Religious

[Ocala Mike]

That's a funny bit, Actor!

[azeri98]

I noticed after every game they won Cam Newton said "thank you to my lord and savior Jesus Christ, all glory to God". Why didn't he say it yesterday? I guess God is a Broncos fan.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

The Mosaic Law drew a great deal from the Code of Hammurabi.

Scholars say the entire OT, with the exception of the book of Job, was written about 500 B.C.E.

"Scholars", you mean the ones who don't believe in divine revelation, right? There are numerous other scholars who believe very differently.

But anyway... there are far more dissimilarities than similarities between the two codes, plus the CH contained only about 250 laws whereas the Mosaic Law contains over 600. But be that as it may, I know you won't pay any heed to the many differences but only dwell on the similarities because you think that makes your case.

Below is a link to a scholarly and lengthy article about when Abraham and king Hamm existed. You're probably wondering what would Abraham have to do with his highness Hamm's law, right? The answer is simple: God's laws, commandments, statues, etc. existed as oral tradition long before Moses came unto the scene. This being the case, king Hamm very likely borrowed from much of that oral tradition which God had given to the sons of men, and which in all probability was passed down to Abraham from previous generations. And, of course, it would stand to reason that by the time Moses received God's Law in codified form, God would have reiterated a great deal of that oral tradition to Moses, which Abraham had faithfully obeyed.

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-t...t-mesopotamia/

Of course, I can't prove to you that Abraham had God's laws and commandments and statues because the passage that tells us this is in scripture. But enjoy the long read, anyhow. If the read runs you into your lunch hour, you might consider making a nice Hamm and cheese sandwich on your favorite bread to keep your strength up.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

Ya, it's all good, Actor. It's Boxie's world, and we just live in it. Anyway, my pipe is a mellow, peaceful smoke while I think his is fire and brimstone.

If so, it is still far better that my pipe faithfully bellows out the smoke of fire in brimstone in this life to warn the lost because I will be rewarded with peace for all eternity in the next. But as for you...your life is but a vapor compared to eternity in which you will have no peace forever and ever. So, then, enjoy your mellow life between now and the time the grave claims you because it will be the only peace you'll ever experience.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

They also accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath Law. Do you recall what Jesus's reply was? How come they didn't stone JESUS to death? Or, do you suppose that the Sabbath Law applied only to gathering wood.

Well, they wanted to stone Jesus. And they often accused Him of breaking the Sabbath. But before I get ahead of myself, the link below is a very good read on the Sabbath law itself, which carried the death penalty for any violation. The stick-picker-upper in the wilderness was simply an illustration of someone violating the Sabbath law and, therefore, worthy of the penalty prescribed in the Law of Moses. In fact, a Jew could not even light a fire on the Sabbath. There was to be no cooking on the Sabbath. (I'm led to wonder, naturally, how all these prohibitions have been working out even for the hard-core conservative Jew in these modern times who devotes his life to trying to keep the Law of Moses to the letter. But I digress...)

http://christianthinktank.com/sticksnstones.html

As far as Jesus goes, he never broke the Sabbath. And the following OT passage tells us why:

Isa 58:13-14
13 "If because of the sabbath, you turn your foot
From doing your own pleasure on My holy day,
And call the sabbath a delight, the holy day of the Lord honorable,
And shall honor it, desisting from your own ways,
From seeking your own pleasure,
And speaking your own word,
14 Then you will take delight in the Lord,
And I will make you ride on the heights of the earth;
And I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father,
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken."
NASB

This is the core reason behind the Sabbath. And Jesus never sought out his pleasure, or his own ways or spoke his own words. He did his Father's work on the Sabbath, thereby observing the Sabbath in the spirit of the Law, as stated in the above passage (cf. Jn 10:25, 32, 35; 14:10; 15:24). Jesus did what was always good and pleasing to his Father on the Sabbath! He spent very many of his sabbaths, evidently, ministering to people in various ways. Jesus always had the needs of his people in mind.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But anyway... there are far more dissimilarities than similarities between the two codes, plus the CH contained only about 250 laws whereas the Mosaic Law contains over 600.

So the more laws the better? You must be a Democrat!

Originally Posted by boxcar

But be that as it may, I know you won't pay any heed to the many differences but only dwell on the similarities because you think that makes your case.

