The Conservative Bible Project [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

hcap

10-06-2009, 05:08 AM

Separation of church and state was set up to avoid religion influencing the state, and now we see the reverse is also true

http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

Conservative Bible Project
From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations. There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning:

* lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts of Christianity
* lack of precision in modern language
* translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one.

Of these three sources of errors, the last introduces the largest error, and the biggest component of that error is liberal bias. Large reductions in this error can be attained simply by retranslating the KJV into modern English.[1]

As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:[2]

1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias

2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity

3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level[3]

4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[4] defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".

5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[5] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census

6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.

7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning

8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story

9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels

10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."

hcap

10-06-2009, 05:29 AM

http://don-paskini.blogspot.com/2009/10/republican-jesus-and-conservative-bible.html

1. Republican Jesus:

Republican Jesus is the central figure in the Republican religion. Republican Jesus shares many superficial qualities with the biblical Jesus, and in fact a minority of historians believe the two are actually the same figure. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that Republican Jesus was actually created in 1964 aboard a Goldwater campaign bus, and was recognized as the one true Republican messiah in 1980, in which role he continues to this day.

# The biblical Jesus preached at length about renouncing worldly possessions and giving to the poor. Republican Jesus believes that such handouts merely encourage the poor to be lazy, and that Christian charity is better practiced through massive tax breaks for the wealthiest citizens, who could then be expected to let the money "tinkle down" to the poor in the form of honest, if low-paying, jobs at upright Republican institutions like Wal-Mart.

# Whereas the biblical Jesus is not known to have ever addressed the subject of homosexuality at all, let alone gay marriage, homosexuality is just about all Republican Jesus ever talks about.

# The biblical Jesus threw the money changers out of the Temple. Republican Jesus welcomed them in, even going so far as to open the first known church inside a Wal-Mart.

hcap

10-06-2009, 06:11 AM

This commie passage has gotta go...

Acts 4:32-35 (King James Version)

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

Overlay

10-06-2009, 06:22 AM

Separation of church and state was set up to avoid religion influencing the state, and now we see the reverse is also true

The purpose of the first amendment was to keep government from controlling the free exercise of religion through the establishment of a state religion -- not to restrain the influence of the free exercise of religion on government.

hcap

10-06-2009, 06:48 AM

I do not disagree, but it has evolved into either influencing the other.
We do not want the government interfering in religion, nor do we want religion influencing politics. A state sponsored religion would be an example of religious control.

"The pilgrims were ultimately forced to leave Europe and flee to the land we now know as America because of persecution and oppression. This persecution and oppression was a result of the Church of England, the Anglican Church, becoming the state church. It was an unholy alliance giving more power to both the church and the state to control the people".

I think the modern day equivalent is the undue influence of the religious right-Robertson, Falwell, and others to sway citizens politically. The unabashed alliance between the Christian right and the republican party is another

hcap

10-06-2009, 06:58 AM

http://www.theocracywatch.org/

"Christian Reconstructionism" is a form of "Dominion Theology" that influenced a tendency toward "Dominionism" in the Christian Right and certain evangelical churches such as The Assemblies of God. But, lumping of these theologies together is neither accurate, nor fair.

How did this confusion get started?

In a September 1994 plenary speech to the Christian Coalition national convention, Rev. D. James Kennedy said that "true Christian citizenship" involves an active engagement in society to "take dominion over all things as vice-regents of God." Kennedy's remarks were reported in February 1995 by sociologist and journalist Sara Diamond, who wrote that Kennedy had "echoed the Reconstructionist line."

More than anyone else, it was Sara Diamond who popularized the term "dominionism," using it to describe a growing political tendency in the Christian Right. It is a useful term that has, unfortunately, been used in a variety of ways that are neither accurate nor useful. Diamond was careful to discuss how the small Christian Reconstructionist theological movement had helped introduce "dominionism" as a concept into the larger and more diverse social/political movements called the Christian Right.

Dominionism is therefore a tendency among Protestant Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists that encourages them to not only be active political participants in civic society, but also seek to dominate the political process as part of a mandate from God.

This highly politicized concept of dominionism is based on the Bible's text in Genesis 1:26:

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (King James Version).

"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground.'" (New International Version).

.................................................. ............................................

Then there is teaching Creationism in public schools. Religion influencing the public school system.

Tom

10-06-2009, 07:43 AM

Separation of church and state was set up to avoid religion influencing the state, and now we see the reverse is also true

No it was not.
Freedom of religion was set up.

hcap

10-06-2009, 03:20 PM

No it was not.
Freedom of religion was set up.I said to Overlay. "I do not disagree, but it has evolved into either influencing the other."

We do not want the government interfering in religion, nor do we want religion influencing politics. When a state becomes synonymous with a particular denomination, this happens.
"The pilgrims were ultimately forced to leave Europe and flee to the land we now know as America because of persecution and oppression. This persecution and oppression was a result of the Church of England, the Anglican Church, becoming the state church. It was an unholy alliance giving more power to both the church and the state to control the people".
Yea, the state persecuted but it was in the bag of the Anglicans. Sort of like the religious right dictating civil statutes. Or the extreme fundamental Islamists burning Buddhists Temples.

Tom

10-06-2009, 03:39 PM

And we have evolved into the absolutely ridiculous age where people protest a manger on Christmas Eve.

People afraid of that should be rounded up and tested for brain activity.

hcap

10-06-2009, 03:53 PM

Minor offense. Innocuous for the most part Doesn't necessarily bother me.Unless another relious group objects and feels excluded by the governmental facility hosting the event Here people should recognize a universal generic religious expression of love and compassion.

However teaching Creationism alongside evolution as science is another story. Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, or the hot shot General announcing "My God is tougher than yours" Are not minor.

