, four hundred years before, according to the account in Exodus 18 ...had opposed the Israelites coming into their country, and this the Amalekites had a right to do, because the Israelites were the invaders, as the Spaniards were the invaders of Mexico. This opposition by the Amalekites, at that time, is given as a reason, that the men, women, infants and sucklings, sheep and oxen, camels and asses, that were born four hundred years afterward, should be put to death"

"The most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books....If you [even] once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement, there will not be left a single sentence of those books, which, if appearing to anyone difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away as a statement, in which intentionally, the author declared what was not true." --St. Augustine in Epistula, p. 28

boxcar

12-12-2004, 04:42 PM

The "Ever-So-Objective" Hcap wites"

To take anything in life as absolutely true, on face value, is silly.

Err..including the above statement, right!?

I'm disappointed in you, 'Cap. Fer sure I thought you'd be a quick study. Didn't you read my two posts on this very thread wherein I proved the falsity of Deism? What didn't you understand about the absurdities of self-defeatingpremises or statements? So...what do you do? You advise me to not take anything in life at face value 'cause it's "silly" -- yet at the same time, fully expecting me to do the very thing against what you advise, i.e. take your statement above at face value as being absolutely true! Oh..did I hear you object by saying this was not your intetion? Well, then, this objection would beg the question, for it would have to be asked: Then, sir, why did you make a meaningless statement? Tsk, tsk. Shame all over you!

But your statement adds more insult to injury because "in life" (your words) we take many things at face value on a daily basis -- so many things, in fact, it doesn't even enter into our consciousness that we're doing it.. Here are but some examples: When financiers and investors, etc. pick up the WSJ to check the closing markets numbers, I think most, if not all, take what's in print at "face value".

When we pick up a newspaper and read about a terrible car accident that killed one of our neighbors the night before, do we run down to the morgue or the furneral parlor to see if the body is there?

When we hear a radio report of an earthquake of a 7.2 magnitide that rocked some poor country, do we run out to verify the accuracy (truthfullness, factuality) of that intensity?

Oh...do I hear another objection from you? Er..what's that? You say that I'm taking things out of context because you were talking about old "tales", old "stories", writings of "antiquity"? But, sir...you did say, anything in life.

But I would be terribly remiss if I didn't offer up this last practical example of how numerous people, who within the framework of one of our most cherished and necessary institutions, are required on a daily basis to initially take things at face value! Doesn't our very system of jurisprudence demand that jurists take a presumption of innocene whenever a defendant pleads innocent to the charge[s] brought against him or her? In fact, don't all civilized societies subscribe to this fundamentally important legal tenet? By why is this tenet nearly universally accepted? Is it not to ensure that a person receive a fair hearing...a fair trial? That a person can only be declared "guilty" upon careful examination and consideration of the evidence?

But even more than this...I must also ask: With whom lies the burden of proof? Not with the defendant, does it? Isn't the prosecution required to prove beyond a reaonable doubt the guilt of the defendant? Yes, prove! Prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

And now finally..I find your dishonesty,unfairness and hypocrisy to be egregiously offensive; for not only have you exhorted me to not do the very thing you've done, but in addition you have done the very thing to which you have said you're opposed! You have taken a few passages in scripture and presented them as "tales", "fables" or "myths" that cannot or should not be accepted as propositional truth merely on the face of it all! But on what grounds? What scholarly inquiries have you made? What attempts at anything resembling a worthwhile, personal investigation into these matters have you made? All you're doing is pointing your accusing finger at a few passages in the bible into which you think errors, mistakes,discrepancies, corruptions, or even worse...inconsistencies or contradictions have crept into the bible by an evolving -- or devolving, process as you have said.

In short, you have brought a presumption of guilt upon Holy Writ, and demonstrate your own coarse indecency by appealing to the witness of the infidel Thomas Paine, who was a known radical deist. In fact, sir, this man was so extreme in his views that many of his contemparies did all they could do to distance themselves from those ideas. Many, seemingly, considered him an embarrassment, quite frankly! (In fact, if I'm not mistaken, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Paine lamented of ever putting his Age of Reason into print!) So...you call as your "witness" this "enlightened" man whose pronounced biases would prohibit him from finding very much of anything agreeable in the scriptures? "How fair of you"! "How balanced"!

How shall I deal with a mischief-maker like you? Yes, scripture enjoins Christians "to have an answer to every man for the hope that is within us" -- to cultivate the ability for defending our faith with reasoned answers. But by the same token, we are to do so with wisdom and prudence; for Jesus himself taught:

Matt 7:6
6 "Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
NAS

Because I have taken to heart the above admonition, I refuse to engage myself with dishonest inquiries for any prolonged period of time. Therefore, what I'll do in this situation is that this one time, I will address the scriptures which you think have "devolved" into "tales" and demonstrate that the texts you have brought forth as your "evidence" are perfectly consistent with one another, and, even more importantly, harmonzie perfectly with the entire counself of God.

Of course, the burden for "convincing" you of the truth does not lie with me. I have no doubt that you will find the spiritual truth I present to you as being objectionable. That's fine. That's your problem. All I need to do is demonstate the truthfullness of my defense. All I have to show on these particular matters, which you have presented, is that scripture is consistent with itself, despite the apparent contradictions or supposed moral dilemmas within those texts. This in no way implies that you will necessarily find the truth palatable or agreeable.

Because I suspect that you will find the truth objectionable, you will naturally raise more objections. And then if I were to address those and demonstrate the truthfulness of my defense a second time, you would then object to those truths, as well. For this reason, I will not play with you the "dog chasing tail" game. I trust you understand me perfectly? (Of course, you have my permission and blessing, sir, to enter into a state of perpetual dizziness, if you should so choose.)

After I consume a bite of lunch, I will start work on those passages, and probably construct a post later on today.

Boxcar

hcap

12-12-2004, 06:48 PM

Boxhead,

You only have convinced yourself that in your latest entry you have, as you boast ...

"wherein I proved the falsity of Deism"

Talk about pontificating.

To bad Jefferson and quite a few of our other founding fathers did not have your hermeneutic insights when they realized the clergy were not always God fearin'

Here's Jefferson in 1815. What he loathed was "priest-craft." Something you seem to practice

"Of publishing a book on religion, my dear Sir, I never had an idea. I should as soon think of writing for the reformation of Bedlam, as of the world of religious sects. Of these there must be at least ten thousand, every individual of every one of which believes all are wrong but his own. To undertake to bring them all right, would be like undertaking, single handed, to fell the forests of America.... I abuse the priests indeed, who have so much abused the pure and holy doctrines of their master, and who have laid me under no obligations of reticence as to the tricks of their trade. The genuine system of Jesus, and the artificial structures they have erected, to make them the instruments of wealth, power, and preeminence to themselves, are as distinct things in my view as light and darkness: and while I have classed them with soothsayers and necromancers, I place him among the greatest of the reformers of morals, and scourges of priest-craft that have ever existed. They felt him as such, and never rested until they had silenced him by death. But his heresies against Judaism prevailing in the long run, the priests have tacked about, and rebuilt upon them the temple which he destroyed, as splendid, as profitable, and as imposing as that."

Anyway, to get back to our original debate.
You seem to enjoy finding the extreme case of someones argument, and then use that out of context as though that is the entire argument.

I expressed this complete thought:

"To take anything in life as absolutely true, on face value, is silly. The more the "tale" is told, the more the tale changes. This doesn’t mean the tale is false, but that the tale originally told has, whether you like it or not "evolved". Or in most cases Devolved. The further back in time, the more distorted.

Not as you foolishly summarized

"You advise me to not take anything in life at face value 'cause it's "silly"

I did say "anything in life as absolutely true, on face value" Somehow you dropped that and the remaining expansion on that thought, about how historical antiquities are subject to further distortion.

Which of course would be a justified reason not to take literal interpretations of the Bible on ITS face valure. Or ABSOLUTE TRUTH

Then you proceed to falsly argue that I meant everything
we experience in our daily life as totally oblivious and unknowable and undiscernable to rational beings.
Amazing how you twist things to somehow prop up your babble.

By the way your example of "When financiers and investors, etc. pick up the WSJ to check the closing markets numbers, I think most, if not all, take what's in print at "face value", --is only a small part of taking things on face value. The larger issue would be, DO you take your BROKERS word on face value, or do independent research?

You also babbled about " When we pick up a newspaper and read about a terrible car accident that killed one of our neighbors the night before, do we run down to the morgue or the furneral parlor to see if the body is there?

Well its one thing to not question an easily verifiable situation in life, and another to totally swallow a tale told by our neocon leaders claiming a "cakewalk" in Iraq. Or WMDs that pose a serious danger.

Absolute truth is harder to discern the larger the issue. That is when weighing and balancing facts becomes difficult work. Reading comics on face value, or watchiing mindless tv is not what I was refering to. The attempt to justify war or peace, using relative versus absolute truths of the Bible, is what this discussion is about.

As you say "I'm disappointed in you, Box'. Fer sure I thought you'd be a quick study.
In at least honesty.

I suspect you cannot answer my simple questions about literal interpretations of the Bible. You know if you do I will demollish your apologetic answers as totally absurd, using just common sense and scientific facts. This is why you are dancing around these issues. Once again here are the questions:

So, are these literally true?

1-Was the earth was created in 7 days?

2- Noah saved all the species on earth by building a very large boat?

3-The immediate appearance of man on earth?
Evolution having no place in the formation of man?

And please answer the argument of Paine, not simply denounce him.

"This opposition by the Amalekites, at that time, is given as a reason, that the men, women, infants and sucklings, sheep and oxen, camels and asses, that were born four hundred years afterward, should be put to death"

The only way you can support your reasoning is by circular argument. Specifically that the bible is inspired by God and cannot be wrong. How do we know that the bible is inspired by God, because the bible says so. Consequently
the principle of "Biblical Inerrancy" must be a given.

The "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" was produced at an international Summit Conference of evangelical leaders, held at the Hyatt Regency O'Hare in Chicago in the fall of 1978. This congress was sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The Chicago Statement was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars, including James Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham.
The Science of Interpreting the Bible.
HERMENEUTICAL THEORY

* Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy - with exposition

2.) A Short Statement

1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.

2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms: obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.

3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.

4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.

5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

More on Parables.

Matthew 13:34

"I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which
have been kept secret from the foundation of the world."

The discovery in 1945 of the Gnostic library unearthed at Nag Hammadi in Egypt, indicates perhaps Jesus had some familiarity with these teachings

Mysticism, Gnosticism and the Jewish Kabbalah are all very similar. Their path to God is to look for God within ourselves. If we take the view that God is within everything, that nature and the universe is the very embodiment of God, then our own inner Self is the most accessible point for experiencing an all-pervading Supreme Reality. This Gnostic view is powerfully presented by Jesus in Luke 17:20-21:

And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.”

The word “within” as it appears in the King James Bible has been translated in some modern bibles as “among.” These interpreters believe Jesus intended to say he himself was among them. However, this does not tally with preceding statements in the passage. Jesus says the kingdom of God cannot be observed. Therefore, Jesus could not have been talking about himself. He was observable. Jesus says the kingdom of God is not a place. It is neither “here” nor “there”. Thus Jesus could not have been referring to himself. We must take all physical descriptions of the kingdom, such as streets paved with gold and pearly gates, as metaphors because these things can be “observed.”