My "case" does not depend on differences or similarities but on dates. We have always had laws and would have laws today irregardless of whether Mosaic Law ever existed. Since the Bible was written during the Babylonian captivity it's likely that the Mosaic Law derives from from the CH.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Below is a link to a scholarly and lengthy article about when Abraham and king Hamm existed. You're probably wondering what would Abraham have to do with his highness Hamm's law, right? The answer is simple: God's laws, commandments, statues, etc. existed as oral tradition long before Moses came unto the scene.

You mean Moses did not get it straight from God? You mean the Israelites already had the laws and Cecil B. deMille got it wrong.

Originally Posted by boxcar

This being the case, king Hamm very likely borrowed from much of that oral tradition which God had given to the sons of men, and which in all probability was passed down to Abraham from previous generations. And, of course, it would stand to reason that by the time Moses received God's Law in codified form, God would have reiterated a great deal of that oral tradition to Moses, which Abraham had faithfully obeyed.

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-t...t-mesopotamia/

Answersingenesis? You mean the big Ham who is trying to make money by building an arc in Kentucky and is losing his shirt? The King of the Science Deniers? Shirley U jest!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

So the more laws the better? You must be a Democrat!

My "case" does not depend on differences or similarities but on dates. We have always had laws and would have laws today irregardless of whether Mosaic Law ever existed. Since the Bible was written during the Babylonian captivity it's likely that the Mosaic Law derives from from the CH.

You mean Moses did not get it straight from God? You mean the Israelites already had the laws and Cecil B. deMille got it wrong.



Answersingenesis? You mean the big Ham who is trying to make money by building an arc in Kentucky and is losing his shirt? The King of the Science Deniers? Shirley U jest!

Ever hear of progressive revelation? God dealt with mankind in time and space, and he dealt differently with man through His various covenants in order to bring about the redemption of his people throughout God-foreordained human history to the end of age.

The fact that Abraham was faithful to God's commands, laws and statutes does serious damage to your lame theory and the theory of your equally blinded and inept "scholars" that Moses copied the law from king Hamm. It's much more likely that Hamm plagiarized God's law that was handed down to Abraham, which would nicely account for the many similarities in the CH as well as the Mosaic Law; and that much of what was passed down to Abraham from previous generations, God also directly passed down to Moses in a greatly expanded codified version through divine revelation. This would make sense, since many laws would have had to been added to the original oral tradition in order for the fledgling nation of Israel to govern itself amongst all the other nations in the region. The Law of Moses was to Israel what a constitution is to a secular nation today. It was the Law of the Land!

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The fact ...

Fact? I don't think so. But let's move on.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... that Abraham was faithful to God's commands, laws and statutes does serious damage to your lame theory ...

What about your lame theory, videlicet that some ancient text filled with descriptions of impossible events somehow qualifies as a historical document.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... and the theory of your equally blinded and inept "scholars" that Moses copied the law from king Hamm.

That's not my theory. You are reading much more into what I said than is actually there. But let's move on.

Originally Posted by boxcar

It's much more likely ...

What exactly makes your theory "much more likely" than what you think is my theory? What metric do you use?

Originally Posted by boxcar

... that Hamm plagiarized God's law that was handed down to Abraham, which would nicely account ...

"Nicely account" doesn't cut it.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... for the many similarities in the CH as well as the Mosaic Law; ...

Plain old common sense would also "nicely account" for similarities. I mean does it really take a divine revelation to figure our "thou shalt not kill," etc.

Originally Posted by boxcar

...and that much of what was passed down to Abraham from previous generations, God also directly passed down to Moses in a greatly expanded codified version through divine revelation. This would make sense, since many laws would have had to been added ...

Thus the legal profession was born.

Originally Posted by boxcar

The Law of Moses was to Israel what a constitution is to a secular nation today. It was the Law of the Land!

The difference is that Mosaic Law is theocratic, the constitution is democratic. As Seneca said "religion is ... to the rulers, useful."

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Fact? I don't think so. But let's move on.

What about your lame theory, videlicet that some ancient text filled with descriptions of impossible events somehow qualifies as a historical document.

That's not my theory. You are reading much more into what I said than is actually there. But let's move on.

What exactly makes your theory "much more likely" than what you think is my theory? What metric do you use?