Snag

10-06-2009, 04:57 PM

hcap

10-06-2009, 05:38 PM

"donpaskini (http://don-paskini.blogspot.com/)

Traditional enemy of free speech. This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places, incidents and circumstances are a product of the author's imagination. Any similarity to people, dead or alive, to events or places, is entirely accidental."

hcap, did you read the header on your link?Mr. Sherlock Snag, I realize conservatives have no sense of humor. Of course it is a work of fiction-a funny work of fiction commenting on the even funnier reality of the The Conservative Bible Project

http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

Maybe that utterly unfunny, stupid and wretched "Red Eye" on Faux will do a show on it. I don't think they could possibly get the inside joke tho' of conservapedia

The real question is.....Is The Conservative Bible Project a real site done by loonie conservatives or is it also a work of fiction? Maybe a liburil conspiracy to discredit real Amuricans?? :lol:

Snag

10-06-2009, 08:53 PM

Haha hcap... isn't it strange that you didn't pass it off as a joke in your title or comments. Haha... that's really funny now when you're called on it!

Show Me the Wire

10-06-2009, 09:09 PM

hcap:

Your eagerness to denounce (based on a joke) the Bible exhibits your fanatical embracing of the progressive left's strategy for delegitimizing The State of Israel.

That is all it is, nothing more and nothing less.

boxcar

10-07-2009, 12:41 AM

http://don-paskini.blogspot.com/2009/10/republican-jesus-and-conservative-bible.html

# The biblical Jesus preached at length about renouncing worldly possessions and giving to the poor. (emphasis mine)

What's the matter -- run out of money to have your scripts filled yesterday? :rolleyes: But be that as it may, provide chapter and verse, please, on your outlandish claims.

Boxcar

hcap

10-07-2009, 05:12 AM

(emphasis mine)

What's the matter -- run out of money to have your scripts filled yesterday? :rolleyes: But be that as it may, provide chapter and verse, please, on your outlandish claims.

Boxcar
From
http://don-paskini.blogspot.com/2009/10/republican-jesus-and-conservative-bible.html

"Republican Jesus was actually created in 1964 aboard a Goldwater campaign bus, and was recognized as the one true Republican messiah in 1980, in which role he continues to this day."

A joke guys, a joke. I repeat conservatives have a stunted sense of humor. Unless you accept that the Republican Jesus was actually created in 1964 aboard a Goldwater campaign bus? So box, do you take this literally as you do the OT?
Your eagerness to denounce (based on a joke) the Bible exhibits your fanatical embracing of the progressive left's strategy for delegitimizing The State of Israel.

That is all it is, nothing more and nothing less. In your eagerness to NOT read the actual:

http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

You misspelled "delegitimizing", and "eagerness", and went off the deep end.

Tell me guys, what do you think of "The Conservative Bible Project"??
When I first came across their absurd talking points, I suspected box was a premier contributor. Sounds a lot like his rantings.

boxcar

10-07-2009, 11:23 AM

From
http://don-paskini.blogspot.com/2009/10/republican-jesus-and-conservative-bible.html

"Republican Jesus was actually created in 1964 aboard a Goldwater campaign bus, and was recognized as the one true Republican messiah in 1980, in which role he continues to this day."

A joke guys, a joke. I repeat conservatives have a stunted sense of humor. Unless you accept that the Republican Jesus was actually created in 1964 aboard a Goldwater campaign bus? So box, do you take this literally as you do the OT?
In your eagerness to NOT read the actual:

http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

You misspelled "delegitimizing", and "eagerness", and went off the deep end.

Tell me guys, what do you think of "The Conservative Bible Project"??
When I first came across their absurd talking points, I suspected box was a premier contributor. Sounds a lot like his rantings.

Has ObamaCare arrived in time for you? Are you back on your meds? If so, tell me what the point is to this thread, other than to accentuate the point on top of your head.

Boxcar

46zilzal

10-07-2009, 01:45 PM

Read Republican Gomorrah by Max Blumenthal. or The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney to see what looniness has been injected into their BASE by complete idiots.

hcap

10-07-2009, 10:20 PM

Has ObamaCare arrived in time for you? Are you back on your meds? If so, tell me what the point is to this thread, other than to accentuate the point on top of your head.

BoxcarYou have yet to comment on the site itself.

http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

What's holding you back? Much of what they post sounds like much of what you post.

boxcar

10-07-2009, 10:53 PM

You have yet to comment on the site itself.

http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

What's holding you back? Much of what they post sounds like much of what you post.

Any resemblance between the inane drivel you have posted and what I have posted is purely coincidental. I haven't even come close, so why should I waste my valuable time reading more garbage?

Meanwhile, have you come up with all the Jesus proof texts whereby he supposedly condemned wealth or any abundance of material possessions? You're awful slow coming up with the proof for someone who shoots his big mouth off in rapid fire succession. Surely, you're just not another run-of-the-mill empty suit after the order of zilly and your boy BO, are you?

Boxcar

mostpost

10-08-2009, 12:56 AM

Any resemblance between the inane drivel you have posted and what I have posted is purely coincidental. I haven't even come close, so why should I waste my valuable time reading more garbage?

Meanwhile, have you come up with all the Jesus proof texts whereby he supposedly condemned wealth or any abundance of material possessions? You're awful slow coming up with the proof for someone who shoots his big mouth off in rapid fire succession. Surely, you're just not another run-of-the-mill empty suit after the order of zilly and your boy BO, are you?

Boxcar
Apparently hcap is busy with more important things. So, assuming his permission, permit me to answer. Let me say that I am not a student of the bible as you are, but a quick scan found the following: Matthew 5 vs 42
] Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away
Matthew 6 vs 19
Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth
Matthew 19 vs20 to 21
he young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
[21] Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
Matthew 23 vs 14
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses
Matthew 25 vs 34 to 46
] Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
[35] For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
[36] Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
[37] Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
[38] When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
[39] Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
[40] And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
[41] Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
[42] For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
[43] I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
[44] Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
[45] Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
[46] And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Romans 12 vs 20
Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink
I found these with very little effort. I didn't even include the one where Jesus said it is easier for a camel to pass through a needles eye than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. Or where he through the money changers out of the temple.

There is another place where Jesus gives lie to your philosophy. HIS LIFE as chronicled in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Example after example of Jesus curing people without regard to their social standing. Story after story of Jesus forgiving people regardless of their sins. Time after time Jesus helped people; a centurion, a leper. a prostitute, a begger. He never asked if they were legal immigrants, He never questioned if they had a job, He never inquired if they were gay, He never wondered if they were worthy of his help, he just helped.