I said previously that the language of symbols is evident in all religious scriptures. Including he oldest Hindu, Buddist, and Christian, Islamic traditions. Among others

Jesus says in Matthew 13:15-23:

"For the heart of this people has become dull, and with their ears they scarcely hear, and they have closed their eyes lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart and return, and I should heal them.' "But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear. "For truly I say to you, that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see {it} and to hear what you hear, and did not hear {it} "Hear then the parable of the sower. "When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, the evil {one} comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is the one on whom seed was sown beside the road. "And the one on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, this is the man who hears the word, and immediately receives it with joy; yet he has no {firm} root in himself, but is {only} temporary, and when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he falls away. "And the one on whom seed was sown among the thorns, this is the man who hears the word, and the worry of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful. "And the one on whom seed was sown on the good soil, this is the man who hears the word and understands it; who indeed bears fruit, and brings forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty." (NAS)

The interpretation of this parable is one of growth within a mans heart. It should be primarily veiwed as an inner story of growth and transformation. One's own inner ground full of thorns and GOOD earth. A spiritual battle between the forces of good and evil taking place within our inner spiritual life has been the subject of fables and stories throughout all important scriptures, many pre-dating the NT.

The Parable of the Mustard Seed

Another parable He put forth to them, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field, which indeed is the least of all the seeds; but when it is grown it is greater than the herbs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches."

Birds symbolize the higher faculities of Man. A symbol that pre-dates Christianity. In fact as I have indicated before this parable is borrowed or re-used by Christian authors to point in a similiar way to growth of the spirit.

The main reason we are caught in a state of "sleep", is our attachment to things and ideas. There is a Hindu story about capturing monkeys. The keeper ties a jar to a tree. The jars opening is just large enough for a monkey to reach inside. The keeper fills the jar with berries and other monkey favorites. The hapless monkey smells the berries, reaches into the jar and grasps the goodies. The keeper returns, unties the jar and walks off with the monkey. Even as he gets dragged away the animal refuses to release the berries and open his hand too large now to remove.

These and other stories symbolize transformation, and the obstacles to transformation.

My Self Within the Heart
The Chhandogya Upanishad...

He is my self within the heart, smaller than a corn of rice, smaller than a corn of barley, smaller than a mustard seed, smaller than a canary seed or the kernel of a canary seed. He also is my self within the heart, greater than the earth, greater than the sky, greater than heaven, greater than all these worlds.

The catepillar becomes a butterfly

Tom

12-12-2004, 09:24 PM

This thread has now passed the Bible in terms of number of words. ;)

JustRalph

12-12-2004, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by Tom
This thread has now passed the Bible in terms of number of words. ;)

Closing in on Tolstoy.............

boxcar

12-12-2004, 10:03 PM

hcap presents these bible "difficulties":

About Samuel and the murder of infants.

Samuel was elder statesman to Saul, the King of Israel. In the first days of Saul's reign, he told Saul that the Lord wanted the Amalekites--who hundreds of years earlier had been in conflict with Israel--destroyed utterly.

From the bible:

The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD. Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. (1 Samuel 15:1-3)

God urged the slaughter of suckling babes--infants feeding at the breasts of their mother. Because of something their ancestors did four centuries earlier? Did the Lord forget that he inspired the Kings and Ezekiel authors to command that the sins of the fathers should not be visited on the children?

From the bible again:

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sins. (2 Kings 14:6)

The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. (Ezekiel 18:20)

Thomas Paine expressed his objection to Samuel's story in a letter from Paris to a Christian friend in 1797:

"What makes this pretended order to destroy the Amalekites appear the worse, is the reason given for it. The Amalekites, four hundred years before, according to the account in Exodus 18 ...had opposed the Israelites coming into their country, and this the Amalekites had a right to do, because the Israelites were the invaders, as the Spaniards were the invaders of Mexico. This opposition by the Amalekites, at that time, is given as a reason, that the men, women, infants and sucklings, sheep and oxen, camels and asses, that were born four hundred years afterward, should be put to death"

There are a few issues here which must be addressed:

1) the apparent contradiction between 2Ki 14:6; Ezk 18:20 and 1Sam 15:1-3

2) the Land issue and the question of ultimate ownership

3) God's righteous judgments pertaining to the slaughter of all the Amalekites

I will now briefly treat each of these issues in the order in which I have presented them.

Do the texts in 2Ki14:6; Ezk 18:20 contradict 1Sam15:1-3?

These passages only contradict if an interpreter ignores the three-fold context of the bible, i.e. the immediate context of the passage itself, the larger context of the book for the passage in consideration, and the largest context of the entire counsel of God.

The passage is 2Ki 14:6 is alluding back to Deut 24:16. The Book of Deuteronomy contains a large number of the laws, statutes and precepts that were given to Moses by God, and which Moses, in turn, revealed to the Israelites in the Wilderness prior to the Israelites entering the Promised Land. Broadly speaking, these laws could be reasonably be categorized as being moral, civil and ceremonial in nature. (I include in this latter classification all the dietary laws.) This is important to understand because Israel was indeed a Theocracy; therefore, these three aspects to God's Law covered every single aspect of Jewish life.

Respecting the civil aspects to the Law, as one would reasonably expect, these precepts governed the horizontal relationships between one Israelite and another. And even more than this -- between an Israelite and any "aliens" that chose to take up residence in the Land. We can get a better feel for this by reading some of the larger context of the Deutoronomic passage:

Deut 24:16-22
16 "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.

17 "You shall not pervert the justice due an alien or an orphan, nor take a widow's garment in pledge. 18 But you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and that the LORD your God redeemed you from there; therefore I am commanding you to do this thing.

19 "When you reap your harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be for the alien, for the orphan, and for the widow, in order that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. 20 When you beat your olive tree, you shall not go over the boughs again; it shall be for the alien, for the orphan, and for the widow. 21 When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, you shall not go over it again; it shall be for the alien, for the orphan, and for the widow. 22 And you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt; therefore I am commanding you to do this thing.
NAS

As we can clearly see here, all the stress is laid on the horizontal relationship between one person and another who would eventually live in the Land. Therefore, the verses in 2Ki 14:6 and Ezk 18:20 are alluding back to the giving of the Law in the Wilderness as recorded in Deut 24:16. Neither the judges in the Land or an individual Israelite could take it upon themselves to adminster punishment to a father for his son's sins or to a son for his father's sins. Now, how does this truth square with the text in 1Sam 15:1-3?

The answer should be obvious to all genuinely open and honest minds. In the Samuel passage, God himself is executing justice through the instrumentation of the nation of Israel! The nation of Israel wasn't taking it upon herself to execute justice. God was!

This passage in 1 Samuel was also alluding back to the time of the Israelites' sojourn in the Wilderness after the Lord freed them from their Egyptian masters. Note very carefully the language of this prophecy in Exodus:

Ex 17:14-16
14 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write this in a book as a memorial, and recite it to Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven." 15 And Moses built an altar, and named it The LORD is My Banner; 16 and he said, "The LORD has sworn; the LORD will have war against Amalek from generation to generation." NAS

This "war" was not between Israel and Amalek. No! Israel was only God's instrument of war. The war was between the LORD and Amalek! Therefore, there is no contradiction or any inconsistency between this passage or 1Sam 15:1-3 and the texts in Deut 24:16, 2Ki 14:6 or Ezk 18:20. Now, on to the next question.

To Whom Did the Land Ultimately Belong?

Paine complained that the Land "belonged" to the Amalekites hundreds of years before Israel moved in on their turf -- before Israel "invaded" it. (Illegally, I suppose. Where is the UN when you need it?) Paine's deism shines brightly through in his objection. Sure, looking at history from a strictly a horizontal perspective (which a consistent deist must do!), one can say that Israel "invaded" the poor Amalekites. But, alas, for Paine and all other deists, the bible most clearly portrays God in a Theistic light. This changes everything in a hurry! For now one must (or at least should) look at everything from two perspectives, i.e. horizontal and vertical.

Scripture is quite clear: The whole Earth belongs to the Lord. Therefore, God is the Landlord of the Earth; all its human inhabitants are Tenants! Guess who has every eviction right and authority?

The supporting scriptures are too numerous to quote, so I'll just cite several: Ex 9:29; Deut 10:14; Job 41:11; Ps. 24:1, 50:10-12; Dan 4:34, 35; 1Cor 10:26.

And we can't speak to Ultimate Land Ownership, apart from considering the sovereignty of God. Whether we like it or not, whether we acknolwedge it or not, whether we believe it or not -- God rules in the affairs of
men, (cf. Dan 2:20, 21; 4:35.) It is God who "removes kings and establishes kings". And if there are any red letter only bible readers out there, Jesus, too taught this very thing.

When Jesus refused to answer Pontius Pilate at his trial, Pilate boasted by warning Jesus with a rhetorical question that he possessed the authority to let Jesus go or to execute him. This is how Jesus responded:

John 19:10-11
10 Pilate therefore said to Him, "You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?" 11 Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above;
NAS

The third consideration with respect to this Land issue is that the God of the bible is a covenant God. God, throughout all human history, has made covenants with his people. He made a covenant with the Patriarchs, commonly known as the Abrahamic Covenant. Over and over again, God declared to Abraham, Issac and Jacob that he would give them the Land that flows with milk and honey. And from the time the Lord first promised this right up until the time the Israelites went into the Land to take possession, the Land was literally filled with exceedingly wicked, ungodly people. God also promised to drive those pagans out of the Land -- to make room for the new "tenants". This is just but one of any large number of passages that speaks to this promise, i.e. Abrahamic Covenant:

Ex 13:3-5
3 And Moses said to the people, "Remember this day in which you went out from Egypt, from the house of slavery; for by a powerful hand the LORD brought you out from this place. And nothing leavened shall be eaten. 4 On this day in the month of Abib, you are about to go forth. 5 And it shall be when the LORD brings you to the land of the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, which He swore to your fathers to give you, a land flowing with milk and honey, that you shall observe this rite in this month.
NAS

Moreover, we must remember that there would have been a tremendous moral problem if God had not kept his covenant with the Patriarchs -- if he had failed to make good on any of his promises.

Was God Unjust When He Commanded The Slaughter of All the Amalekites?

Lastly, we come down to the moral considerations because plainly people of Paine's ilk would consider God to be unjust for declaring war on anyone. But as pointed out previously (in this thread) God executes justice in this world and in the the age to come. Scripture is clear: God's judgments are altogether righteous (cf. Gen 18:25, Deut 32:4, Ps 119:75; Rom 3:4, 5; 9:14).

Scripture also teaches that every man will be judged according to the knowledge (light) he has from God, and how he acted upon that light (see the Parable of the Talents, Mat 25:14-30 and the Parable of the Steward, Lk 12: 41-48).

Small children, let alone infants "sucking at the breast" have not reached the age of accountability. And scriputre indicates that such "innocents" will not enter into judgment with God in terms of incurring punishment.

