-
Posts
10567 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by ydoaPs
-
Does not follow. I hold that science can, and in fact should, be used to help with moral questions. See my post above.
-
So was antimatter........until we detected some.
-
What are the results in general? Do these calculations only asses one change at a time, or do they allow for different changes to offset each other?
-
Catcher In The Rye Ender's Game Speaker For The Dead I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell Rethinking Life and Death
-
Has there actually been calculations done, or is fine tuning all baseless speculation?
-
They're pretty nifty. Since they have negative energy, the laws of physics basically work backwards on them.
-
Perhaps the verse in question is actually Paul telling the slave not to be discouraged about being a slave, since their real master is the LORD. It doesn't really seem to be speaking out against slavery. I don't think so. The language(and positioning of the text) elsewhere is similar to that which he used in telling women to be submissive to their husbands. You'd be better off trying to compare it to that. The fact is he didn't tell the Christians that they need to free their slaves, but why would he? It was an acceptable part of the culture. It's an example of where the textual and cultural context are important.
-
Pants are pants. Down with pants!
-
Yet he said for them to be obedient. Hmm....
-
"Masters, give unto [your] servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."-Collosians 4:1 "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand."-Romans 14:4 "Servants, be obedient to them that are [your] masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether [he be] bond or free.And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."-Ephiseans 6:5-9 While he does suggest better treatment for slaves than was allowed in the OT, he does not speak out against slavery.
-
It is rather odd that people don't generally know why Jesus called the Pharasees hypocrites. It wasn't because they followed the Law; it was because they thought they knew better than the Law and added to it(see the 'oral Law') by making it more specific. Jesus clearly taught that the Law was to be followed, but he also clearly disliked the Pharasee's strict interpretation(they were, in essence, following man's law and calling it God's). See this thread. I don't see how you get that. Paul endorsed slavery, and Jesus was silent on the topic. Jesus did, however, say the Law was to be followed, and the Law includes slavery.
-
Then you have a severe lack of comprehension. Too bad. It's a great read and very informative. It's an introduction for layman to the different sects of early Christianity, their battle for orthodoxy, and where the Bible came from. These things you seem to have no clue about. If we are going to continue intelligently in this line of conversation, you should get the gist from somewhere. I merely provided a free copy of a great source. It's definitely not deconstructionism. By all means you have the right to stick your fingers in your ears and hide from reality, but don't expect to be taken any more seriously than a YEC should you choose to do so. See above. It's just an introduction to NT history that you'd get at any respectable university that offers religious studies programs. Ehrman(the author of the book to which I linked) actually wrote the book that many schools(including Yale, whose intro to NT course lectures are available free online) use in their Intro to the NT courses. No, it's not. It is merely stating a fact. The Bible is not one text. The fact is that it's an anthology of different authors. It would be extremely odd if there were no contradictions. The existence of contradictions doesn't mean the Bible is worthless or anything of the sort; it just means we need to use the same tools that we need to treat it as any other historical text. Without justification, doing otherwise is really just special pleading. In fact, it is easily demonstrable that there are contradictions. I really like using the birth stories as an example, because they're so obvious yet so overlooked(usually because people tell a mishmash of them rather than actually reading one or the other). I'll paraphrase here, but feel free(in fact, I encourage you to) read them yourself. Matthews version: Joseph and Mary are living in Bethlehem and are engaged to be married until Joseph finds out that Mary is pregnant and wants to secretly get out of the marriage to avoid any shame. An angel appears to Joseph in a dream and tells him that Mary is a virgin and the baby is a miracle. Joseph then decides to marry Mary anyway. Some wise men from the east find out and ask Herod where the baby is. Herod is all sorts of pissed off that a baby 'King of the Jews' has been born because that's HIS title. So Herod tricks them to go find the baby and report back so he can go pay tribute as well. The wise men then follow a star to Joseph's house where they give baby Jesus gifts. An angel appears to the wise men warning of Herod's intentions so they go home instead of back to Herod. This REALLY ticks Herod off, so he arranges for a massacre of all the infants 2 and under in the area. Joseph is yet again tipped off my an angel in a dream, so they flee to Egypt until Herod dies. After Herod dies, Joseph meets with the Angel in another dream where he is told of Herod's death. Joseph fears that Archelaus(one of Herod's sons) might still want Jesus dead, so he moves to Nazareth instead of moving back home to Bethlehem. Luke's version: A bunch of hooplah about John the Baptist's miraculous birth(his parents were old and infertile, but God fixed that[John is 6 months older than Jesus]). An angel appears to Mary and tells her of her impending virginal pregnancy. Caesar Augustus decrees that a census of the whole Roman empire must be made. So, while Quirinius is governor of Syria for the first time, a census is made. Joseph and Mary then leave their Nazareth home to go to Bethlehem to register for the census since Joseph is of David's lineage. Mary has Jesus while they are in Bethlehem, but there is no room in the Inn, so they put Jesus in a manger(trough, for those that don't know) instead of a crib. An angel appears to some shepherds and tell them all about it, so they go to see for themselves. They stay in Bethlehem until all of Jesus's birth stuff is done, then they move back to Nazareth. Even a surface reading of this passage gives the impression that the stories are very different(the