"Nicely account" doesn't cut it.

Plain old common sense would also "nicely account" for similarities. I mean does it really take a divine revelation to figure our "thou shalt not kill," etc.

Thus the legal profession was born.

The difference is that Mosaic Law is theocratic, the constitution is democratic. As Seneca said "religion is ... to the rulers, useful."

Your inane theory depended on chronology and similarities between the CH and the Law of Moses. But the fact that God's laws existed in the form of oral tradition in the time of Abraham sinks your theory to the bottom of the sea -- right where it belongs.

[mountainman]

While I hate to shoehorn reality into this soaring exercise in imagination, I will relate a personal experience that satisfied me on the question of afterlife.

One late autumn day in 2014, a high school kid played in with us on the golf course. To preempt curiosity about a large, ovular scar on his shaven head, Duncan informed us that a rifle he had been cleaning went off at an angle that cut through his right eye (now glass) and blew a big portion of his skull off.

He was dead for quite some time , and doctors believe only his youth and strong heart enabled paramedics to beat long odds and bring him back.

Duncan spoke in a halting manner, but I sensed intact faculties, and he said the prognosis was excellent. As proof, the kid sensed and answered the obvious question. "No, there's nothing out there," he said with an inscrutable, bittersweet smile. "Nothing at all."

So, please, proceed to contort this anecdote to still allow for the existence of some flowery heaven. And I would love to join you in that comforting belief. But I learned better on a bleak, windy fall day at Beaver Meadows golf course. Which serves nicely, by the way, as my very real and personal heaven.

I can't wait for believers to invent ways around this one. Let me grab a snack and sit back.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by mountainman

While I hate to shoehorn reality into this soaring exercise in imagination, I will relate a personal experience that satisfied me on the question of afterlife.

One late autumn day in 2014, a high school kid played in with us on the golf course. To preempt curiosity about a large, ovular scar on his shaven head, Duncan informed us that a rifle he had been cleaning went off at an angle that cut through his right eye (now glass) and blew a big portion of his skull off.

He was dead for quite some time , and doctors believe only his youth and strong heart enabled paramedics to beat long odds and bring him back.

Duncan spoke in a halting manner, but I sensed intact faculties, and he said the prognosis was excellent. As proof, the kid sensed and answered the obvious question. "No, there's nothing out there," he said with an inscrutable, bittersweet smile. "Nothing at all."

So, please, proceed to contort this anecdote to still allow for the existence of some flowery heaven. And I would love to join you in that comforting belief. But I learned better on a bleak, windy fall day at Beaver Meadows golf course. Which serves nicely, by the way, as my very real and personal heaven.

I can't wait for believers to invent ways around this one. Let me grab a snack and sit back.

In modern times, no one who has been "truly dead" has ever been resuscitated back to life.
Near Death Experiences are not Death.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

In modern times, no one who has been "truly dead" has ever been resuscitated back to life.
Near Death Experiences are not Death.

Yup, as the old sayin' goes: "Close but no Cigar." Or "Close only counts in death, horse shoes or hand grenades."

[Light]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Near Death Experiences are not Death.

Nobody ever said they were. That's why they are called NEAR Death Experiences and not "Death Experiences". However they are a visit to the other side. But they are kind of a taste of what it's like, not the whole enchilada.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Light

Nobody ever said they were. That's why they are called NEAR Death Experiences and not "Death Experiences". However they are a visit to the other side. But they are kind of a taste of what it's like, not the whole enchilada.

Read Mountain Man's post.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Light

Nobody ever said they were. That's why they are called NEAR Death Experiences and not "Death Experiences". However they are a visit to the other side. But they are kind of a taste of what it's like, not the whole enchilada.

The problem with these near-death experiences is that they could easily be a trick of the mind. The mind plays all sorts of tricks on us in our dream state; who's to say that it can't play even more "realistic" tricks in our "near-death" state?

There is also the "dishonesty" factor that has to be considered. Who's to say that these things aren't simply MADE UP? One person comes up with the original story of some "white light"...and then all the other "near-death" victims parrot it.

When it comes to religion...not everything that is reported can be readily believed. Have you seen how many people have published books...which are alleged to be dictated by Jesus himself? Are we to believe that all these "channelled" works are AUTHENTIC?

People LIE...and that complicates things.