When King David had Bathsheba's husband Uriah the Hittite murdered in battle, this act was evil in the sight of the
Lord. So when Bathseba conceived a child by David, the Lord punished David by taking the infant's life (cf. 2Sam 12:15-23, Job 30:23). Upon hearing that his sick child died, David said:

2 Sam 12:23
23 "But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me."
NAS

David was alluding to that place called Sheol in the OT (which, evidently, had two "compartments" -- one for the just and one for the unjust), which is where all the OT saints went and remained until the resurrection of their Messiah.
At any rate, David fully expected to see his child in the next life.

Looking, therefore, at the slaughter of the infants from God's perspective, I think it's very safe to say that they're far better off than they would have been if the had been permitted to live to the age of accountabilty. Their loss of physical life at such a young age assured them a place with God in the next. The thing to remember is that the "fathers" were exceedingly wicked. It wasn't very likely at all that these infants' evil parents, living as they did in an utterly wicked culture, would have brought them up in the fear and knowledge and admonition of the Lord.

In closing, then, we find that there are no contradictions or inconsistencies concerning any of these passages, nor do any of them pose any moral dilemmas. As it is written:

Rom 3:4
4 May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar...
NAS

And this includes your "venerable" Mr. Paine, 'Cap.

Boxcar

boxcar

12-13-2004, 01:09 AM

hcap complains:

You only have convinced yourself that in your latest entry you have, as you boast ...

"wherein I proved the falsity of Deism"

Talk about pontificating.

Geesh, 'Cap, did I miss something? Did you refute my argument? When? Where? On what planet did you beam your argument?

To bad Jefferson and quite a few of our other founding fathers did not have your hermeneutic insights when they realized the clergy were not always God fearin'

You Liberals are all cut from the same bolt. You and EQ and others are perpetual fishermen of herring -- in order to always have an abundant supply of red ones to toss into a conversation or debate whenever your back is against the wall. I thought the issue was the bible?1` Now it's clergy? You're as pathetic as Eq!

Anyway, to get back to our original debate.
You seem to enjoy finding the extreme case of someones argument, and then use that out of context as though that is the entire argument.

I expressed this complete thought:

"To take anything in life as absolutely true, on face value, is silly. The more the "tale" is told, the more the tale changes. This doesn’t mean the tale is false, but that the tale originally told has, whether you like it or not "evolved". Or in most cases Devolved. The further back in time, the more distorted.

Not as you foolishly summarized

"You advise me to not take anything in life at face value 'cause it's "silly"

I did say "anything in life as absolutely true, on face value" Somehow you dropped that and the remaining expansion on that thought, [b]about how historical antiquities are subject to further distortion.

Well, then, let me ask you again, sir: Does "anything in life as absolutely true at face value" include your first sentence? You did say anything in life, which, according to my hermenutic is an exceedingly broad, all-inclusive phrase.

All you did with the balance of that paragraph is to show that that all-inclusive phrase, i.e. "anything in life" includes the rest of what you stated -- which logically it would.

All I did was point out to you the self-defeating nature of that first sentence -- that your all-inclusive phrase necessairly must include not only that first sentence-- but anything else in life you might write, for that matter!

So, I ask you again, sir: How can I take, your first sentence "as absolutely true" and "at face value", since you told me that it's silly to take "anything in life" (including the first sentence!) as absolutely true and at face value?

Let me spell out your dilemma: If you tell me that it would be "silly" for me to (therefore, I should not or cannot ) take anything in life (including anything you might say) as "absolutely true" and at "face value" because...anything you might say would necessarily (i.e. logically) have to be included in your all-inclusive phrase "anything in life", then your statement is meaningless -- absurd.

On the other hand, if you tell me that I can or should take anything in life (which would necessarily include anything you might say) "as absoutlely true" and "at face value", then you have to show me how it logically wouldn't be "silly" for me to do so.

Which of course would be a justified reason not to take literal interpretations of the Bible on ITS face valure. Or ABSOLUTE TRUTH

No, sir, it would not be a "justified reason". Just because a book is old does not give you license to prejudge it.
All fair-minded, honest truth-seekers would, like jurists in our jurisprudence system , presume the author's innocence" (or the Book's), until such time it could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that there were material corruptions, errors, mistakes, inconsistencies or contradictions in the author's work. Fair-minded people would not bring their personal presuppositions to bear upon the Book, anymore than fair-minded jurists would allow their personal prejudices to cloud or interfere with their fair, impartial judgments.

One name folks have for people like you, incidentially, is judgmental. I feel sorry if any defendant gets you to sit on a jury! God help him or her!

By the way your example of "When financiers and investors, etc. pick up the WSJ to check the closing markets numbers, I think most, if not all, take what's in print at "face value", --is only a small part of taking things on face value. The larger issue would be, DO you take your BROKERS word on face value, or do independent research?

I take it, then, that your phrase anything in life doesn't mean what it would to most people -- that you didn't intend it to be all-inclusive phrase?

You also babbled about " When we pick up a newspaper and read about a terrible car accident that killed one of our neighbors the night before, do we run down to the morgue or the furneral parlor to see if the body is there?

Well its one thing to not question an easily verifiable situation in life, and another to totally swallow a tale told by our neocon leaders claiming a "cakewalk" in Iraq. Or WMDs that pose a serious danger.

You complain about about this example, too...so I'll ask again:

I take it, then, that your phrase anything in life doesn't mean what it would to most people -- that you didn't intend it to be an all-inclusive phrase?

I suspect you cannot answer my simple questions about literal interpretations of the Bible

'Cap, 'Cap...get a grip on yourself. For starters, I don't have the time (especially at this time of the year) to get bogged down in posting long posts. Yes, I've had some time this week, and will for the next couple of days until my house guests arrive...after that, I won't be posting that much on this forum.

Secondly, I don't think there are very many people on this forum who want to wade through more more lengthy posts.

Thirdly, I've already explained (albeit in a condensed form) how I go about interpreting scripture. I am not, despite your insistence to the contrary, a "literalist". Good grief, Cap, if you can't understand this or take my word for it, then how could we ever proceed with discussing other matters?

Fourthly, you can't or won't address the absurd statement you made about how it's "silly" to "take anything in life" as "absolutely true" and "at face value". If you're not honest enough to admit to it being an absurd statement -- of the Catch-22 type , then why would I think you'd be honest enough to assess my marerial rightly, or answer future questions truthfully.

You know if you do I will demollish your apologetic answers as totally absurd, using just common sense and scientific facts. This is why you are dancing around these issues. Once again here are the questions:

You're a joke. If you think you're such a hot shot, address my objections to your absurd statment, AND refute my argument against deism.

Meanwhile...have a great one...

Boxcar

Dave Schwartz

12-13-2004, 01:13 AM

This thread, which began as political in nature, is now turning where all such threads must: to a demand for "proof" of the Bible's veracity.

I once attended a biblical lecture on bible truths and apologetics. The speaker began with an absolutely great quote:

The Bible is not a book of proof. It is a book of Salvation.

While I find Boxie's posts literate and well-thought and the responses (well, some of them, anyway) equally point-filled, the bottom line eventually turns to the fact that those attempting to "prove" the existence of God have a vastly different agenda than those trying to deny the existence of God.

Those wishing to believe in God ultimately do so through an act of faith and are rewarded through their own lives and experiences.

Those denying the existence in God do so because they need absolute proof before believing in anything. That is also reflected in their lives.

The crossover from the second to the first group never comes as a result of an "academic exercise." It can only be accomplished as an act of faith.

Sincerely,
Dave Schwartz
"Group 1"

Dave Schwartz

12-13-2004, 01:15 AM

Oops. Posted the reply to the wrong thread.

Equineer

12-13-2004, 03:02 AM

One of my "credibility" issues with Boxcar's posts in this thread concern his confounding methods for debating in this electronic medium.

He barrages us with alleged biblical text as if most online readers are holed up in hotel rooms or sitting in public or penal-system libraries, where bibles are often conveniently accessible.

My take is that Boxcar tries to bully us, knowing that not one in a hundred readers can/will authenticate his biblical passages.

Consider this example of Boxcar's sly methods:

Matt 7:6
6 "Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
NAS

Now really... how many readers will have convenient access to the obscure North American Scriptures version of the Old and New Testaments, which are primarily intended as purely academic research tools for Mormon theologians?

=====>

Turning now to the real question of whether the purpose of our 18th century revolution was to create a Christian nation...

We must point out to Boxcar that Mormon theologians have discovered that Jesus converted North America to Christianity long before the Mayflower Compact unequivocally imposed Christianity onto the Pilgrims.

Thus, after centuries of continuous Christian domination, why would a violent 18th century revolution be needed to create a Christian nation?

Sorry, Boxcar, you have to look to the philosophies of the Freemasons and Deists who were immersed in the 18th century Age of Reason to understand our revolution.

Indeed, we revolted against religious tyranny to create our secular democratic republic in America.

Again, Boxcar, I say to you... "In Reason We Trust." :)

boxcar

12-13-2004, 03:04 AM

Dave Schwartz wrote:

I once attended a biblical lecture on bible truths and apologetics. The speaker began with an absolutely great quote:

The Bible is not a book of proof. It is a book of Salvation.

While I find Boxie's posts literate and well-thought and the responses (well, some of them, anyway) equally point-filled, the bottom line eventually turns to the fact that those attempting to "prove" the existence of God have a vastly different agenda than those trying to deny the existence of God[/b].

God cannot be proved. We can only look at the evidence for God. If God could be proved, Faith wouldn't be required.

Those wishing to believe in God ultimately do so through an act of faith and are rewarded through their own lives and experiences.

Very true!

Those denying the existence in God do so because they need absolute proof before believing in anything. That is also reflected in their lives.

The crossover from the second to the first group never comes as a result of an "academic exercise." It can only be accomplished as an act of faith.

This is true -- but the question must be asked: What, then, is the nature of biblical faith? Of what quality is it? Is it blind faith? Or is it rational faith? Is it reasoned faith?

I believe faith of the bible is most definitely not of the first type. I don't think God expects us to accept anything "blindly". I believe he expects us to use the minds he has given us for inquiry, for critical analysis, for investigation, to seek for answers. I believe he expects us to use our deductive and inductive reasoning powers. Now...why do I believe this?

1) God's impeccable character.

2) God made us in his image.

3) Because Reasoned or Rational Faith seems to be taught in the bible. The texts that immediately come to mind (which I'll only cite) are Acts 9:22; Acts 17:2ff (a very powerful passage, btw), Acts 18:19; Isa 1:18

4) Because Christians have the mind of Christ (1Cor 2:16)

But despite all this, at the end of the day, the acquring of biblical faith is purely a spiritual matter -- which if I'm understanding you correctly, Dave, I think you would conclude this, also.

Boxcar

hcap

12-13-2004, 08:05 AM

"To take anything in life as absolutely true, on face value, is silly. The more the "tale" is told, the more the tale changes. This doesn’t mean the tale is false, but that the tale originally told has, whether you like it or not "evolved". Or in most cases Devolved. The further back in time, the more distorted.

Absolutely true requires 100% certainty.
The usage of Face value is derived from economics.

Face value: WordNet Dictionary

Definition:

1. [n] the apparent worth as opposed to the real worth
2. [n] the value of a security that is set by the company
issuing it; unrelated to market value

You continue to argue semantics, and continue to refuse to deal with the question of absolute truth vs relative truth as expressed in the bible.