only thing that seems constant is that there is a virgin birth in Bethlehem). These stories are so dissimilar that one wouldn't even think they were the same story unless told otherwise. Looking a little deeper, we can see that the setting isn't quite the same either; Matthew has the family originally from Bethlehem while Luke has them from Nazareth. A rough familiarization with history shows the settings are even more different than that as the stories are at least 10 years apart. Herod reigned until his death in 4BC. Upon Herod's death, his kingdom was split among his sons. In 6AD, Herod Archelaus(one of King Herod's sons) was deposed and his land thus fell into Roman control. One of Archelaus's replacements was a man by the name Coponius. At the same time as the appointment of Coponius, Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria in 6AD. Upon the appointment of Quirinius and Coponius, since this was the first time the land was under direct Roman control(it was previously only a client kingdom), it was decreed by Caesar Agustus that there should be a census. This census was the first Roman census of the area(it wasn't a census of the entire empire nor were residents required to go to the ancestral home). This puts us in a bit of a bind, since Jesus was at least almost two BEFORE Herod dies(in 4BC). The soldiers carrying out the massacre would know the difference between a week old baby and a two year old(massacre was of all two and under). It is also assumed that the stay in Egypt lasted longer than a week or so as well unless one posits supernatural help in the death of Herod. Luke, however, has Jesus being born AFTER Quirinius comes into power in 6AD. This is a real concern since the census is a direct result of Herod's death(along with his son being a poor ruler). Now we have a discrepancy of at least 10 years. That's a pretty big hole if this is supposed to be the same story. I wouldn't say 'manipulated' as that assumes that there was some predestined final product that was modified. I'd rather say assembled. The canon we use now is one of many that were used throughout history. The first canon to use our 27 books and only our 27 books was written by St. Athanasius 367CE and even then it wasn't settled as the canon for all Christians to use. What do you think Christians read prior to that? Paul had nothing to do with the canon formation directly(as he had been long dead by then), but the factions of Christianity that followed his teachings did. Not at all. If you consider this portion accurate, then it is actually the fundamentalist Christian who is the deconstructionist. They are 'arrogant enough' to try to use the writings to completely different people to try to get a meaning that fit's their agenda. I think the Bible is largely taken out of context as a whole in modern Christianity. There's not a lot of thought given to what kind of documents comprise the Bible. AFAICT, the Gospels aren't even intended to be entirely historically accurate; they're largely midrashic. I've yet to see any indication that the authors of the NT wrote expecting their text to be included in a holy compilation rather than just be read by the intended audience. I think there is much to gain in reading the gospels how they were meant to be read-as individual documents by different authors(who may or may not have differing opinions about God just as different posters here may or may not have differing opinions about God) writing to different audiences. It really makes sense; would you try to understand what one poster here thinks by what a different poster writes? Reading the Bible in this manner lets us see what each author was trying to get across rather than a muddled mish-mash of opinions trying to be forced into one coherent view. A good example is(again) the birth story. There's much reason to believe that Matthew is heavily midrashic. One example of many is the virgin birth. This is one example of which Matthew is forcing prophecy on Jesus, because Matthew wanted to make it clear that Jesus WAS the promised Messiah. Keep in mind, that in midrash, literal truth isn't nearly as important as meaning; saying it is prophesy is good enough to make his point. In Matthew 1:22-23, the author of Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14. That's all fine and dandy until we go and actually read it in context. The author of Matthew even cuts off Isaiah mid-sentence. The prophecy in question(read the whole chapter and you'll see), is that the pregnant woman in the room will have a son named Immanu-El and the principle enemies of Ahaz will be defeated before said boy is old enough to know right from wrong. The birth isn't what is being prophesied at all; it is the timescale for the actual prophesy-the defeat of the armies. Other things about 7:14: The word 'virgin' here is the Hebrew word 'alma' meaning 'young woman'. It in no way implies anything about sexual experience or lack thereof. It is likely that Matthew used a greek word meaning virgin in order to make Jesus even more special. The author of Matthew essentially invented his own prophesy for midrashic purposes. From a Christian book(Interpreting the Old Testament: A Guide for Exegesis):
-
Technologically/Intellectually Superior Aliens: "Unpleasant Visits"?
ydoaPs replied to tristan's topic in Speculations
Like an Asgard cruiser? -
The Puppy That Lost Its Way
-
It's easily demonstrable that it is not internally consistent. However, that's what one should expect from such an anthology.
-
The Immortal Mouse: Proof of Concept
ydoaPs replied to Genecks's topic in Anatomy, Physiology and Neuroscience
You'd probably have to do a chimp as well. This reminds me of the book 'The Immortality Factor' by Ben Bova. -
If you exclude 'Xenocide' and 'Children of the Mind', then I wholeheartedly agree. No wonder you picked that name then; I'm gonna start calling you Val instead. Also, 'I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell' is amazing, but the movie sucked. And I'm rather partial to 'Catcher in the Rye.'
-
So, do you not know what deconstruction is, or do you have absolutely zero idea what the book I linked to(complete contents, iirc, btw) is about? I'd hate to think you are trying to deliberately misrepresent something.
-
False. Jesus EXPLICITLY said that the Law is to be followed to the letter until He fulfills it at the second coming. Read the passages in the OP.
-
Unlike prohibition, the Law was not repealed.
-
Peter, who was there. How about the people who quoted Jesus(portions of which I quoted above)?