Religion III

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

There's no problem in reconciling the Deut passage with the NT. God sovereignly dispenses with his grace and mercy, according to the counsel of his own will....blah, blah, blah.....

You just contradicted yourself within one sentence. How do you reconcile that?

part 1)-"The children were not punished because their fathers were God haters",......

part 2)-"the children were punished because they ALSO hated God,"

Originally Posted by boxcar

It's only "ambiguous" to you because you don't want to believe the plain teaching of the text. The children were not punished because their fathers were God haters (although this is true of the fathers); the children were punished because they ALSO hated God, so He gave them over to the sin of their fathers which was idolatry. The text is very clear that the sin of idolatry was visited "upon the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." Crystal clear. But there were generations who loved God and obeyed Him, so God lavished his love upon them forever (v.10).

???????????????????????????

[Redboard]

Originally Posted by boxcar

However you did cast a lot of doubt about the existence of Jesus:

To say, "Sadly, almost nothing" is to all but dismiss the witness of the entire bible which is actually christocentric -- from Genesis to Revelation.

Boxcar, being the biblical expert you are, based upon the volumes written here, you must surely know that everything ever set down about Jesus, including the books of the New Testament, was written by people who never actually met him. His followers gave accounts that were passed down , decades later, to men who could actually read and write. The earliest written material in the New Testament — the letters of the Apostle Paul — was composed in mid -century by the man who became a convert after Jesus died. Further, the Gospels themselves (Mark, written A.D. 60-70; Luke, 75-95; Matthew, 70-90; and John, 90-100) were composed decades after the events they describe by writers who refined their narratives to serve various early-Christian communities and their traditions of Jesus. Matthew, Mark, Luke & John, were not Apostles, instead they are referred to as evangelists.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by hcap

You just contradicted yourself within one sentence. How do you reconcile that?

part 1)-"The children were not punished because their fathers were God haters",......Meaning the children were not punished for what their FATHERS believed, as it was NOT their choice.

part 2)-"the children were punished because they ALSO hated God,"Meaning the children were punished because the ALSO hated GOD, because it was THEIR choice.

???????????????????????????

Do you read what you post? Can you interpret anything correctly?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

What about grown up children?

I do not recall
Deuteronomy 5:9 saying "grown up children."

9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,

What version of Deuteronomy are you using? The super revised Boxcarian?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Do you read what you post? Can you interpret anything correctly?

Which version of the bible are you reading,

"Q"s?

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by hcap

Which version of the bible are you reading,

"Q"s?

Don't pivot, you're just dead wrong in this spot....Accept it and move on.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

No...not totally. But enough of it is...IMO. As the Buddha famously declared: "Who knows what's good or bad?"

We all know compassion is good. Buddha said that. And we all know so is love, Christ said that.

I am aware we have a poster who thinks everyone other than himself and biblical Christians are moral relativists. I thought I let him know somethings IMO are "built-ins"

An argument can be made for "social evolution" or "god" doing the actual construction.
So TJ's "do no harm", works for me regardless of a few "private unusual" tastes.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Don't pivot, you're just dead wrong in this spot....Accept it and move on.

You read what you wanted to read in to boxcar's self-contradictory one poorly constructed incomprehensible sentence.

Just like died-in-the-wool true believers read what they want into the the bible.
The bible is like a Rorschach test.

Now, so is boxcar scribblings.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by hcap

You read what you wanted to read in to boxcar's self-contradictory one poorly constructed incomprehensible sentence.

Just like died-in-the-wool true believers read what they want into the the bible.
The bible is like a Rorschach test.

Now, so is boxcar scribblings.

Now you're just being an obnoxious A-hole....Repent, you frickin' lunatic.....

It's never too late, but in your case, maybe it is...

[Actor]

Originally Posted by porchy44

Not to be unkind but so what, Do you bring that up when you talk about Julius Caesar or Napoleon ? To object that history doesn't provide absolute certainty commits the "all or nothing fallacy". Just because we can't have absolute certainty doesn't mean we can have adequate certainty.

The question then becomes "Do we have adequate certainty?"

Napoleon came to power after the American Revolutionary War, ergo, his existence is as certain as that of George Washington.

The certainty that Julius Caesar existed is of at least two kinds: (1)writings of numerous other persons confirm his existence, and the existence of these other persons is likewise confirmed. (2)The military and political accomplishments of Julius Caesar, whose effects endure.

On the other hand there is only one source for Jesus, viz., whoever wrote the gospel of Mark. That's it. Period. The other gospels simply copy and embellish Mark. There is no corroborating writing confirming the existence of Jesus. Furthermore, this one source has an agenda, viz., the propagation of Christianity. (Note: that's the source of the word propaganda.) This source is biased. It is advertising copy.

One thing I should make clear. By "Jesus" I mean a person who rose from the dead. There were probably quite a few people in Israel at that time who were named Jesus. One of these may or may not have had something to do with the founding of Christianity (although I doubt it), but that's not the point. If this said Jesus did not rise from the dead then he's not the guy we're talking about.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Napoleon marched his armies across Europe. Caesar marched his armies across Europe. Neither are extraordinary events. There are precedents: Alexander, Ramses II, etc.

Rising from the dead is an extraordinary event. There are no precedents. What is the evidence? One very short book (28 pages) with an agenda. That's not extraordinary evidence.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by hcap

The bible is like a Rorschach test.

Oh, that's good!

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by Actor

Oh, that's good!

And you're pathetic as well....

[hcap]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Now you're just being an obnoxious A-hole....Repent, you frickin' lunatic.....

It's never too late, but in your case, maybe it is...

Sorry you are not bright enough. Come back in a FEW YEARS WHEN YOU HAVE TAKEN YOUR BRAINS OUT OF YOUR ASS.

Repent? .....Your a bible thumper as well as a conspiracy theorist?.

Figures.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by hcap

Sorry you are not bright enough. Come back in a FEW YEARS WHEN YOU HAVE TAKEN YOUR BRAINS OUT OF YOUR ASS.

Repent? You a bible thumper as well as a conspiracy theorist?.

Figures.

Is that all you've got? I think it is....BTW, Put your dim-witted responses in all CAPS next time....Keep 'em coming though, shows everyone how immature you are about the human spirit and it's relevance in this world and the universe.

You and Actor should both consider yourselves lucky that I'm not in this thread full-time, I'd break both of your feeble Crutch-science minds.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Actor

Oh, that's good!

A good case can be made for psychiatrists studying extremely rigid religious upbringings using a set of "Ten Commandments" ink blots.

Wonder if they can use old Charlton Heston posters combined with CGI?