If you like I will agree that this statement itself is not to be taken at face value. In fact ALL discussions ALL of us are having on this board naturally are open to question. So what? The fact that inconseqential matters may be accepted as a given, without much reflection does not mean your take on the bible or "Gods' Justice" should as well. I will even stipulate to "somethings" in life, rather than "anything" in life, may be taken as face value. Of course this is a practical matter in the process of living, rather than necesssarily BEING true from a philosophical point of view. As you know your senses do not present 100% of the Universe to your mind. The visible spectrum is only a small part of the electromatic spectrum. How can you be 100% certain of reality if you are not experiencing 100% of reality? But for the sake of getting you to answer my questions, I will assume that you, Boxcar are blessed with the ability to recognize certain events as "absolutetly true".

Now please answer my questions.

So, are these literally true?

1-Was the earth was created in 7 days?

2- Noah saved all the species on earth by building a very large boat?

3-The immediate appearance of man on earth?
Evolution having no place in the formation of man?

Now, as far as Samuel and your response.

"The answer should be obvious to all genuinely open and honest minds. In the Samuel passage, God himself is executing justice through the instrumentation of the nation of Israel! The nation of Israel wasn't taking it upon herself to execute justice. God was!

This "war" was not between Israel and Amalek. No! Israel was only God's instrument of war. The war was between the LORD and Amalek! Therefore, there is no contradiction or any inconsistency between this passage or 1Sam 15:1-3 and the texts in Deut 24:16, 2Ki 14:6 or Ezk 18:20.

So Gods Justice demanded suckling babes to be slaughtered. Very reassuring that it wasn't Israel to take it upon itself to go smight infants

You further state

" Scripture is quite clear: The whole Earth belongs to the Lord. Therefore, God is the Landlord of the Earth; all its human inhabitants are Tenants! Guess who has every eviction right and authority? "

So God decided it was time to evict a tenant? Why was it necessary to kill the tenants' infants in the process?

Then you state

"And we can't speak to Ultimate Land Ownership, apart from considering the sovereignty of God. Whether we like it or not, whether we acknolwedge it or not, whether we believe it or not -- God rules in the affairs of
men, (cf. Dan 2:20, 21; 4:35.) It is God who "removes kings and establishes kings". And if there are any red letter only bible readers out there, Jesus, too taught this very thing. "

Please enlighten me on WHY God decided to smight the Amalekites. What was their sin? Was it another case of Sodom and Gommorrah?

boxcar

12-13-2004, 03:02 PM

Equineer wrote:

One of my "credibility" issues with Boxcar's posts in this thread concern his confounding methods for debating in this electronic medium.

He barrages us with alleged biblical text as if most online readers are holed up in hotel rooms or sitting in public or penal-system libraries, where bibles are often conveniently accessible.

My take is that Boxcar tries to bully us, knowing that not one in a hundred readers can/will authenticate his biblical passages.

Consider this example of Boxcar's sly methods:

Matt 7:6
6 "Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
NAS

Now really... how many readers will have convenient access to the obscure North American Scriptures version of the Old and New Testaments, which are primarily intended as purely academic research tools for Mormon theologians?

It is no wonder at all that you're "confounded". (I have preceived this about you for some time now.) I take it that you weren't able to find the "North American Scriptures", correct? And you just don't happen to have a copy of this "obscure" version handy inside your er... privy la for your reading pleasure, right? Poor boy. Permit to help you out. For truly, truly I say to you, if you know not what you're looking for, what hope will you have of ever finding it? Make sense? Well, here's what you should have been looking for:

New American Standard Bible Version Information

NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE
Copyright (C) 1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,1975,1977,1995 by
THE LOCKMAN FOUNDATION
A Corporation Not for Profit
LA HABRA, CA
All Rights Reserved

For more details on this er... "obscure" translation, which the complete version has been around for nearly 34 years, you may visit:

http://unbound.biola.edu/nasb_info.cfm

http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/bible/versions/nas.htm

http://kenanderson.net/bible/nasb.html

And in case you're still confused about the abbreviation typically employed for this version, i.e. "NAS", most of the time people just drop the "B" for Bible or "V" for Version to shorten up the abbreviation, as most bible translations are represnted with just three initials, e.g. NIV, TLB, ASV, KJV, etc.. So it is with the NAS.

Turning now to the real question of whether the purpose of our 18th century revolution was to create a Christian nation...

This part of this post should have been posted on that other thread. You are confounded, aren't you? But since you have decided to manifest more of your ignorance...

And when did this become the "real question"?. Who has said the Revolution was ever about Christianizing America?
Can you produce a quote? I thought the Revolution was always about Brits fleeing the tryranny in their homeland and fleeing from the religious oppression of the Church of England, and many Europeans, generally, fleeing the oppression of the Roman Church?

We must point out to Boxcar that Mormon theologians have discovered that Jesus converted North America to Christianity long before the Mayflower Compact unequivocally imposed Christianity onto the Pilgrims.

"We"??? You have a mouse in your pocket? A parakeet nesting in your hair? A rabbit in your hat? I don't think anyone here believes for a moment that I have ever thought this nation was founded by people whose purpose was to establish a national religion of any kind.

Man...are you desparate or what!? You appeal to the writings of a very well-known cult? Writings that are truly fictitious -- containing nothing but fables, myths and tales -- not to mention outright lies?

Thus, after centuries of continuous Christian domination, why would a violent 18th century revolution be needed to create a Christian nation?

Was I not in full agreement with Congress' declaration regarding the Tripoli Treaty? And with the language of that particular Article in the Treaty itself? You need to tell us, then -- why do you even present this straw man to us?

Again, Boxcar, I say to you... "In Reason We Trust." :)

Then, sir, you should have no difficulty whatsoever of refuting my post wherein I demonstrated the falsity of Deism -- assuming, of course, you can get your nose out of the Goddess of Reason's butt long enough to sit at your keyboard.

Boxcar

hcap

12-13-2004, 03:57 PM

Hosea 13:16 (King James Version)

16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

The question: is God good, or is he not? Ex. 34:6 describes God as good

...The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth
Similar praise comes from David in Ps. 145:7-9:

They shall abundantly utter the memory of thy great goodness, and shall sing of thy righteousness. The Lord is gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy. The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

Many people define goodness in terms of certain actions, such as feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, treating the ill, or educating the ignorant. For others, goodness is found in the willingness to risk one's life for another, perhaps by serving as a soldier, firefighter, or police officer. Some see goodness as neatly encapsulated in the aphorism "live and let live", whereas others salute the ancient Golden Rule. Clearly, goodness does not include such crimes as murder, rape, enslavement, or child abuse.

Child abuse is a recurring theme in the Old Testament, with both God and his prophets seeming to lack the respect due children in general.

The Bible is rife with examples of God's acting in a manner inconsistent with goodness. Consider the passage relating the story of Israel's war with Midian (Num. 31), God sanctions the very crimes that he should abhor, namely, murder, rape, enslavement, and child abuse.

First, he orders Moses to lead Israel in a war against the Midianites:

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites... (vss. 1-2)

Moses and the children of Israel obey:

And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.

The slaying continues in verse 8. Then in verse 9, the children of Israel take captive all the Midianite women and children, confiscating as well "the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods." Eventually, the captives are brought before Moses, who condemns to death all the male children and all the unvirginal women:

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. (vs. 17)

Moses then encourages his men to use the female children for (presumably) sexual pleasure:

But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. (vs. 18)

So in the 31st Chapter of Numbers occur God-sanctioned murder, rape, enslavement, and child abuse. First, God specifically orders the war -- he does not simply allow the Israelites to visit pain, suffering, and death upon another people, in which case God's role would be a passive one -- on the contrary, he assumes an active role by demanding the carnage. Second, all the men are summarily killed. Third, all the Midianite boys and unvirginal women are ordered to their deaths. Fourth, the Israelite men are urged to (presumably) enslave and rape the virgin Midianite girls. Most civilized people abhor all such actions as these.

Further
Ex. 20:5, in which God ordains punishment:

For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me...

God is acting contrary to goodness and peace, His action conflict with several unambiguous biblical directives on dealing with one's enemies:

...Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you... (Mt. 5:44)
And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other... (Lk. 6:29)

Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. (Rom. 12:20-21)

It should be expected that any work that would claim authorship or inspiration from a deity described as omniscient and omnipotent would reflecting the character of its primal source -- be completely devoid of any flaws or imperfections. In fact, one of the claims that has often been made on behalf of the Bible by some of its proponents, is that it consists of 66 books produced over a span of some 5,000 years by more than 40 different writers and yet does not have a single contradiction or flaw in it.

So Box why is this not iron clad? Why should there even be any doubt in anyones mind of inerrancy of the Bible? Shouldn't God have been able to inspire unquestionable clarity in understanding the Bible. And why do other cultures develop other scriptures seemingly in competion with the inspired word of the Bible for the souls of men?

In light of all the children being smiten, I prefer to view the Old Testament as containing distortions due to unavoidable errors of MEN. Those that compilled the separate books. Choose which to include as "official". Translated and then interpreted and in some cases misconstrued meanings and other cultural contexts other than their own.

http://www.wordwiz72.com/bible.html

"For all of the richness, insight and wisdom which the Bible provides, we must remember that it came forth from a people who began their existence as nomadic refugees, first from the lands of the fertile crescent, later from Egyptian slavery, and also from subsequent conquests by Babylon (Persia) and Rome. The books of the Bible were produced at differing times, under differing conditions, by writers who often did not know of each other and were not familiar with each other's works. The Bible itself was not even compiled into its current form until several CENTURIES after the last event in it (other than prophecies) had occurred. The early Christians did not go to their worship services carrying their neatly-packaged Bibles -- the Bible was still be developed and, in those early times, differing communities of Christians (not to mention the Jews from whom the Old Testament of the Bible originated) had very different and sometimes conflicting compilations which only a few could actually possess in those days before inexpensive printing and production methods. Not until early in the fourth century A.D. did councils of mortal men VOTE to decide which books would be IN and which would be OUT in the final compilation of a standardized Bible. (And even today the process is not fully agreed upon, as Catholic and Protestant Bibles have differing numbers of books, and varying translations of the Bible include or exclude various contested passages.)

So, are these literally true?

1-Was the earth was created in 7 days?

2- Noah saved all the species on earth by building a very large boat?

3-The immediate appearance of man on earth?
Evolution having no place in the formation of man?

hcap

12-13-2004, 05:03 PM

http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran2.htm

The selection of the Christian Scriptures:

There were three main movements within early Christianity: the Jewish Christians, Pauline Christians and Gnostics. Among them, there were on the order of fifty gospels, probably hundreds of epistles (letters), and many examples of apocalyptic literature similar to Revelation. All were considered authorative by various early Christian groups. When the Bishops fixed the official canon, they selected the Hebrew Scriptures, and 27 books: four gospels, Acts, 21 epistles, and Revelation. The concept of inerrancy requires that they did not err in their selection: that the authors of precisely these 27 books were inspired by God and wrote without error. This would imply that their selection process must have been guided by God so that fraudulent books were not chosen. The Gospel of John was almost rejected by the early Church because of its Gnostic content. Revelation almost did not make it into the Bible either, because it described God in angry, hateful terms that seemed incompatible with the loving Abba (Dad) that Jesus prayed to. When Emperor Constantine ordered 50 copies of the Bible to be copied, they included The Letter of Barnabas and The Shepard of Hermes -- two books that do not appear in today's Bibles.