Java Gold@TFT

10-08-2009, 04:56 AM

We do not want the government interfering in religion, nor do we want religion influencing politics.
Call me whatever name you want but I sure as hell want religion influencing politics. I want my poiticians to satnd up and say that they support the moral values expressed in religious writings from the Bible to the Koran to writings of Kahlil Gilbran. They are all full of ideals that I would hope my elected officials would keep in mind while voting on legislation. They are not dictating a state run religion but to not use basic religious moral beliefs in your decision making process is a corruption of the Constitution. I want my officials to have a moral center when deciding things whether they are Chriistian, Jewish, Hindis or Muslims. There will always be extremists in any religious belief but that doesn't mean that the normal religious person can't be guided by the basic moral philosophies contained within their religion of choice. Give me more religion influencing politics and not less. Then anrchy would reigh supreme.

hcap

10-08-2009, 06:09 AM

Call me whatever name you want but I sure as hell want religion influencing politics. I want my poiticians to satnd up and say that they support the moral values expressed in religious writings from the Bible to the Koran to writings of Kahlil Gilbran. They are all full of ideals that I would hope my elected officials would keep in mind while voting on legislation. They are not dictating a state run religion but to not use basic religious moral beliefs in your decision making process is a corruption of the Constitution. I want my officials to have a moral center when deciding things whether they are Chriistian, Jewish, Hindis or MuslimsProblem is not their privately held moral beliefs based on whatever. But when religious groups with political agendas influence legislation, the proverbial can of worms is opened.

Or when political groups with religious agendas influence religious texts, more worms galore. Actually the genius group that is rewriting the bible at..

http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

..is trying to project their warped world view back a few thousand years. There is no support for conservative talking points in the bible. No matter what boxcar says.

hcap

10-08-2009, 06:20 AM

most,

My earlier post # 3 seems to support Socialism. What do you think?
I think our great RESIDENT biblical scholar is afraid to respond to your biblical passages, or mine or the actual twisted Conservative Bible Project

This commie passage has gotta go...

Acts 4:32-35 (King James Version)

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

Tom

10-08-2009, 07:50 AM

Austin 3:16 "I just kicked your ass!"

Java Gold@TFT

10-08-2009, 09:35 AM

Problem is not their privately held moral beliefs based on whatever. But when religious groups with political agendas influence legislation, the proverbial can of worms is opened.

Or when political groups with religious agendas influence religious texts, more worms galore. Actually the genius group that is rewriting the bible at..

http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

..is trying to project their warped world view back a few thousand years. There is no support for conservative talking points in the bible. No matter what boxcar says.
OK, I went to the website and read through a lot of it. I didn't see one thing that said that their efforts were to influence politics in any way. It looks like a free standing publication hat has absolutely nothing to do with our government. The people who are trying to get their version of a Bible do not appear to be getting government money or doing anything less than any other revisionist changes to classic references. I have a Children's Bible in my house that I read to my grandchildren. Do I think that somehow Congress is reading it and deciding laws based on the Children's Bible? Don't think so. Your original premise seemed to be that somehow this project would have an effect on political decisions. I just don't see it anywhere. Besides children's Bibles there are women's Bibles, black Bibles and numerous others out there that I haven't seen. So, now, somehow you decide that an independent group that wants to produce a Conservative Bible is going to influence the separation of Church and State? I flat out don't see the connection.

boxcar

10-08-2009, 11:01 AM

most,

My earlier post # 3 seems to support Socialism. What do you think?
I think our great RESIDENT biblical scholar is afraid to respond to your biblical passages, or mine or the actual twisted Conservative Bible Project

You need to pay attention. You're so stuck on communism (a/k/a STUPID), you haven't been listening. I have already addressed this passage weeks ago, if not months ago. As usual, you're lifting a passage out of its context to support your political views, which is precisely what you accuse me of doing! :bang: :bang: Was it the wicked Roman government involved here or was it believers in the early church?

Boxcar
P.S. I'm still waiting for those Jesus passages that condemn materialism.

LottaKash

10-08-2009, 01:07 PM

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off.

So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"

He said, "Like what?"

I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"

He said, "Religious."

I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

He said, "Christian."

I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

He said, "Protestant."

I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

He said, "Baptist!"

I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist church of God or Baptist church of
the Lord?"

He said, "Baptist church of God!"

I said, "Me too! Are you original Baptist church of God, or are you reformed Baptist church of God?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist church of God!"

I said, "Me too! Are you reformed Baptist church of God, reformation of 1879, or reformed Baptist church of God, reformation of 1915?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist church of God, reformation of 1915!"

I said, "Die, heretic scum," and pushed him off.

Dave Schwartz

10-08-2009, 01:12 PM

Kash,

You made this entire thread worthwhile!

Thank you.

Dave

LottaKash

10-08-2009, 01:24 PM

Kash,

You made this entire thread worthwhile!

Thank you.

Dave

Thx for the Thx, Dave....;)

best,

GaryG

10-08-2009, 01:30 PM

Nice job LK.....Hcap hates Christians about as much as he does conservatives. He saw the title of this project and assumed it was a right wing plot. Somebody is about to be told to STFU....:D

mostpost

10-08-2009, 02:12 PM

most,

My earlier post # 3 seems to support Socialism. What do you think?
I think our great RESIDENT biblical scholar is afraid to respond to your biblical passages, or mine or the actual twisted Conservative Bible Project
I think that you are correct. I don't think that your reference is at all out of context. In fact the passages following (Acts 5 verses 1 through 10) would seem to emphasize your conclusions. But it is not merely in specific passages that we see Jesus compassion for the downtrodden and his disdain for those who would ignore or take advantage of them. It is in his actions throughout the New Testament; his washing of his disciples feet. his curing of leper, his refusal to condemn the prostitute, or the woman at the well.
Non biblically, there is considerable evidence that Jesus spent much of his young adult life as a member of the Essenes. The Essenes were a mystical, communal group. Everything they possessed was owned collectively. There was no individual ownership of property.
All in all, I think it is up to Boxcar to provide proof that Jesus advocated acquisiton of and hoarding of wealth. It's up to him to show us where Jesus said, "Poor people are Anchors"

mostpost

10-08-2009, 02:16 PM

Nice job LK.....Hcap hates Christians about as much as he does conservatives. He saw the title of this project and assumed it was a right wing plot. Somebody is about to be told to STFU....:D
I can see nothing in any of Hcap's postings here that indicates any hatred of Christians. On the other hand I see plenty of indications, here and elsewhere of some Christians hatred of hcap.

boxcar

10-08-2009, 02:39 PM

I think that you are correct. I don't think that your reference is at all out of context. In fact the passages following (Acts 5 verses 1 through 10) would seem to emphasize your conclusions.

