Religion II

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And what if these were a result of God's judgments?

In an earlier post you said you understood and accepted the concept of "for the sake of argument."

I am not going to accept the idea that natural disasters are the result of "God's judgments" ergo stoning homosexuals is justified because God commands it. I will not accept that even "for the sake of argument." I will not accept the idea that parents should be allowed to withhold medical care from their children and simply pray for them. I will not accept the idea that freedom of religion includes human sacrifice. That's carrying tolerance for religious whack jobs too far.

No! No! No!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

In an earlier post you said you understood and accepted the concept of "for the sake of argument."

I am not going to accept the idea that natural disasters are the result of "God's judgments"

Then I guess you also cannot accept that we all must die of something.

ergo stoning homosexuals is justified because God commands it.

A just penalty under the Old Covenant dispensation whereby the Law of Moses was Israel's Law for Living in the Land.. Again, The wages of sin is death

I will not accept the idea that parents should be allowed to withhold medical care from their children and simply pray for them.

A straw man. I know of no born again evangelical Christian who believes this or practices it.

I will not accept the idea that freedom of religion includes human sacrifice. That's carrying tolerance for religious whack jobs too far.

Huh? You've gone off the rails here. The bible doesn't condone, support or sanction human sacrifices. The lone exception was the one-time, all sufficient sacrifice of the Son of God as atonement for the sins of his Father's people. If Christ had not sacrificed himself on the Cross, all mankind would be condemned. Shirley, you can see how it is better that many be saved, even though most won't. Why should it be all or nothing?

No! No! No!

Okay then...

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Wrong. Egyptologists say that ancient Egypt did not practice slavery on a large scale. I'll have more to say about God and slavery in a later post. A lot more.

The entire ancient world practiced slavery. Slavery is as old as the oldest profession. Besides, someone had to do all that heavy lifting when building all those pyramids.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Then I guess you also cannot accept that we all must die of something.

Straw man. That is not the issue.

Originally Posted by boxcar

An unjust penalty under the Old Covenant dispensation whereby the Law of Moses was Israel's Law for Living in the Land.

FTFY!

Originally Posted by boxcar

A straw man. I know of no born again evangelical Christian who believes this or practices it.

You believe it. You said all illness was caused by sin.

https://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showthread.php?t=12655

"A mother and father who prayed instead of seeking medical help as their daughter died were properly convicted of homicide, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in a decision that dramatically limits legal immunity for parents who turn to God rather than science to heal their children.

"The decision marks the first time a Wisconsin court has addressed criminal culpability in a prayer treatment case where a child died. The court ruled 6-1 that the state's immunity provisions for prayer treatment parents protect them from child abuse charges but nothing else, opening the door to a host of other counts.

"'No one reading the treatment-through-prayer provision should expect protection from criminal liability under any other statute,' Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson wrote for the majority.

"Most states, including Wisconsin, created exemptions from child abuse charges for prayer-healing parents in the 1970s to meet federal requirements.

"At least 303 children have died since 1975 after medical care was withheld on religious grounds, according to Rita Swan, director of the Iowa-based advocacy group Children's Healthcare is a Legal Duty. Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska and North Carolina have taken their exemptions off the books, Swan said.

"The Wisconsin case revolves around an 11-year-old girl named Madeline Kara Neumann, known as Kara to family and friends. She died of undiagnosed diabetes on Easter Sunday in March 2008 at her home in Weston, a central Wisconsin village about 140 miles north of Madison.

"Kara, who had been growing weak for several weeks leading up to her death, eventually became too sick to speak, eat, drink or walk. Her parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann, don't belong to any organized religion or church but identify themselves as Pentecostal Christians and believe visiting a doctor is akin to worshipping an idol, the Supreme Court opinion said.

"As Kara's condition worsened, her parents resisted suggestions from her grandmother to take her to a doctor. Kara's grandfather suggested giving her Pedialyte, a supplement used to combat dehydration in children, but Leilani Neumann said that would take the glory away from God."

Originally Posted by boxcar

Huh? You've gone off the rails here. The bible doesn't condone, support or sanction human sacrifices.

Jephthah's daughter.

You are making my case for me here.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Straw man. That is not the issue.
FTFY!
You believe it. You said all illness was caused by sin.

And no, you fixed nothing! Israel willingly entered into the Law Covenant with God. They told God that they would keep all his Law. To say the very, very, very least....their confidence in themselves and their optimism in their moral ability was totally unwarranted. In other words, Israel went into God's covenant with their eyes wide open, knowing what the penalties wold be for breaking covenant with Him.

So connect the dots for me. How does this translate into the abolition of all medical treatment for illnesses? And where in the bible is there a prohibition against medical treatment? Just because some cults are anti-medicine does mean mainstream Christianity is.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And no, you fixed nothing! Israel willingly entered into the Law Covenant with God. They told God that they would keep all his Law. To say the very, very, very least....their confidence in themselves and their optimism in their moral ability was totally unwarranted. In other words, Israel went into God's covenant with their eyes wide open, knowing what the penalties wold be for breaking covenant with Him.

So connect the dots for me. How does this translate into the abolition of all medical treatment for illnesses? And where in the bible is there a prohibition against medical treatment? Just because some cults are anti-medicine does mean mainstream Christianity is.

I remember you telling us some time ago that, although you will visit a dentist...you refuse to seek the services of a doctor. Is my memory faulty?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Besides, someone had to do all that heavy lifting when building all those pyramids.