Further backgroud

"Prior to the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s, biblical interpretation was often dominated by the allegorical method. Looking back to Augustine, the medieval church believed that every biblical passage contained four levels of meaning. These four levels were the literal, the allegorical, the moral, and the eschatological. For instance, the word Jerusalem literally referred to the city itself; allegorically, it refers to the church of Christ; morally, it indicates the human soul; and eschatologically it points to the heavenly Jerusalem.(1) Under this school of interpretation it was the church that established what the correct meaning of a passage was for all four levels.

By the time of the reformation, knowledge of the Bible was scarce. However, with a new emphasis on the original languages of Hebrew and Greek, the fourfold method of interpretation was beginning to fade. Martin Luther argued that the church shouldn't determine what the Scriptures mean, the Scriptures should govern what the churches teach. He also rejected the allegorical method of interpreting Scripture.

Luther argued that a proper understanding of what a passage teaches comes from a literal interpretation. This means that the reader must consider the historical context and the grammatical structure of each passage, and strive to maintain contextual consistency. This method was a result of Luther's belief that the Scriptures are clear, in opposition to the medieval church's position that they are so obscure that only the church can uncover their true meaning.

Calvin agreed in principle with Luther. He also placed great importance on the notion that "Scripture interprets Scripture," stressing that the grammar, context, words, and parallel passages found in the text were more important that any meaning we might impose on them. He added that, "it is the first business of an interpreter to let the author say what he does say, instead of attributing to him what we think he ought to say.

It seems the historical background of the understanding and interpretation of the bible is full of twists and turns. Countless seperate groups and factions, compete for the truth, and many claim exclussively to be THE CORRECT way. Therefore how many contradictory interpretations must then be the WRONG way?
"In short, you have brought a presumption of guilt upon Holy Writ"
Box, I am not prejudging the bible as false, as you say. I am judging based upon evidence pointing to historical difficulties, multiple factual errors and competing interpretations. Apologists such as yourself, cannot demonstrate the inerrancy required to allow extracting selected passages and then circularly argue the validity of using one, to prop up another.

boxcar

12-13-2004, 06:59 PM

hcap wrote:

"To take anything in life as absolutely true, on face value, is silly. The more the "tale" is told, the more the tale changes. This doesn’t mean the tale is false, but that the tale originally told has, whether you like it or not "evolved". Or in most cases Devolved. The further back in time, the more distorted.

[b]If you like I will agree that this statement itself is not to be taken at face value.

In other words, don't you mean to say, "this statement itself is not to be taken at face value" as being absolutely true? This is what you're conceding, correct? If so, you're admitting to having made an absurd statement because it was self-defeating. Correct?

In fact ALL discussions ALL of us are having on this board naturally are open to question. So what? The fact that inconseqential matters may be accepted as a given, without much reflection does not mean your take on the bible or "Gods' Justice" should as well. (italics mine)

So...let me see if I have this right: Only "inconsequential matters" can or should be reasonably be taken "at face value as being absolutely true?" But is this statement true of everything in life? I see how you have meticulously avoided my pointed argument relative to our judicial system.

When a defendant stands before a judge and pleads "not guilty" to the charges brought against him, is not the jury required by law to accept the defendant's plea "at face value as being...true" -- until such time that the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt otherwise? Where, sir, is the "wiggle room", within our system of jurisprudence, for any jurior to do anything less than what the law requires? The legal system demands that a jury presume a defendan't innocene. In this legal setting, a defendant's plea of "not guilty" is an act of supposing to be true the defendant's plea without any evidence or proof, whatsoever. In other words, the jury supposes the plea to be true on the face of it -- or on face value. Another way of expressing all this is that a jury must give a defendant all benefit of doubt, until such time the prosecution can prove its case beyond a reasonable dout.

Now, this is what you wrote in your last post:

Which of course would be a justified reason not to take literal interpretations of the Bible on ITS face valure. Or ABSOLUTE TRUTH

This is how I responded to the above:

No, sir, it would not be a "justified reason". Just because a book is old does not give you license to prejudge it.
All fair-minded, honest truth-seekers would, like jurists in our jurisprudence system , presume the author's innocence (or the Book's), until such time it could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that there were material corruptions, errors, mistakes, inconsistencies or contradictions in the author's work. Fair-minded people would not bring their personal presuppositions to bear upon the Book, anymore than fair-minded jurists would allow their personal prejudices to cloud or interfere with their fair, impartial judgments.

Now...answer me honestly...if you can: Do you think my approach, as stated in the above paragraph, as to how an investigation of the truth claims in the bible should be conducted are unreasonable or unfair? If so, why or how?

Now, as far as Samuel and your response.

"The answer should be obvious to all genuinely open and honest minds. In the Samuel passage, God himself is executing justice through the instrumentation of the nation of Israel! The nation of Israel wasn't taking it upon herself to execute justice. God was!

This "war" was not between Israel and Amalek. No! Israel was only God's instrument of war. The war was between the LORD and Amalek! Therefore, there is no contradiction or any inconsistency between this passage or 1Sam 15:1-3 and the texts in Deut 24:16, 2Ki 14:6 or Ezk 18:20.

So Gods Justice demanded suckling babes to be slaughtered. Very reassuring that it wasn't Israel to take it upon itself to go smight infants.

Okay...so, should I take this as a concession (albeit a begrudging one) that there was no contradiction or inconsistency between the sets of passages cited above? In other words, looking objectively at the propositional truth claims of those three texts, do you agree there are no contradictions or inconsistencies? I certainly sense an objection -- but it's "moral" in nature, correct? In other words, your objection boils down to a subjective opinion? For example, you think your brand of morality is better than God's? Correct?

Also, your prejudice shines clearly through in your sarcasm, to wit:

Very reassuring that it wasn't Israel to take it upon itself to go smight infants

What shoud have Israel done, sir? Flip the proverbial bird at God by disobeying his commands!? Let's say for a moment that you were there...that you were a Moses or a Joshua or a David -- how would you have responded to God's commands?

You further state:

" Scripture is quite clear: The whole Earth belongs to the Lord. Therefore, God is the Landlord of the Earth; all its human inhabitants are Tenants! Guess who has every eviction right and authority? "

So God decided it was time to evict a tenant? Why was it necessary to kill the tenants' infants in the process?

Because the tenants badly defaulted on their rent payments? :) (I'm sorry...I just couldn't resist injecting a little humor.)

But seriously...this kind of objection badly begs the question. So...you now have this big concern about "infants"? All infants? What about all the infants in the world who die of natural causes, or due to parental abuse or negligence, or due to malnutrition, or are murdered? Is God unjust for allowing them to die? And even further, if God is omniscient and knew they would die, why would he allow them to be born in the first place?

Then you state

"And we can't speak to Ultimate Land Ownership, apart from considering the sovereignty of God. Whether we like it or not, whether we acknolwedge it or not, whether we believe it or not -- God rules in the affairs of
men, (cf. Dan 2:20, 21; 4:35.) It is God who "removes kings and establishes kings". And if there are any red letter only bible readers out there, Jesus, too taught this very thing. "

Please enlighten me on WHY God decided to smight the Amalekites. What was their sin? Was it another case of Sodom and Gommorrah?

And if I told you it was another instance of "Sodom and Gommorrah", would you not object to this, as well?
I'll tell you what: I'll tell you why from the scriptures, if you tell me what set of circumstances would have been acceptable to you. What act or set of circumstances woud have provoked you to "smight" the Amalekites?

I'll be awaiting your reply to all these things.

Boxcar

Equineer

12-13-2004, 10:29 PM

Boxcar,

Wiggle... squirm... slither!

So, Lockman biblicist, you have been unmasked!

Apparently because others may have tried to pass off Lockman NASB passages as something else, even one of your own links felt legally obliged to post this warning:

When quotations from the NASB(R) text are used in not-for-sale media, such as church bulletins, orders of service, posters, transparencies or similar media, the abbreviation (NASB) may be used at the end of the quotation. (http://unbound.biola.edu/nasb_info.cfm)

Mormon friends assure me that NAS is the abbreviation for the obscure but authoritative North American Scriptures version of the Bible, used almost exclusively by early Mormon academics and theologians.

The Lockman NASB Bible is not quite so rare, but it may well be favored by apologists for the capital offenses of kidnapping and murder.

Forum readers will recall that you previously used biblical references to assert God's approval of ancient enslavement practices, which also encompass our contemporary definition of kidnapping.

In addition, biblicists have been known to use NASB passages to argue that some types of manslaughter are sanctioned by God and are therefore not murderous crimes (i.e., arguments about justifiable homicides). If I'm not mistakeen, you have also used the bible to justify homicides.

I suspect we might find NASB Bible versions in many ACLU offices and legal libraries as well as in prison libraries.

While I am not a biblicist and have never studied either the NASB or NAS versions, Mormon friends assure me that their Church abhors kidnapping and murder. :)

=====>

You shocked me by calling Mormonism a cult because you otherwise seem to relish "so-called" fables as if "more is better" would suit you.

You were even more venomous in the other thread when, like Cain unto Abel, you attacked your devout brethern Dagar and Miesal.

You are beginning to loom as deceitful as the Rev. Whitefield and as nasty as the Rev. Edwards

=====>

With respect to Founding Fathers, you seem to believe in the mutual exclusivity of Christianity, Freemasonry, and Deism.

However, Washington was a civic and social Christian who served as an Anglican vestryman in order to preserve his influence within that faction... was an active Freemason in order to experience communion with other enlightened minds... expressed in his private correspondence his personal Deistic beliefs in a Grand Designer and Providence... and acknowledged a Natural Spirit that permeates all things. This pragmatic approach to dealing with his contemporaries and personal beliefs was documented by Tobias Lear, Washington's personal secretary.

Many other Revolutionary leaders exhibited this same kind of pragmatism, which evidently disturbs you severely.

For your own mental well-being, you need to forsake your crusade to convince good Christians to believe in contrived dogma, fables, and miracles that defy reason.

boxcar

12-14-2004, 12:50 AM

Equineer wrote:

Boxcar,

Wiggle... squirm... slither!

So, Lockman biblicist, you have been unmasked

You are one sicko! Don't you realize how easy it to disprove your lies? North American Sciptures! Right!
Go find a copy online and post the link to us.

Apparently because others may have tried to pass off Lockman NASB passages as something else, even one of your own links felt legally obliged to post this warning:

Two things: First, here is sizeable OT passage taken from the NASB online:

16"(O)Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.

17"(P)You shall not pervert the justice due an alien or [a]an orphan, nor (Q)take a widow's garment in pledge.

18"But you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and that the LORD your God redeemed you from there; therefore I am commanding you to do this thing.

19"(R)When you reap your harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be (S)for the alien, for the orphan, and for the widow, in order that the LORD your God (T)may bless you in all the work of your hands.

20"(U)When you beat your olive tree, you shall not go over the boughs again; it shall be (V)for the alien, for the orphan, and for the widow.

21"When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, you shall not go over it again; it shall be for the alien, for the orphan, and for the widow.

22"You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt; therefore I am commanding you to do this thing.