Explain how -- in your own words, if you can.

And then don't forget to write asking 'cap, why he'd take these specific Acts passages literally.

Boxcar

Show Me the Wire

10-08-2009, 02:44 PM

Problem is not their privately held moral beliefs based on whatever. But when religious groups with political agendas influence legislation, the proverbial can of worms is opened.

Or when political groups with religious agendas influence religious texts, more worms galore. Actually the genius group that is rewriting the bible at..

http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

..is trying to project their warped world view back a few thousand years. There is no support for conservative talking points in the bible. No matter what boxcar says.

If political groups with agendas influencing aagendas is inaapropriate, so are like political groups with Marxist agendas, Nazi agendas, profitteering agendas, or any agenda are just as wrong.

Do you see the absurdity of your position regarding agendas and political groups? Probabaly not.

If you read the Bible you will see references about the people that turn right are okay and the people that turn left are in trouble. See if you can find that reference. Hint O.T. Also Jesus told his apostles to cast their nets off the right side of the boat. He was very specific, Jesus didn't say cast your nets over the sides.

Show Me the Wire

10-08-2009, 02:51 PM

I can see nothing in any of Hcap's postings here that indicates any hatred of Christians. On the other hand I see plenty of indications, here and elsewhere of some Christians hatred of hcap.

hcap has posted negatively about Christianity in many threads during his time year. he definitely has an anti-Christian bias. He especially, enjoys attacking the Roman Church.

Although he portends to practice Eastern philosophies, his reactions to certain religious postings is more akin to a practicing Muslem's reactions than a Eastern practitioner.

Black Ruby

10-08-2009, 03:06 PM

If you read the Bible you will see references about the people that turn right are okay and the people that turn left are in trouble. See if you can find that reference. Hint O.T. Also Jesus told his apostles to cast their nets off the right side of the boat. He was very specific, Jesus didn't say cast your nets over the sides.

If we're gonna talk O.T., perhaps you can clear some things up for me.
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Tom

10-08-2009, 03:25 PM

If we're gonna talk O.T., perhaps you can clear some things up for me.
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this? Screw your neighbor. Burn it.

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? Got a photo?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. They are ALWAYS that way.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Canada has exclusivity with France.

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? Yes, but do not oft him on the Sabbath.

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Depends on how it is prepared. It is an abomination at Long John Silver's, but not so at Red Lobster.

Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? Clearly, the verse specifies 20:20.

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Now, say 7 Hail Mary's and avoid the internet for three weeks.

Show Me the Wire

10-08-2009, 03:45 PM

If we're gonna talk O.T., perhaps you can clear some things up for me.
.................................................. .............................................

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

Incense. Remember this should only be done in the presence of God. Do You have the ARK of the Covenant? If not a burnt offering is not allowed.

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

Since slavery is illegal, except for white slavery of pre-teen girls per ACORN, in the U.S. you would have to check the markets in Africa, Saudi Arabia, Haiti, where it is still practiced. Owning slaves is permissive, not mandatory.

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

This is a Mosaic law and need not be practiced, unless you are Jewish. I am sure an orthodox Jewish woman would be responsive.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

Depends on the laws of the land. See above Acorn answer.

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

Ask an orthodox Jewish person practicing Mosaic Law, as he is better qualified to answer, than I.

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Not according to St. Paul. Remember the N.T. takes precedence for Christians were there is a conflict between the two Testaments.
Shellfish okay, Homos not per Paul.

Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Once, again O.T. overruled by N.T. unless you are Jewish and offering Holocaust (burnt offerings)

It seems you have not studied how to make comparisons. I compared a concept about turning right or left, while you are comparing concepts to religious laws to a specific group.

You comparisons are a pure load of crap on your part or truly a basic lack of understanding regarding differences between concepts, regulations and laws.

An example for your education:. Concept- the work place should be a safe place. Regulation or law - U.S. located work places must have fire extinguishers located every 50 feet.

Concepts may be codified, i.e. fire extinguishers or may not be codified. The concept of turning right or left is not codified so your comparative attempts regarding O.T. laws are erroneous.

You are not even in the same ballpark. I just wanted to point that out.

If you want to be in the same ballpark, with O.T. comparisons applying today, it would be something along these lines the O.T. concept of worshipping One God is still viable

hcap

10-08-2009, 06:39 PM

If you read the Bible you will see references about the people that turn right are okay and the people that turn left are in trouble. See if you can find that reference. Hint O.T. Also Jesus told his apostles to cast their nets off the right side of the boat. He was very specific, Jesus didn't say cast your nets over the sides.Did Jesus take part in the French revolution? Maybe he was really French? And was present at the French Legislative Assembly of 1791......

In France, where the terms originated, the Left is called "the party of movement" and the Right "the party of order".[1]

The terms Left and Right have been used to refer to political affiliation since the early part of the French Revolutionary era. They originally referred to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France, specifically in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791, when the king was still the formal head of state, and the moderate royalist Feuillants sat on the right side of the chamber, while the radical Montagnards sat on the left.[9] This traditional seating arrangement continues to be observed by the Senate and National Assembly of the French Fifth Republic.
You have outdone boxcars' absurdities.
There was no political context of LEFT/RIGHT before the French.
Damn, now I guess we will have to revive "Freedom Fries" in the congressional cafeteria. Give it up guys. There has never been a conservative slant to the bible, unless you include slavery and money changers in temples.