The pyramids were complete about 30 years after the supposed world wide flood. The Israelites were supposedly in Egypt for 400 years.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I remember you telling us some time ago that, although you will visit a dentist...you refuse to seek the services of a doctor. Is my memory faulty?

My wife saw a dentist a few years ago and that was the first time since her childhood! Kool, heh?

But to answer your question, I'm big a big believer in natural treatments and cures. However, I have seen doctors around 10 times in the last 20 years. And several of those visits had to do with a hernia, which I had operated on...but several years after that surgery, I needed another hernia surgery, so most of those 10 visits had to do with my hernia. Also, I had cataract removal. In fact, just earlier this month I saw an optometrist for an exam in order to get new glasses, since my old pairs have pretty much worn out.

So...I'm not adverse to see people in the medical establishment, but they are usually the last recourse.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

The pyramids were complete about 30 years after the supposed world wide flood. The Israelites were supposedly in Egypt for 400 years.

30 years after the Flood? Did you say that with a straight face? How many people do you think were on the earth after 30 years with only 4 couples to repopulate the earth?

Also, I didn't claim the ancient Hebrews built the pyramids -- only that the Egyptians would have certainly used forced slave labor to build those.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

30 years after the Flood? Did you say that with a straight face? How many people do you think were on the earth after 30 years with only 4 couples to repopulate the earth?

Using the Ussher chronology the supposed flood happened in 2448 B.C.E. The pyramid of the Pharaoh Unas began construction about 2420 B.C.E. Dates for Egyptian history are quite accurate since the Egyptians also recorded the dates of eclipses which can be accurately calculated. Ussher's dates ??????? So do the math.

No, I did not type it with a straight face. It's a theist claim.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Also, I didn't claim the ancient Hebrews built the pyramids -- only that the Egyptians would have certainly used forced slave labor to build those.

Archeologists have excavated a small city at Giza. Skeletons found in graves show the kind of stress injuries associated with heavy labor so they are confident that the occupants of the city were workers on the pyramids. Objects in the houses include items that slaves would be unlikely to have (painted pottery and such) so it's highly unlikely these people were slaves.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Using the Ussher chronology the supposed flood happened in 2448 B.C.E. The pyramid of the Pharaoh Unas began construction about 2420 B.C.E. Dates for Egyptian history are quite accurate since the Egyptians also recorded the dates of eclipses which can be accurately calculated. Ussher's dates ??????? So do the math.

Someone else did it, and came up with a very different answer.

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-t...for-the-flood/

No, I did not type it with a straight face. It's a theist claim.

Not this theist.

Archeologists have excavated a small city at Giza. Skeletons found in graves show the kind of stress injuries associated with heavy labor so they are confident that the occupants of the city were workers on the pyramids. Objects in the houses include items that slaves would be unlikely to have (painted pottery and such) so it's highly unlikely these people were slaves.

That's nice. So from one excavation of a one city, you extrapolate whatever you want? Egyptian societt consisted mainly of peasants, servants and slaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Egypt

So...again....You should be praising God and applauding him since he very likely was the First Abraham Lincoln ever to have free the slaves.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Someone else did it, and came up with a very different answer.

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-t...for-the-flood/

I have to give you that one. I found the error in my calculation. For once Ham and Eggs is right.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

That's nice. So from one excavation of a one city, you extrapolate whatever you want? Egyptian societt consisted mainly of peasants, servants and slaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Egypt

So...again....You should be praising God and applauding him since he very likely was the First Abraham Lincoln ever to have free the slaves.

"Slavery in Ancient Egypt was established in the New Kingdom (1550-1175 BCE)"

Most of the pyramids were built considerably earlier than that. The great pyramid of Khufu was completed circa 2560 B.C.E.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

"Slavery in Ancient Egypt was established in the New Kingdom (1550-1175 BCE)"

And the Exodus occurred during this period. Guess the bible is right.

I found a very interesting article regarding the Exodus, the dating of it and who the likely king of Egypt was at the time of the Exodus. Of course, the most common argument used by skeptics in an attempt to debunk this historical event is the lack of extra-biblical evidence. The author of the article addresses this issue in this excerpt and again at the end of his article.

The Pharaoh of the Exodus

A nagging question is, “who was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?” Psalm 136:15 would lead us to believe that the Pharaoh of the Exodus died in the Sea of Reeds. All we need to do, then, to identify the Pharaoh of the Exodus is find a Pharaoh who died in 1446 BC. But this is no easy task. With our present Egyptian chronologies, we cannot pinpoint the death date of a particular Pharaoh to 1446 BC. There are three sets of dates in use: high, middle and low. They vary by as much as 25 years and, according to the three chronologies, there was no Pharaoh who died in 1446 BC. Presently, the most plausible solution is that of William Shea, who believes he has found evidence that a Pharaoh died in 1446 BC and his death was covered up by Egyptian officials (2003a, 2003b: 245–48). Egyptian theology would not allow for the god-king to die while pursuing runaway slaves. By not recording the event, it would be as if it had never happened (Wheeler 2002).

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...he-Exodus.aspx

This is a lengthy piece but well worth read. The author makes a pretty good case for Amenhotep II being the Pharaoh Moses drove crazy. His psychological profile seems to fit pretty well with that of the Pharaoh of the Exodus in the bible!

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Actor

I have to give you that one. I found the error in my calculation. For once Ham and Eggs is right.

Just to clarify, what Ham and Eggs got right is the math.