The above is taken from Deut 24:16-22. Go here to this site and check it out. Just go to the pull down menu and get the NASB.

http://www.biblegateway.com/

Next, here is the same passage from my bible software, which you thought originally was based on the "obscure" North American Sciptures:

Deut 24:16-22
16 "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.

17 "You shall not pervert the justice due an alien or an orphan, nor take a widow's garment in pledge. 18 But you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and that the LORD your God redeemed you from there; therefore I am commanding you to do this thing.

19 "When you reap your harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be for the alien, for the orphan, and for the widow, in order that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. 20 When you beat your olive tree, you shall not go over the boughs again; it shall be for the alien, for the orphan, and for the widow. 21 When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, you shall not go over it again; it shall be for the alien, for the orphan, and for the widow. 22 And you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt; therefore I am commanding you to do this thing.
NAS

It's word for word identical to the online version (without the weird looking lettter symbols, which I don't have any idea about what they're all about in the online version).

Next, go to any passage of scripture which I have quoted in the past, and check it out against the online version of the NASB.

I can't believe how utterly stupid you are to think you could decieve us like this!

Mormon friends assure me that NAS is the abbreviation for the obscure but authoritative North American Scriptures version of the Bible, used almost exclusively by early Mormon academics and theologians.

The Lockman NASB Bible is not quite so rare, but it may well be favored by apologists for the capital offenses of kidnapping and murder.

Wait a minute. You said very recently that I was using the "obscure" North American Sciptures". Now you're saying that I'm using the NASB because this version reads in a way that sanctions criminal offenses in the bible? So which is it? Am I using the New American Standard or the North American Scriptures? Here is what you wrote earlier:

Now really... how many readers will have convenient access to the obscure North American Scriptures version of the Old and New Testaments, which are primarily intended as purely academic research tools for Mormon theologians?

I doubt you have any friends! Show us their North American Scriptures. If it exists, it must be online somewhere. Find it for us But I suspect you won't be able to find this, anymore than any proof that this country was founded largely by Deists and/or FMs.

For you info the NAS(B) is an updated spinoff of an earlier version known as the ASV (American Standard Version)

Here is how the verses above read in this particular translation, which is considerably older than the NAS:

Deut 24:16-22

16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

17 Thou shalt not wrest the justice (due) to the sojourner, (or) to the fatherless, nor take the widow's raiment to pledge;

18 but thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt, and Jehovah thy God redeemed thee thence: therefore I command thee to do this thing.

19 When thou reapest thy harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the sojourner, for the fatherless, and for the widow; that Jehovah thy God may bless thee in all the work of thy hands.

20 When thou beatest thine olive-tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again: it shall be for the sojourner, for the fatherless, and for the widow.

21 When thou gatherest (the grapes of) thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean it after thee: it shall be for the sojourner, for the fatherless, and for the widow.

22 And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt: therefore I command thee to do this thing.
ASV

No material differences at all. In fact, I could post the KJV and NKJV, and the differences would be inconsequential.

Forum readers will recall that you previously used biblical references to assert God's approval of ancient enslavement practices, which also encompass our contemporary definition of kidnapping.

You're really on drugs!

In addition, biblicists have been known to use NASB passages to argue that some types of manslaughter are sanctioned by God and are therefore not murderous crimes (i.e., arguments about justifiable homicides). If I'm not mistakeen, you have also used the bible to justify homicides.

Again, I thought you accused me of using the "obscure" North American Scriptures? Have you so soon forgotten your lie?

Go back and pick out ANY of those passages I have posted and check them out at the site to which I provided the link above. No material differences between the NAS, ASV, KJV, NKJV, RSV -- even the NIV (which is not as literal a translation), won't differ all that significantly.

I suspect we might find NASB Bible versions in many ACLU offices and legal libraries as well as in prison libraries.

While I am not a biblicist and have never studied either the NASB or NAS versions, Mormon friends assure me that their Church abhors kidnapping and murder. :)

So you're not a bible student, but you know enough to have written:

In addition, biblicists have been known to use NASB passages to argue that some types of manslaughter are sanctioned by God and are therefore not murderous crimes (i.e., arguments about justifiable homicides). If I'm not mistakeen, you have also used the bible to justify homicides.

In other words, you're basically a self-proclaimed wannabe expert -- but also a real-time, right-here-and- now dunce!

Also, too bad they don't abhor wretches llike you, as well! Those "Mormon friend" of yours must be bad judges of character. No doubt due to their lack of true spirituality. If they had any and they lived in the same area as you, they'd probably would have gotten out of Dodge long by now.

Yes, indeed: "Wiggle, Squirm, Slither" is something with which you have intimate, first-hand knowledge and experience right-here-and-now, isn't it?

Boxcar

Equineer

12-14-2004, 03:48 AM

Boxcar,

Let me dissipate the frothy rage you tried to evoke in your previous post.

It was you, Boxcar, who earlier corrected me and admitted to using NASB bible passages with the NAS identification tag appended.

Now, while few readers will have any bible handy, fewer if any will have the NASB bible, and probably none will have a rare and valuable NAS edition since most were destroyed before the Civil War when Christian persecutors attacked Mormons, razed and pillaged early Mormon settlements, and tried to exterminate Mormons in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri.

====>

As described by Hinckley in the Wall Street Journal (July 1997):

As the winter snows descended upon the Missouri frontier in 1838, Gov. Lilburn Boggs issued an extraordinary decree: 12,000 people then huddled in makeshift settlements 120 miles to the west were to be "exterminated or driven from the state." So, for the fourth time in seven years, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gathered all they could -- leaving what they couldn't -- and fled.

From Missouri they retreated to Illinois, where they built a town that within six years rivaled Chicago in size and vitality. They established a university, hosted dignitaries, published a newspaper and built a beautiful temple, regarded by many as the finest building in the state. But in the summer of 1844 their leader, Joseph Smith, and his brother Hyrum were shot to death by a mob. Rage and persecution having followed them to Illinois, the Latter-day Saints, now numbering around 20,000, prepared to abandon one more home.

====>

Weeks of violence followed in Carthage and Nauvoo. Illinois Christians stripped fleeing Mormon survivors of their scriptures and belongings, and even razed the Mormon city of Nauvoo in an attempt to eradicate all traces of Mormonism.

Only recently in April 2004, did the State of Illinois finally send a delegation led by the Illinois Lt. Governor Pat Quinn to Salt Lake, Utah, where they officially apologized to all Mormons and humbly begged forgiveness for the acts of terror and murderous rampages perpetrated by Illinois Christians.

This sad account of monstrous bigotry foreshadows the kind of America that you and other wingnuts have clamored for on a nationwide basis ever since the American Revolution repudiated religious tyranny.

Fortunately, no one who experienced the warm hospitality of Mormons during the 2002 Olympic Games will join your crusade.

What everyone can expect, however, will be a misguided attempts by you to justify condemning the Mormons and other enemies that you may conjure up during your biblical rants.

Equineer

12-14-2004, 04:01 AM

Before mob ravages by bigots:

hcap

12-14-2004, 07:31 AM

Me:

To take anything in life as absolutely true, on face value, is silly. The more the "tale" is told, the more the tale changes. This doesn’t mean the tale is false, but that the tale originally told has, whether you like it or not "evolved". Or in most cases Devolved. The further back in time, the more distorted.

If you like I will agree that this statement itself is not to be taken at face value.

In fact ALL discussions ALL of us are having on this board naturally are open to question. So what? The fact that inconseqential matters may be accepted as a given, without much reflection does not mean your take on the bible or "Gods' Justice" should as well.

You:

In other words, don't you mean to say, "this statement itself is not to be taken at face value" as being absolutely true? This is what you're conceding, correct? If so, you're admitting to having made an absurd statement because it was self-defeating. Correct?

So...let me see if I have this right: Only "inconsequential matters" can or should be reasonably be taken "at face value as being absolutely true?" But is this statement true of everything in life? I see how you have meticulously avoided my pointed argument relative to our judicial system.

You continue to dance around the main issue. Dishonesty is central to your technique you use to tie up the discussion with absurd "cross-examination". Did you subscribe to a Perry Mason home-school course, or did you develop what you think is clever word-play all by yourself?

I have not, as you say,
"meticulously avoided my pointed argument relative to our judicial system.".

The only point you genuinely have is located just above your hairline.

This is what you said

"When a defendant stands before a judge and pleads "not guilty" to the charges brought against him, is not the jury required by law to accept the defendant's plea "at face value as being...true" -- until such time that the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt otherwise?

No the jury is not required by law to accept the the plea at "face value". If that was the case there would be no neccesity for a trial. The entire system of courts would be unnecessary. The evolution of laws of countries, the development of technology, and the sciences would have never occured, because people like you would have accepted the status quo at "face value". Is this what it means to be a conservative? Accept everything as it is at the moment, without question? At "face value" Would you have accepted Bill Clintons' policies at face value?

The whole purpose of having a jury and a judge for that matter is to provde a FAIR trial. In our system of justice, the presumption of innocence is the starting point for a fair trial.

A mans' life may be at stake in a murder trial. Does this mean that because he pleads innocent, the jury should be disbanded, and everyone should just go home? On "face value"

"Face value" is not synonomous with innocent. It refers to the APPARENT value versus the REAL value. Or market value

I repeat....

The usage of Face value is derived from economics.

Face value: WordNet Dictionary
Definition:
1. [n] the apparent worth as opposed to the real worth
2. [n] the value of a security that is set by the company
issuing it; unrelated to market value

Now let's get back to the discussion. Please answer the questions.

So, are these literally true?

1-Was the earth was created in 7 days?

2- Noah saved all the species on earth by building a very large boat?

3-The immediate appearance of man on earth?
Evolution having no place in the formation of man?

4-Is the Bible Inerrant? And it is only the interpretors who fail?

Equineer

12-14-2004, 11:21 AM

Boxcar,

Is polygamy one of the reasons you disparaged the early Mormons?

It is man's nature to compete for wealth, power, and women.

Can you explain why voluntary polygamy is such an anathema to orthodox Christians?

We know that ethical "players" who attain wealth and power are really despised only by jealous failures.

Many have also observed that failures are loathe to admit their inability to effectively utilize wealth and power... and this has been cited as the Achilles Heel of pure socialism... artificial distribution causes wealth and power to be squandered by those who cannot use them effectively.

And this begs the question, why should a society attempt to artificially distribute women?

Due to supply and demand inefficiencies, many pretty and talented young women get artificially stuck with petty failures who are encouraged by monogamy zealots to become angry and even violent when cuckolded.

A society intolerant to polygamy conscripts many women, during their prime years, into serial acrimonious relationships with pathetic losers who are never pleased when discarded. Does this not merely squander many women and disappoint many men?

Even men who may feel initially threatened by a polygamous society should realize that nature provides impetus for a hand-me-down system whereby they stand a chance of eventually finding a mate who will be content with them.

Wouldn't the commonweal be better served if we sanctioned voluntary polygamy so that pretty young women inclined to flock to wealth and power can do so without scorn?

When it comes to wealth, power, and women, shouldn't ethical men of merit like yourself get their fair share without shame? :)

boxcar

12-14-2004, 09:00 PM

Equineer wroter:
Boxcar,

[b]Let me dissipate the frothy rage you tried to evoke in your previous post.