.................................................. ....................

Ok researching the LEFT/RIGHT which I was not that familar with I came up with these....

Proverbs 4:27. Turn not to the right hand nor to the left: remove thy foot from evil.

Deuteronomy 5:32 "So you shall observe to do just as the LORD your God has commanded you; you shall not turn aside to the right or to the left.

Deuteronomy 28:14 and do not turn aside from any of the words which I command you today, to the right or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them.

Seems ambidextrous to me.

Show Me the Wire

10-08-2009, 07:20 PM

hcap:

My, my I see you need my help. Try Ecc1 10, 2 "The wise man's understanding turns him to his right; the fool's understanding turns him to his left."

You see the left is for the fools. An ancient concept, which is very applicable to present time, the fool's understanding turns him to the left.

I wasn't talking specifically politics, but more about wisdom which is needed for political leadership.

It is apparent you have no concept about the content or context of the message of the O.T. and the N.T.

Eccl 10, 2 "When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he calls everything foolish."

hcap

10-08-2009, 08:02 PM

1-If you read the Bible you will see references about the people that turn right are okay and the people that turn left are in trouble. See if you can find that reference. Hint O.T. Also Jesus told his apostles to cast their nets off the right side of the boat. He was very specific, Jesus didn't say cast your nets over the sides.

2-I wasn't talking specifically politics, but more about wisdom which is needed for political leadership.
Yes you were talking politics. Now you decide, after I point out that there was NO conservative or political slant to the bible and in fact the dastardly French invented the LEFT/RIGHT divide 1700 years later-you REALLY meant wisdom all along. :rolleyes:

No Freedom Fries for you!!!! Let them eat french fries!

Btw, what about my ambidextrous passages. Chopped liver?

Proverbs 4:27. Turn not to the right hand nor to the left: remove thy foot from evil.

Deuteronomy 5:32 "So you shall observe to do just as the LORD your God has commanded you; you shall not turn aside to the right or to the left.

Deuteronomy 28:14 and do not turn aside from any of the words which I command you today, to the right or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them.

Show Me the Wire

10-08-2009, 08:19 PM

Yes you were talking politics. Now you decide, after I point out that there was NO conservative or political slant to the bible and in fact the dastardly French invented the LEFT/RIGHT divide 1700 years later-you REALLY meant wisdom all along. :rolleyes:

No Freedom Fries for you!!!! Let them eat french fries!

Btw, what about my ambidextrous passages. Chopped liver?

Proverbs 4:27. Turn not to the right hand nor to the left: remove thy foot from evil.

Deuteronomy 5:32 "So you shall observe to do just as the LORD your God has commanded you; you shall not turn aside to the right or to the left.

Deuteronomy 28:14 and do not turn aside from any of the words which I command you today, to the right or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them.

Okay, I meant my post does not just apply to politics.

Your other qoutes are in the wrong context. They have nothing to do with politics. The passages are about obeying GOD's [B]laws, not doing evil and not veering from the path to any other false God worship.

You got nothing, nada, zip.

I don't see your justification for the French inventing the left. GOD gave man the right to be free from tyranny read the U.S. Declaration of Independence. Freedom from tyranny is the natural order and a turn to the right.

Tyranny is a leftist elitist idea. The idea that a elite person or class knows what is best for every individual is repugnant. The French and the American Revolutions restored the individual to its proper status.

You and your ilk would be yelling "Let them eat cake."

It is always a pleasure to help you understand Holy Scripture.

boxcar

10-08-2009, 11:07 PM

mostpost

10-08-2009, 11:42 PM

Hey, 'cap, I'm still waiting for the biblical cites for those lengthy sermons Jesus allegedly gave on the subject of renouncing worldly possessions and giving all to the poor. Surely, you just weren't blowing off smoke, were you? You're not just an obnoxious sounding empty drum, are you?

Boxcar
Hcap, I found a video of Boxcar online.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno
The pertinent part starts around 2:40
Boxcar alias "The Black Knight"

boxcar

10-09-2009, 12:26 AM

Hcap, I found a video of Boxcar online.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno
The pertinent part starts around 2:40
Boxcar alias "The Black Knight"

And we all know your vessel is as empty as your soul mate's. I'm still waiting for you to tell me why your think Acts 5 supports socialism or communism.

Boxcar

hcap

10-09-2009, 04:36 AM

My, my I see you need my help. Try Ecc1 10, 2 "The wise man's understanding turns him to his right; the fool's understanding turns him to his left."This ancient "wisdom" is as applicable as black cats crossing your path or walking under a ladder. Do you also believe left handed people are the spawn of Satan? In am beginning to think you and boxcar are modern day remakes of "Elmer Gantry". Or maybe "Inherit THE Wind", with box playing the Frederic March role. In the movie of course March did a great job playing Matthew Harrison Brady. A very sympathetic portrayal of William Jennings Bryan. So either box should take acting lessons to improve his emotional connection with his audience, or both of you should go back to sunday school and review minor Christian concepts like compassion, conscience and humility.

Fire and brimstone and heavy doses of raging ego, does not a good Christian make.

hcap

10-09-2009, 05:20 AM

hcap has posted negatively about Christianity in many threads during his time year. he definitely has an anti-Christian bias. He especially, enjoys attacking the Roman Church.

Although he portends to practice Eastern philosophies, his reactions to certain religious postings is more akin to a practicing Muslem's reactions than a Eastern practitioner.So say you. Where exactly did I express these sentiments? I did object of course when you and boxcar told us the Jews killed Christ. As a Jew I took offense and pointed out the sordid Church history of anti-Semitism. Particularly vile-Martin Luther.

And the historically warlike and belligerent attitude of Christianity.
But in context of "any religion is only as good as how it is manifest by its practitioners". My reaction to prejudicial remarks by all the "Good" Christians here about how other religions are not true religions

Java Gold@TFT

10-09-2009, 08:34 AM

hcap, would you ever care to answer my post as to how this project is somehow an assault on church and sate or how it in anyway has an effect on political voting? Maybe you just want to rant about Christian beliefs but you are the one who started the thread under the premise that this project wouls somehow affect our government. Care to tell me how? I'm just asking how you think this project will affect our life and not whether you and Mosty can quote Bible passages. Give it to me straight. Thanks.

boxcar

10-09-2009, 11:11 AM

So say you. Where exactly did I express these sentiments? I did object of course when you and boxcar told us the Jews killed Christ. As a Jew I took offense and pointed out the sordid Church history of anti-Semitism. Particularly vile-Martin Luther.

And the historically warlike and belligerent attitude of Christianity.
But in context of "any religion is only as good as how it is manifest by its practitioners". My reaction to prejudicial remarks by all the "Good" Christians here about how other religions are not true religions

Notwithstanding the evil persecution of Jews by the early church which we have discussed previously -- ASIDE from this -- I never really understood why you were so offended. Scripture says what it says. Why did you refuse to take those NT passages literally -- the same way you take other passages when they tickle your ears? The fact remains: The Jews and Gentiles were both guilty of Christ's death. The Jews delivered up the Christ to the Romans to have this righteous man murdered. Therefore, since Jew and Gentile (the whole world) had a hand in his death, the whole world, in essence, is guilty. Very sadly, this fact is something many professing believers, in their misguided zeal, overlooked.

Boxcar

LottaKash

10-09-2009, 11:15 AM

A priest was driving along and saw a nun on the side of the road, he stopped and offered her a lift which she accepted. She got in and crossed her legs, forcing her gown to open and reveal a lovely leg. The priest had a look and nearly had an accident. After controlling the car, he stealthily slid his hand up her leg. The nun looked at him and immediately said, "Father, remember psalm 129?"

The priest was flustered and apologized profusely. He forced himself to remove his hand, however he was unable to remove his eyes from her leg.

Further on while changing gear, he let his hand slide up her leg again. The nun once again said,"Father, remember psalm 129?"

Once again the priest apologized. "Sorry sister but the flesh is weak."

Arriving at the convent, the nun got out gave him a meaningful glance and went on her way.

On his arrival at the church, the priest rushed to retrieve a bible and looked up psalm 129. It Said, "Go forth and seek, further up, you will find glory."

Moral Of The Story:

Always be well informed in your job, or you might miss a great opportunity!

mostpost

10-09-2009, 02:27 PM

And we all know your vessel is as empty as your soul mate's. I'm still waiting for you to tell me why your think Acts 5 supports socialism or communism.

Boxcar
And I and Hcap are still waiting for you to comment on our several biblical citations in which Jesus speaks out against avarice and greed, materialism if you will.
My reference to Acts 5 verses 1 to 10 was not intended as a proof of socialism/communism, but as an indication that Acts 4 - 32 to 35 was not being quoted out of context. Acts 4 verses 32 to 35 are a clear call to share all we have with others.

boxcar

10-09-2009, 04:07 PM

And I and Hcap are still waiting for you to comment on our several biblical citations in which Jesus speaks out against avarice and greed, materialism if you will.

Why do you need me to comment on that? Greed and avarice are clearly sins. But so...is thievery by members of a church, by members of society and by human institutions. So, what's your point?

My reference to Acts 5 verses 1 to 10 was not intended as a proof of socialism/communism, but as an indication that Acts 4 - 32 to 35 was not being quoted out of context. Acts 4 verses 32 to 35 are a clear call to share all we have with others.

A few questions:

1. Where is the "call" in this passage?

2. Who was doing the sharing? Believers in the early church in Jerusalem or unbelievers in Jerusalem?

3. Was this sharing done voluntarily or involuntarily?

4. Were all who gave in complete agreement or not?

5. Were the specific needs of those who were recipients of the charity known by the church at large?

And finally...I take it that you are a firm believer and staunch supporter of the "separation of church and state" doctrine, as this has evolved throughout these many decades? If so, I would assume that you would vehemently rail against any attempts at Christian teaching or dogma being introduced and injected into public policies by the state? For example, if the U.S. congress were to pass legislation outlawing prostitution and pornography, you'd either be personally offended by this or would at least sympathize with those who were, yes? Or if congress were to pass a law mandating non-emergency businesses to close on the Christian sabbath and also requiring church attendance, this would offend you, also, correct? So, then, why do you, along with your soul mate 'cap, now appeal to the bible in an effort to make a case for a public policy issue for which you are in favor?
I would like you to explain this to me.

And now, for you Mr. 'cap: Again, why do you take select verses in this Acts passage literally, yet other verses you do not? I am referring specifically to the following highlighted verses:

Acts 4
4:1 And as they were speaking to the people, the priests and the captain of the temple guard, and the Sadducees, came upon them, 2 being greatly disturbed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. 3 And they laid hands on them, and put them in jail until the next day, for it was already evening. 4 But many of those who had heard the message believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand.

5 And it came about on the next day, that their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem; 6 and Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of high-priestly descent. 7 And when they had placed them in the center, they began to inquire, "By what power, or in what name, have you done this?" 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers and elders of the people, 9 if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well, 10 let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead — by this name this man stands here before you in good health. 11 "He is the stone which was rejected by you, the builders, but which became the very corner stone. 12 "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved."

13 Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John, and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were marveling, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus. 14 And seeing the man who had been healed standing with them, they had nothing to say in reply. 15 But when they had ordered them to go aside out of the Council, they began to confer with one another, 16 saying, "What shall we do with these men? For the fact that a noteworthy miracle has taken place through them is apparent to all who live in Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it. 17 "But in order that it may not spread any further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to any man in this name." 18 And when they had summoned them, they commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John answered and said to them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; 20 for we cannot stop speaking what we have seen and heard. " 21 And when they had threatened them further, they let them go (finding no basis on which they might punish them) on account of the people, because they were all glorifying God for what had happened; 22 for the man was more than forty years old on whom this miracle of healing had been performed.