It was you, Boxcar, who earlier corrected me and admitted to using NASB bible passages with the NAS identification tag appended.

Now, while few readers will have any bible handy, fewer if any will have the NASB bible, and probably none will have a rare and valuable NAS edition since most were destroyed before the Civil War when Christian persecutors attacked Mormons, razed and pillaged early Mormon settlements, and tried to exterminate Mormons in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri.

Tell us how you know this! How do you know, Mr. Wannabe Religious Expert how many NASBs have been sold here in America? For your info, it happens to be one of the most popular bibles -- simply because it's not as "stilted" as the KJV, but it's not as "loose" a translation as the NIV, for example. It is a very scholary translation that really has found the proverbial middle ground between the other two aforementioned translations.

Also, your concern about what translation I use is utterly stupid and pointless! Should I have taken a poll to see what the "few readers" on this forum were using? What if the majority here either have no bible or don't know where they put the one the have due to infrequent use? Would it matter to them what translation I favor?

This sad account of monstrous bigotry foreshadows the kind of America that you and other wingnuts have clamored for on a nationwide basis ever since the American Revolution repudiated religious tyranny.

You're a fine one to be looking down your condescending snout and lecturing me or anyone else here on intolerance and bigotry -- since everyone here knows what a religious bigot you are! Before you suppose to take the speck out of anyone's eye, remove first the beam from yours, Hypocrite!

So...er...where did you say that North American Scripture translation is? It's so obscure that it's out of print now? It died with all those poor Mormons? How convenient. I take it that any mere mention of such a translation is also "out of print" on the 'net, too, eh? How convenient.

I'll leave you with this from my favorite translation:

Rev 21:8
8 "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."
NAS

I trust you like the warm climes? Even if you do, you might want to get better acclimatized to even a "warmer" one.

Boxcar

boxcar

12-14-2004, 09:41 PM

‘Cap, you can cut ‘n’ paste your excessively long diatribes from now until next the presidential election, but merely copying other people’s opinions is not only an expedient way our, but a dishonest one, as well. Permit me to try to cut to the chase with a few observations. But once again, I must recall your attention to your own words:

"To take anything in life as absolutely true, on face value, is silly.

When we first discussed this self-defeating sentence, one of my key objections was my observation of you doing the very thing which you have implied I shouldn’t do – because to do so would be “silly”! It’s implicitly understood in your statement that I shouldn’t be taking the propositional truth claims of the bible “at face value as being absolutely true”; yet, it’s perfectly okay for you to cut ‘n’ paste third party opinions about how the bible is supposedly replete with all manner of corruptions and for you to accept third party evidence “at face value as being absolutely true”! This is hardly giving the Author of the Book a fair hearing! In your court, he never gets a chance to testify on his own behalf! He never gets a chance to speak to you personally to present alternative explanations for “difficulties” in his Book. And the reason you don’t give the Author a chance is because in your heart of hearts, you don’t think (let alone believe) for a moment that the book is God’s personal communication to man. Your built-in presupposition is that the book is merely a collection of ancient writings that have been collected and handed down over the centuries. And because mere, fallible mortals have penned those original transcripts
, it follows, therefore, logically that there must be all kinds of errors in those writings.

But hear this! This is an axiom you can take to the bank: Not everything in life is always as it appears. And this includes bible skeptics’ evidence presented prima facie.

Your prejudicial mindset becomes more and more evident to me, as we continue to dialogue. Let’s look briefly at the very first set of passages which you, evidently, believe to be problematic.

Hosea 13:16 (King James Version)

16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

The question: is God good, or is he not? Ex. 34:6 describes God as good

...The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth
Similar praise comes from David in Ps. 145:7-9:

They shall abundantly utter the memory of thy great goodness, and shall sing of thy righteousness. The Lord is gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy. The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

Then, taking these texts “at face value” (without no investigation on your part) you believe there is “absolutely” a contradiction or inconsistency between the first text and the latter two. How I know you didn’t investigate is due to your scathing commentary:

Many people define goodness in terms of certain actions, such as feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, treating the ill, or educating the ignorant. For others, goodness is found in the willingness to risk one's life for another, perhaps by serving as a soldier, firefighter, or police officer. Some see goodness as neatly encapsulated in the aphorism "live and let live", whereas others salute the ancient Golden Rule. Clearly, goodness does not include such crimes as murder, rape, enslavement, or child abuse.

Your opening remarks say it all: Many people define goodness… You immediately appeal on the horizontal level to how “many people define goodness” Why do you care “what many people” think? You’re not at all concerned with how God may define goodness or justice. But the “many people” whose opinions you so cherish are not collective author of the bible! You show no interest at all at understanding things like God’s “goodness”, “love”, “mercy”, “justice”, etc. In understanding The Author’s mind! For sure, you have a great grasp on how worldly, sinful minds (“many people”) think and about how they define things, but not the first clue, from the vertical perspective, about how the bible’s Author defines them. Let’s now look briefly at the three texts you present as “proof” on inconsistencies.

The very first thing which screams out to me is that there is no difficulty or moral dilemma among these three passages. You immediately jump to the conclusion that God committed “crimes” – that God is a monster for commanding the slaughter of the Samaritans. You overlook this phrase in Hos 13:16 that says: for she hath rebelled against her God. You overlook the fact that God was justly punishing Samaria for her sins against him; therefore, God didn’t murder those people. All he did was execute capital punishment for their sins. Have you not read that “the wages of sin is death’!? (Rom 6:23)

Next, there is nothing in the above text that says that God “enslaved” the people. From where did you get that idea? Further, there is nothing in the passage that teaches that God ordered the “rape” of the women? From whence you get that notion? Lastly, did God “murder” or “abuse” the children? When we understand, from the larger context of the Book, that every single human being on this planet is under the sentence of death because we’re sinners and have been conceived in sin, then a passage like this one makes it easier to come to grips with God’s rationale – for the Author’s reason for doing what he did – not some third party’s opinion on what they think is going on with these passages.

Moreover, as stated previously, the killing of the children was actually a merciful act by God because, while those children lost their physical lives in this world, they gained the life of their souls in the next! If God had allowed those children to live, chances are many that none of them would have come to saving knowledge and fear of the Lord and, therefore, they would not only have suffered physical death in this world, but they would have faced the “second death” in the next!

Even in an earlier post, you manifested your disinterest in discerning the mind of the Author by essentially asking me incredulously:“WHY” did God “smight” the Amalekites? You already drew your biased conclusions, apart from making any effort whatsoever to examine the larger context of the bible in order to dig out the answer for yourself.

It should be expected that any work that would claim authorship or inspiration from a deity described as omniscient and omnipotent would reflecting the character of its primal source -- be completely devoid of any flaws or imperfections. In fact, one of the claims that has often been made on behalf of the Bible by some of its proponents, is that it consists of 66 books produced over a span of some 5,000 years by more than 40 different writers and yet does not have a single contradiction or flaw in it.

More presuppositional baggage, i.e. “It should be expected…” Says who!? Because you think God is made in your image!? He should do things your way? You’re like the infidel Einstein who thought that God’s purposes were merely reflections of our own!

You also seem to think that “flaws” and “imperfections” are synonymous with “contradictions”? If so, you are badly mistaken, sir! But since you have brought this particular biased opinion to the fore, I will spend a little time offering a few reasons why maybe we should expect the Book to not be free of “flaws or imperfections”. I will submit a few reasons to you for why I think some “flaws or imperfections” have been allowed to creep into the original manuscripts.

God intended for them to act as a stimulus to the human intellect.

The discrepancies in the bible have played no insignificant role in the pure incitement of mental activity. The discrepancies are designed to encourage serious, scholarly inquiries that would require critical analyses. No other book in the entire world has drawn as much attention to itself as has the Holy Bible. All other “holy books” put together pale by comparison. No other book in the world has ever been translated into as many languages as has the bible. No other book in the world is more widely read and studied than the bible. No other book in the world is more widely sold and distributed as the bible. And the bible is the most written about book in the entire world. No other “holy book” has inspired and energized writers to write innumerable extra-biblical works, such as pure study aids (language helps, concordances, topical bibles, etc.), scholarly theological works, apologetic works, philosophical works, bible encyclopedias, commentaries, etc., etc. – all designed to aid the bible student in his studies. No other book has aroused so much attention, while simultaneously creating such a storm of controversy as has the bible.

To digress for a moment on this theme on a personal and practical level, I can personally attest to innumerable times during the course of study on just one particular subject or problem (e.g. “flaw or “imperfection”) of how the Lord has blessed me by opening my mind to not only better understanding the topic or difficulty at hand, but to gain more insight on other spiritual matters as well. This is to be expected because the bible is not presented to us in the form of a systematic theology treatise; therefore, in the course of researching and investigating things out in their three-fold contexts, I was often able to learn something new that was more or less unrelated to the immediate issue.

The “flaws or imperfections” are paradoxical in nature designed to draw attention to the parallels between The Book and Nature, that is to say, they are meant to illustrate the analogy between the Book and Nature in order to unmistakably evince their common origin.

When we observe Nature (i.e. Natural Revelation), what do see, feel, smell, hear, taste? Wherever we turn in the universe, we see the unmistakably clear traces of infinite wisdom, power, benevolence and goodness through the star-lit heavens, the earth adorned in vernal green, the majestic snow-capped mountains, the tranquil pastures, the balmy breezes, the soothing sound of ocean waves gently breaking on the shore, the sweet song of birds, the brilliant colors of flowers, the countless species of animal and insect life, etc., etc. All these kinds of things loudly proclaim the Goodness and Benevolence of God.

But Nature presents another and very different spectacle to us, also. We observe want and woe, sorrow and pain caused by fire, floods, famine, pestilence, earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, human suffering, diseases, wars, intemperance, etc., etc. – each of these performing their deadly work upon mankind. These all speak to God’s Righteous Anger and the Severity of His Justice.

Nature unmistakably speaks to the Goodness and Justice of God; but who among us can adequately resolve the “inconsistency” between the Tranquil Beauty of Nature that expresses the former attribute and the Fierce Devastation of it, which reflects the latter quality? But we do know this: As profound as this paradox may be, God would not be Good, if he were not also Just.

The discrepancies were designed to provide strong incidental proof that there was no collusion among the inspired writers, and to also show that while the Spirit of God supernaturally attended to the inspiration of scripture, he allowed his chosen writers to express themselves in their own words.

The differences among the human writers go a long way in establishing their credibility. Conversely, if the human writers had agreed in every detail – had there been no discrepancies whatsoever in their testimony, then the infidels would have objected on the grounds of collusion -- of massive editing. Therefore, these “flaws or inconsistencies” – these discrepancies, lying as they do on the surface and never touching the subject matter, that is, the kernel of holy writ, and being capable, therefore, of adjustment and reasonable explanation are all the more proof of the authenticity of the various books within the Book and the credibility of its writers.

The discrepancies in the bible are probably designed to test one’s moral character, thus serving an important divine judicial purpose

Christ himself frequently spoke in parables, so that the skeptics “seeing they may not perceive, and hearing that they may not understand” (Lk 8:10). He also spoke to them “hard sayings” – things that he knew would drive them away from him (Jn 6:52-66). This was Jesus’ way of sifting out the chaff from the wheat. Such a strategy rid him of the “disciples” who were not of a teachable spirit, who were not earnest, and who refused to look beneath the surface of things.