23 And when they had been released, they went to their own companions, and reported all that the chief priests and the elders had said to them. 24 And when they heard this, they lifted their voices to God with one accord and said, "O Lord, it is Thou who didst make the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them, 25 who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Thy servant, didst say,

'Why did the Gentiles rage,
And the peoples devise futile things?
26'The kings of the earth took their stand,
And the rulers were gathered together
Against the Lord, and against His Christ.'

27 "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur. 29 "And now, Lord, take note of their threats, and grant that Thy bond-servants may speak Thy word with all confidence, 30 while Thou dost extend Thy hand to heal, and signs and wonders take place through the name of Thy holy servant Jesus. " 31 And when they had prayed, the place where they had gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak the word of God with boldness.

32 And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own; but all things were common property to them. 33 And with great power the apostles were giving witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. 34 For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales, 35 and lay them at the apostles' feet; and they would be distributed to each, as any had need.

36 And Joseph, a Levite of Cyprian birth, who was also called Barnabas by the apostles (which translated means, Son of Encouragement), 37 and who owned a tract of land, sold it and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet.
NASB

So...when you get around to it, I would like to understand this, as well: Why are you so intellectually dishonest? Why do you cherry-pick certain passages that tickle your ears and interpret those literally, while simultaneously discarding those to the trash heap of allegories when they don't square well with your worldly, human-secularist presuppositional baggage?

Boxcar

mostpost

10-10-2009, 12:06 PM

The Bible is many things. It is an historical record of the Jewish people. It is a rendering of the life of Jesus. It is a moral compass. It is the word of God as interpreted by men. As interpreted by men, given their state of knowledge at the time.
Many things in the Bible are historical fact. Such as the exile in Egypt. the years of wandering, the subjegation by the Romans. Many things are allegorical, for example Adam and Eve, Noah taking two of every animal aboard an Ark. These stories are told to help us understand a more complex reality. One which, given our knowledge at the time, we were incapable of understanding. So Adam and Eve are representative of humanities evolution from instinctive creature to reasoning human being. Noah is representative of humanities response to a great natural disaster. It is well known that many ancient cultures have legends of a great flood.
The point is; it is entirely reasonable to categorize some passages of the Bible as factual and others as allegorical. The difference is not hard to discern. If you have an open mind. So, if you have a passage which says:
[QUOTE]32 And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own; but all things were common property to them. 33 And with great power the apostles were giving witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. 34 For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales, 35 and lay them at the apostles' feet; and they would be distributed to each, as any had need[/QUOTE.]
you can be assured that this is an historical account. And you may be certain that it refers to the early christians, because the beginning of verse 32 states. "and the congregation of those who believed" and verse 35 starts,
"and lay them at the apostles feet."
Other verses which were quoted by Boxcar can be a combination of historical and allegorical. Certainly the Apostles were confronted by authorities while affecting cures. Certainly those cures may have been miraculous in nature. I would not argue against that, but I would also leave open the possibility that there is more to the story than we have been given.

Show Me the Wire

10-10-2009, 12:42 PM

Kudus to you. A well reasoned thoughtful post. I hope to see more of the same from you in the future.

I disagree with some of your opinions, such as the Bible is the word of GOD interpreted by men. If it is man's intepretation than it is of man and not GOD.

Holy Scripture is the word of GOD, as written through inspired men.

Charity has always been a pillar of the Christian Church. N.T. writers always emphasis the importance of sharing with one another, in the Christian community, to insure life's necessities like clothing, food, water and shelter.

boxcar

10-10-2009, 01:15 PM

The point is; it is entirely reasonable to categorize some passages of the Bible as factual and others as allegorical. The difference is not hard to discern. If you have an open mind.

I see that you have ducked virtually all my other questions. In fact, I didn't address the allegorical and literal with you but with 'cap. But since you have chosen to wander into the lion's den, then so be it.

You say above "not hard to discern", yet you're unsure of whether or not the apostles really performed miracles or that some fiction was just thrown into this Acts narrative to add spice and flavor?

Also, you really mean if you have "an open mind" that is a one-way thoroughfare -- whereby traffic coming from the other direction is prohibited, right? For example, how open is one's mind when he or she simply rejects a literal interpretation as a matter of course -- for no good objective or critical reasons. For example, I take it that you would categorically deny the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the tomb, correct? You would allegorize all those resurrection passages by saying that they're referring to his "spirit" being resurrected, or some other such inane explanation that would fly in the face of clear scriptural teachings. In the end, what it really comes down to is that you will interpret according to how you want to believe. Permit me to demonstrate this with this very Acts passage, which you cite as "proving" something relative to socialized medicine (I suppose)-- although, I'm not quite sure what you're attempting to say because when it comes down to it, there are zero parallels between state-mandated redistribution of wealth and voluntary, charitable giving compelled by the power of God's grace and out of unconditional love for all the like-minded brethren and for God.

My question to you is very simple with regards to this Acts passage: Would it be a good idea for the U.S. government to mandate that all U.S. citizens follow this Acts model for giving by laying all our worldly possessions at the state's feet? Warning: Think very carefully before you answer. ;)

Boxcar

mostpost

10-11-2009, 12:23 PM

For example, I take it that you would categorically deny the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the tomb, correct?
no

boxcar

10-11-2009, 12:52 PM

no

How come you don't allegorize those resurrection passages?

Boxcar

hcap

10-12-2009, 02:43 AM

My question to you is very simple with regards to this Acts passage: Would it be a good idea for the U.S. government to mandate that all U.S. citizens follow this Acts model for giving by laying all our worldly possessions at the state's feet? Warning: Think very carefully before you answer. How bout the government sanctioning genocide? I have asked you many times before why was it necessary for God to exterminate the Amalekites?

<< 1 Samuel 15:3 >>

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.

Previously you told me this was literal. That God is the super duper landlord and he decided to evict his tenants from his property-the Amalekites-including their suckling infants.

You have taken the most absurd things in the bible literally. Now you decide a most straight forward passage about among other things-YES-community organization-is only allegorical. Make up your mind. Apparently you think literally about the bible. So why not the Acts passages?..

Here is a few more that deserve your consideration.
Literal, or allegorical interpretation?? Or maybe they are not conservative enough for you? Holy crap! Could be a case of liberal bias

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Kill Witches

You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Kill Homosexuals

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Kill Fortunetellers

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

.................................................. .................................................

I think the last one is quite appropriately applied to all those here that predict doom for the Obama administration by means of Socialism/Communism/Community organization :cool: .

Java Gold@TFT

10-12-2009, 06:55 AM

hcap, care to ever answer the question in post#49 or has the cat got your tongue? In post #1 you stated:

Separation of church and state was set up to avoid religion influencing the state, and now we see the reverse is also true

So, exactly how does this project influence the separation of Church and State? And I don't need any Bible passages quoted - just how a Conservative Bible would affect Bills in Congress or change Supreme Court votes. How is it different than a woman's Bible or children's Bible? Are the publishers getting government subsidies we don't know about? Please answer. I'm dying to see the spin you put on this one.

toetoe

10-12-2009, 12:40 PM

hcap,

What about Muslims wanting to institute sharia law in heretofore free societies ? If I were to encourage this, might I get a (Religion of) Peace Prize ?

boxcar

10-12-2009, 02:20 PM

How bout the government sanctioning genocide? I have asked you many times before why was it necessary for God to exterminate the

<< 1 Samuel 15:3 >>

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.

Previously you told me this was literal. That God is the super duper landlord and he decided to evict his tenants from his property-the Amalekites-including their suckling infants.

You have taken the most absurd things in the bible literally. Now you decide a most straight forward passage about among other things-YES-community organization-is only allegorical. Make up your mind. Apparently you think literally about the bible. So why not the Acts passages?..

Here is a few more that deserve your consideration.
Literal, or allegorical interpretation?? Or maybe they are not conservative enough for you? Holy crap! Could be a case of liberal bias

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Kill Witches

You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Kill Homosexuals

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Kill Fortunetellers

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

.................................................. .................................................

I think the last one is quite appropriately applied to all those here that predict doom for the Obama administration by means of Socialism/Communism/Community organization :cool: .

"cap, 'cap...you're drifting aimlessly in your dark sea of ignorance. I have addressed the Amalekites issue previously. I guess you weren't paying attention. And I have no time to rehash all this again.

But here's YOUR problem in a nutshell -- something you've never been able to wrap your mind around: Mankind's moral standards can rise no higher than the gutter when compared to God's holiness and righteousness. Man's basis for establishing moral standards is limited to strictly a horizontal perspective (which largely accounts for the moral relativism of the day) or a very distorted vertical view of God. We fallen mortals tend to only think of ourselves and others in terms of degrees of goodness. We say, this person is a "good" person, or that person is a "good" Joe, etc. But mere "goodness" falls far, far short of God's holy standard, which is righteousness. We can all be sure that the world is filled with its share of "good" but also unrighteous people. But it's only the righteous who will get to see God and enjoy him for all eternity in paradise. For the rest of mankind, including all those "good" people, they will pay the ultimate penalty for sin, which is death.
Sin, by definition, falls short of God's standard, which no man can reach. Sin is a repugnant, foul stench to God's nostrils and so no unrepentant, unbelieving sinner will stand before God and live. For as it is written:

Rom 6:23
23 For the wages of sin is death..
NASB

Are there any righteous in the earth who can escape this unbearable penalty -- this unbearable end? Again, it is written:

Rom 3:9-18
9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10 as it is written,

"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."
NASB

From God's perspective, there are no good people in the earth, save for those who have been washed in and redeemed by the blood of his Son. All mankind's righteousness is as filthy rags:

Isa 64:6
6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags ; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
KJV

Man, spiritually is to God what lepers were and are to the clean:

Isa 1:4-6

4 Alas, sinful nation, People weighed down with iniquity,
Offspring of evildoers,
Sons who act corruptly!
They have abandoned the LORD,
They have despised the Holy One of Israel,
They have turned away from Him.

5 Where will you be stricken again,
As you continue in your rebellion?
The whole head is sick,
And the whole heart is faint.
6 From the sole of the foot even to the head
There is nothing sound in it,
Only bruises, welts, and raw wounds,
Not pressed out or bandaged,
Nor softened with oil.
NASB

Sin is very serious business, Mr. 'cap. In fact, in one of the very Acts passages that you cited (for still some unfathomable reason) that dealt with the remarkable charity of the very early church in Jerusalem, were not Annanias and his wife Sapphira in chapter 5 struck down dead by the Spirit of God for a "mere" lie!? One "measly" lie! I'm surprised you haven't railed endlessly against God for his "evil" reaction -- or should I say "overreaction"!?

But the irony in these Acts passages only begins here. You cite these passages that speak to the giving of mere temporal gifts -- gifts designed to ease mere financial burdens of the brethren; yet, you overlook the far greater gift of God when he gave his only begotten to Son to his chosen people so that he would relieve them of their sin burden by becoming their sin-bearer and paying the ultimate penalty for their sins. He paid the ultimate wages in Rom 6:23 and, thankfully, this passage doesn't end where I ended it, for it goes on to say,"...but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Here is real Hope. Not the worldly, carnal hope offered by the likes Barack Obama. In fact, the "hope" offered in this passage is being experienced, in a real sense, by all true believers as I type this because all believers know they are the children of God. We know we have eternal life.

So, 'cap, quit railing against God and blaming him for evil-doing when he punishied sin. And quit railing against Christians who interpret many, if not most, of the passages in scripture literally because it simply makes good sense to do so. Stop accusing God and his people of any kind of wrong-doing when it comes to the bible. You would turn the bible inside out and rip out entire pages if you felt it would help support your sinful lifestyle. You're so enamored with your lifestyle, so in love with your own life that you are totally blinded to any spiritual truth. I would have a great deal more respect for you if you simply admitted this -- if you simply admitted that you have no real interest in learning the gospel message of the bible -- that you have no interest in hearing the good news. And the reason you're not interested is because the "good news" isn't good enough for you because you think your life is better than the gospel message. You see more value in your life than you do in God's love and his unspeakable gift to mankind.

Boxcar