In a very similar manner, the discrepancies in the bible serve to provide the opportunity for an unfair mind to contrive insincere explanations and to hide from itself the evidence which it might see. Our treatment of the difficulties within the bible bear an intimate relation to our moral character.

I could go on and offer more reasons, but time is escaping me, and this is already too long. But before moving on to a different matter, I must warn you, 'Cap, against making the same mistake all unbelievers do (including Einstein): Don’t try putting the Infinite God in your puny, limited, insignificant finite mold, e.g. God should have done this, or he should have done that, or why couldn’t he have done this that way, or some other way, etc., etc.?

Box, I am not prejudging the bible as false, as you say. I am judging based upon evidence pointing to historical difficulties, multiple factual errors and competing interpretations. Apologists such as yourself, cannot demonstrate the inerrancy required to allow extracting selected passages and then circularly argue the validity of using one, to prop up another.

Firstly, “competing interpretations” aren’t your problem – or at least they shouldn’t be! Why do you care if a given passage has a 1,001 interpetations – by others”. Once again, you demonstrate clearly that your main concern is what others think. But your only legitimate goal should be to discern the mind of the Author.

I am not prejudging the bible as false, as you say. I am judging based upon evidence pointing to historical difficulties, multiple factual errors…

Yes…but your “judging” on the face of the evidence! You’re judging merely prima facie. Instead of conducting your own private and exhaustive investigation into passages that on the surface appear to conflict, you simply take the conflicts "at face value", and essentially conclude that the “conflicts” are “absolutely true”!

As indicated earlier in this post, you’re doing the very thing you told me I shouldn’t do! You’re taking this “evidence” at “face value as being “absolutely true”, i.e. that there is absolutely a contradiction or inconsistency. Then you go to say:

Apologists such as yourself, cannot demonstrate the inerrancy required to allow extracting selected passages and then circularly argue the validity of using one, to prop up another.

There’s a little incoherency in this statement. But what I think you’re saying is that I’m using circular reasoning by appealing to one bible text in order to “prove” that another one isn’t contradictory? Firstly, you should understand that you’re doing the exact same thing! You (and all the third-party sources you use) take one passage in scripture and contrast it with another to “prop up” your/their evidence that the two contradict one another. Once again, you do the very thing you’re telling me not to do.

Secondly, it’s perfectly legitimate for a reader of any book to understand any given portion of that book by appealing to its entire context! One of the paradoxes of hermeneutics is that while a given passage can very often stand on its “own fours” in its more immediate context without presenting any difficulties, another passage might arise somewhere else in scripture that will “conflict” with it. In this case, then, the only way the “conflict” or “tension” can be resolved satisfactorily is to study those passages in their larger context.

For example, in order to determine what the biblical teaching is on war, one needs to investigate a large body of scripture – to evaluate each “war-related” passage and its antithesis which would be all “peace-related” passages in their own contexts, then carefully compare them. What inevitably will happen is that the conflict or tension between the passages that teach “pacifism” and the passages that teach “justifiable wars” will evaporate once all the related passages are understood in their proper context. How an interpreter will go badly astray is by pulling things out of their contexts, as do “pacifists” and “hawks” alike. Therefore, the hermeneutical principle for interpreting within the bible’s context (comparing scripture with scripture) is perfectly valid.

Moreover, God can be quite redundant. He has a way of saying the same thing over and over in more different ways than a dog has fleas! He does this to get a truth-seeker to study other portions of his word, and to impress a particular truth firmly upon his mind. Therefore, a student of scripture, in order to properly understand God’s message, [/b]must do so within the entire context of the bible[/b]. He must search the entire counsel of God.

Tomorrow in the A.M., the first of my guests will be arriving, so I will not be spending as much time on this forum, as I have in the last week or so – which I have to think will make a lot of mouse-weary people here quite happy. But before I take my leave for now, meditate upon these passages before you try to squeeze God Almighty into your little, narrow-minded mold – into your world view.

Isa 55:8-9
8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Neither are your ways My ways," declares the LORD.
9 "For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.
NAS

Ps 144:3-4
3 O LORD, what is man, that Thou dost take knowledge of him? Or the son of man, that Thou dost think of him?
4 Man is like a mere breath; His days are like a passing shadow.
NAS

Boxcar

boxcar

12-14-2004, 11:03 PM

hcap writes:

This is what you said

"When a defendant stands before a judge and pleads "not guilty" to the charges brought against him, is not the jury required by law to accept the defendant's plea "at face value as being...true" -- until such time that the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt otherwise?

No the jury is not required by law to accept the the plea at "face value". If that was the case there would be no neccesity for a trial. The entire system of courts would be unnecessary.

Woa…there, Beefhead!

First off, who’s playing dishonestly, here? Did I not alsosay in my statement that immediately precedes your above response:

until such time that the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt otherwise?

What didn’t you understand about this qualifying clause? There must have been something, otherwise why would you have said:

If that was the case there would be no neccesity for a trial. The entire system of courts would be unnecessary.

The only way a trial would be unnecessary is if I had not included the qualifying clause and only said:

"When a defendant stands before a judge and pleads "not guilty" to the charges brought against him, is not the jury required by law to accept the defendant's plea "at face value as being...true"

Fer sure…if I had not included the qualifying clause, then there would be no need for trials or even a judicial system, as you have said. Er..so what exactly was your pointless point again?

The evolution of laws of countries, the development of technology, and the sciences would have never occured, because people like you would have accepted the status quo at "face value". Is this what it means to be a conservative? Accept everything as it is at the moment, without question? At "face value" Would you have accepted Bill Clintons' policies at face value?

Oops…I’m sensing some desparation here. Remember sir: [/b]YOU[/b] were the one who made this self-defeating statement:

To take anything in life as absolutely true, on face value, is silly.

All I did was, through several real-life examples demonstrate the utter absurdity of such a statement.
When you conceded that we indeed, as a “practical matter”, can take “inconsequential things at face value as being true”…then I corrected another one of your errors by pointing to civilization’s jurisprudence system – which I don’t consider to be “inconsequential” or of “no account” – but maybe you do.

My whole point to pointing out your sophism to you was to show you that there we can, do and should take some things “at face as being absolutely true” – things inconsequential and consequential..

But please, sir, there’s no reason to go off the deep end with straw man objections to how society would not have evolved because people like me would take “everything” at “face value”. Or that I would take “everything as it is at the moment”. And as far as Slick Willy was concerned, I never trusted him even to the distance I can spit. So…do us all a favor, will ya? Save bandwith and respect everyone’s time by refraining from inventing any more inane straw men.

The whole purpose of having a jury and a judge for that matter is to provde a FAIR trial. In our system of justice, the presumption of innocence is the starting point for a fair trial

Wow. How informative. (But why do I feel so underwhelmed?)

[/b]A mans' life may be at stake in a murder trial. Does this mean that because he pleads innocent, the jury should be disbanded, and everyone should just go home? On "face value[/b]"

Now you’re being redundant. Essentially you raised this very straw man earlier. (See my reply above.)

"Face value" is not synonomous with innocent. It refers to the APPARENT value versus the REAL value. Or market value

I repeat....

I’m going to spare everyone more of your bloviating. I understand perfectly what “face value” means. Another straw man. I never said or implied that “face value” = innocence. All I said was that a defendan’s plea, legally, must be accepted “at face value”…UNTIL SUCH TIME…. The jury must operate under the presumption of innocence…UNTIL SUCH TIME... The jury must give the defendant the benefit of all doubt…UNTIL SUCH TIME... Just like the jurors did in the Scott Peterson case, for example.

Furthermore, to presume something means, among other things:

3 : to suppose to be true without proof

Additionally, “suppose” means, among other things, to “believe” to “presuppose”.

Therefore, when a defendant pleads ‘innocent” to the charges, jurors are legally required to take, to accept, to believe that plea “on the face of it” or accept it “at face value” until the defense can prove guilt. Do you understand now?

One more thing: Do you still believe that there was any contradiction between 2Ki 14:6; Ezk 18:20 and 1Sam 15:1-3? Or do you agree with me that it was merely an apparent contradiction – a contradiction on the face of scripture?

Sleep well,
Boxcar

hcap

12-15-2004, 07:08 AM

Your analogy to the legal process is flawed.

A trial is convened to discover whether or not grounds of suspicion first developed in prior hearings have merit. The purpose of a trial is to continue past the "face value" .

So, before the jury is instructed to not pre judge the defendants' guilt or innocence, the entire creation of the trial is the result of a "questionable" series of events. The trial is created first, the jury second. Therefore your statement

"is not the jury required by law to accept the defendant's plea "at face value as being...true" -- until such time that the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt otherwise?"

....Does not address the very reasons for the existence of the trial itself. The presumption of innocence is a magnificent safeguard in our judicial system, but not a declaration to stop at the face value version of reality presented by the defense.

Yes the defendants innocence is the starting point, and yes the prosecution is charged with proving beyond a reasonable doubt-guilt. A grand invention for protecting the innocent. But in a debate between two points of view-one pro the other con, the starting point for the debate are both. One cannot say "okay my point of view is correct, now you go ahead and prove me wrong. As you have done. You have to assert a positive case for your point of view, using your evidence, as I also must do.

In fact, you initiated my objections by claiming to "KNOW GODS JUSTICE Is it so much to ask for supporting evidence when the source itself may be in question?

When I say not to take anything in life on face value, I gave you credit in being able to use your powers of hermeneutics, to judge from my statement that I was refering to things of consequence. Instead you appear to be playing a silly version of Perry Mason and then instruct me MY STARTING POINT in questioning you in this debate should be to take your interpretation of the Bible on face value, and you even claim

"In short, you have brought a presumption of guilt upon Holy Writ"

No Box, I am only presenting the evidence that supports my point of view, as you should. To tell me I should start by assuming your point of view is correct is not a fair debate. If you say "Given: The Bible is True", and I am debating you, would you expect me to say "yep, I agree", first, and then after agreeing give my evidence against your views. That would not exactly be a debate

If I extracted comments by the the latest researchers in biological evolution, and proclaimed "nature means us to do the following....", wouldn't you also be a bit peeved?
Would you accept my statement on face value, or would you look for the real "market value?

Would you
1-Accept my statement first "as innocent"
2-And only after attempt to prove me guilty.
Dishonest? I think so

How about I say "Given: Deism is True" Should I expect you to agree and accept my evidence at face value? And only then present your evidence that it is not? You already have a world view. And so do I.

Let us please dispense with word games and get to the essence of the issues.

Please answer the questions.

So, are these literally true?

1-Was the earth was created in 7 days?

2- Noah saved all the species on earth by building a very large boat?

3-The immediate appearance of man on earth?
Evolution having no place in the formation of man?

4-Is the Bible Inerrant? And it is only the interpretors who fail?

You sort of answered num 4, but I don'have time to dis-asemble your reply. Got to leave for work.

I will try to answer your questions over the next few days
Please try to deal with Numbers 1 thru 3. If you choose allegorical interpretations I will not necessarily assume you are "WIGGLING"

:cool: :cool: