No Longer A Christian

[Gerald]

Originally posted by On Fire
1. Get a mirror.
2. Hold up three fingers and hold them up to your forehead.
3. Look in the mirror.
4. What do you see?

You forgot part of step 3: read between the lines.

At least, that's what I tell folks when I hold up three fingers... :chuckle:

 

[Granite]

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by lighthouse

My belief that abortion is murder is based on my defining murder as the taking of an innocent life. And the Bible is clear that a child within its mother's womb is very much alive.

Next please.

So, in your opinion, is killing the unborn always murder? :think:

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by granite1010

The fact that you're clueless about your own religion, and refuse to take the time to prove me wrong, is not my problem.

Perhaps that's because he's not a "Real Christianâ„¢", but is making things up as he goes along... :think:

 

[firechyld]

My belief that abortion is murder is based on my defining murder as the taking of an innocent life. And the Bible is clear that a child within its mother's womb is very much alive.

Next please.

No, it's not. The First Testament is quite clear about the fact that an unborn child is considered property, not life. And the Second Testament says nothing to dispute this.

And answer me something honestly, please... did you read the bible and decide that abortion was wrong, or were you taught that it was wrong and where to find the Biblical passages to back up that assertion?

Incidentally, you didn't address the second half of my post. How's that for "next"?

 

[elected4ever]

firechyld

No, it's not. The First Testament is quite clear about the fact that an unborn child is considered property, not life.

e4e

Using that logic the Negro slaves of the early and middle 19th century did not posses life because they were considered property. You are as about as stupid as they come.:kookoo:

 

[smothers]

Originally posted by elected4ever

firechyld

e4e

Using that logic the Negro slaves of the early and middle 19th century did not posses life because they were considered property. You are as about as stupid as they come.:kookoo:

The bible has been used many times to support slavery.

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by smothers The bible has been used many times to support slavery.

... And for killing people who "didn't have any souls".

 

[elected4ever]

smothers

The bible has been used many times to support slavery.

e4e Not the same thing. The bible never states that the slave is absent human life:doh:

 

[Mr. Coffee]

Originally posted by granite1010
"How about we start simple. What is it, specifically, that the Christian church has said that you find hard to believe?"

That a tri-une God was made man to satisfy a blood lust within that same tri-une godhead and that the god-man was subsequently dead and buried for three days and nights (which, according to the gospels, is not strictly true), rose, and ascended. Ancient mythology is full of similar stories, by the way. So nothing in the above paragraph is unique. And it doesn't make it any easier for me to swallow if we're talking Egyptian deities or a Christian one.

Hope this clarifies things.

"Bloodlust": The cross is about justice and mercy, not blood per se. "If I were hungry, I would not tell you; for the world and all that is in it is mine. Do I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of goats?� (Ps 50.12-14)

Three Days: It's consistent with Biblical usage. 2 Chr 10.5: "And he said to them, 'Return to me again in three days" Verse 12: "So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam on the third day as the king had directed, saying, 'Return to me on the third day." In this case 'in three days' is equivalent to 'on the third day'.

Esther 4.16: "Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa, and fast for me. Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will fast as you do. When this is done, I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish.'" And then in 5.1: "On the third day Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the palace, in front of the king's hall. " In this case, "on the third day" is equivalent to "for three days, night or day".

1 Samuel 30.12: "He ate and was revived, for he had not eaten any food or drunk any water for three days and three nights. 13 David asked him, "To whom do you belong, and where do you come from?" He said, "I am an Egyptian, the slave of an Amalekite. My master abandoned me when I became ill three days ago. " In this case "for three days and three nights' somehow was fulfilled when his master left him 'three days ago'.

Mythology and resurrection:

From the entry "Dying And Rising Gods" from The Encyclopedia of Religion; article is by Jonathan Z. Smith, Professor at University of Chicago, and general editor of the HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion:

"The category of dying and rising gods, once a major topic of scholarly investigation, must now be understood to have been largely a misnomer based on imaginative reconstructions and exceedingly late or highly ambiguous texts.

"Nevertheless, the figure of the dying and rising deity has continued to be employed, largely as a preoccupation of biblical scholarship, among those working on ancient Near Eastern sacred kingship in relation to the Hebrew Bible and among those concerned with the Hellenistic mystery cults in relation to the New Testament.

"Despite the shock this fact may deal to modern Western religious sensibilities, it is a commonplace within the history of religions that immortality is not a prime characteristic of divinity: gods die. Nor is the concomitant of omnipresence a widespread requisite: gods disappear. The putative category of dying and rising deities thus takes its place within the larger category of dying gods and the even larger category of disappearing deities. Some of these divine figures simply disappear; some disappear only to return again in the near or distant future; some disappear and reappear with monotonous frequency. All the deities that have been identified as belonging to the class of dying and rising deities can be subsumed under the two larger classes of disappearing deities or dying deities. In the first case, the deities return but have not died; in the second case, the gods die but do not return. There is no unambiguous instance in the history of religions of a dying and rising deity."

 

[firechyld]

Using that logic the Negro slaves of the early and middle 19th century did not posses life because they were considered property. You are as about as stupid as they come.

What logic? I'm just stating what the text says. And the text says that by Israelite law, an unborn child was considered property, not a human life.

If you follow that through to any conclusion, you're doing it on your own, not by my prompting.

 

[Lighthouse]

firechyld-
I know where to find the verses to support that a child is alive in its mother's womb. Do you? The child is alive, and therefore killing it is taking its life. And when the life of an innocent is taken, that is murder.

Zakath-
Explain. If you're talking about stillborns, no one took their life. If you're talking about cases of it being either the mother or the child, and the life of the child is taken to save the mother, then no.

 

[Lighthouse]

firechyld-
Since you asked, I base my belief that the gospels were written by those whose names they are attributed to by the fact that the Bible attributes it to those people. SO, I base my belief on the Bible. Satisfied?

 

[firechyld]

I know where to find the verses to support that a child is alive in its mother's womb. Do you? The child is alive, and therefore killing it is taking its life. And when the life of an innocent is taken, that is murder.

Yeeeess... I also know where the verses are that clearly state that, according to Israelite law, the punishment for causing a miscarriage was the same as that for damaging property. This is accepted as accurate by those who study Israelite history.

There is no actual reference in the NT that states that this is no longer the case. The conclusion that you are drawing based on your interpretation of other verses does not count as a pure reference. The first pure reference in Christianity that states that abortion is wrong is an extra-biblical writing.

What you're doing is applying a modern standard to an ancient society. The Israelites simply did not consider abortion to be "murder", and that's a fact. That modern standard you hold is in part due to your Christian upbringing.... which was influenced by the Christian church, which holds that abortion is wrong, which stems from an extra-biblical text.

Get me?

And again, there's nothing wrong with a belief stemming from outside Scripture. Most of the things that did were people writing about their interpretation and conclusions thereof... sort of like the works by Bob Enyart you're so fond of. Would you find it derogatory to say that you based a belief on something Enyart wrote? His works aren't Scripture, but it's still "acceptable" to base a belief on them.

Since you asked, I base my belief that the gospels were written by those whose names they are attributed to by the fact that the Bible attributes it to those people.

No, it doesn't. "By-lines" didn't have the same connotations to Jews of that time as they do to us today. Putting somebody's name to something did not always mean that they wrote it. It was often a device used to give the reader certain initial impressions about the text, or to refer to the main character... at least in Old Testament times. The practice was still in use around the times that gospels were written, although it is believed to have become less frequent by the time the later books of the New Testament were written. It's anybody's guess as to why the authors of those used the names that they did.

Do a little research into this topic, lighthouse. The material is out there, and it's very interesting. It's not like your beliefs are shattered by finding out that Matthew wasn't actually written by Matthew.

SO, I base my belief on the Bible. Satisfied?

You're actually basing your beliefs on a misplaced assumption about the Bible. The text doesn't actually say that those books were written by those people, or when they were written. It just uses their name to refer to certain books.

 

[Lighthouse]

Then why aren't the four gospels just called "The Gospel of Jesus Christ?" He was the main character, after all. If its purpose was to give the reader certain ideas about the text, what ideas were they trying to imply by using the names they did? Luke was written by a man who didn't even know Jesus, in the flesh. He never even saw him. Even Paul had that opportunity, albeit in a different way than some. Of course, being that he was a Pharisee, he may have actually seen him beforehand. The guy who wrote Luke was named Luke. He was a doctor. If Luke was written by Luke, why would the other three gospels be written by someone other than whose name is on them?

Bob used scripture to back up what he said in The Plot. If he hadn't, then I would not have believed what he presented. And scripture backs up that a child is alive in its mother's womb. So, abortion would be the taking of an innocent life, wouldn't it? Just because the definiton of murder is all about whether it's legal or not, to you, then this is merely a semantic argument.

 

[Granite]

Ilyatur, I really have to ask if you have any original thoughts of your own.

You have stayed in this discussion using cut and paste arguments. Can you stand on your own two feet here?

The assertion that dead-and-resurrected deities do not appear in mythology is absolutely absurd. The Horus and Osiris myths are there. So is Mithra. Look at any sun god myth and the very nature of the god will reflect a death and resurrection. If the litmus test is that a myth has to be "unambiguous," Christianity certainly fails, for it is mired in ambiguity.

The cross is certainly not about mercy. If the godhead cannot show mercy to one of its own members, perhaps we are still dealing with the same savage Jehovah of the Old Testament.

As for your three days proof texts...it just proves what I already told you: the Bible means what it says till it doesn't. The text is straightforward unless it can't be. The verse is plain until it isn't.

Either Jesus was in the tomb for a full three days and nights or he wasn't. He said he would be. Three days. Three nights. No equivocation. He was not, if the gospels are to be believed. Are the gospels wrong? (Dilemma.) Was Jesus wrong? (Complete dilemma!) None of the texts you cite can "prove" that three days and nights REALLY mean "about two and a half days, maybe, give or take."

What does 1st Samuel 30:12 mean? Does the text mean what it says or is it not convenient?

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Then why aren't the four gospels just called "The Gospel of Jesus Christ?" He was the main character, after all. If its purpose was to give the reader certain ideas about the text, what ideas were they trying to imply by using the names they did? Luke was written by a man who didn't even know Jesus, in the flesh. He never even saw him. Even Paul had that opportunity, albeit in a different way than some. Of course, being that he was a Pharisee, he may have actually seen him beforehand. The guy who wrote Luke was named Luke. He was a doctor. If Luke was written by Luke, why would the other three gospels be written by someone other than whose name is on them?

Bob used scripture to back up what he said in The Plot. If he hadn't, then I would not have believed what he presented. And scripture backs up that a child is alive in its mother's womb. So, abortion would be the taking of an innocent life, wouldn't it? Just because the definiton of murder is all about whether it's legal or not, to you, then this is merely a semantic argument.

The gospels were approved and rubber stamped by the Council of Nicea in AD 325. Four were chosen and hundreds more discarded for the very pragmatic reason that the compass had four points and the (flat) earth had four corners. I swear I'm not making this up. The council attributed authorship to these specific men who "wrote" them based on local tradition and favoritism.

There is no proof whatsoever that Paul ever saw Jesus personally during Jesus' ministry, nor does the apostle ever make this claim. You believe the physician Luke wrote the gospel carrying his name because the church says he did. Maybe, maybe not. Really, Lighthouse, does it matter who happened to write the gospels personally? It shouldn't. What matters is your reliance on the church and swallowing what you're told.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by lighthouse
Zakath-
Explain.

Explain what?

I asked you a question, was it your opinion that all killing of the unborn constitutes an act of murder, and am waiting for an answer...

If you're talking about stillborns, no one took their life.

Perhaps your deity did? If he makes 'em, perhaps he breaks 'em as well.

Approximately one-quarter of all conceptions end up in spontaneous abortions (abortions without human intervention). Since your deity allegedly designed this system of reproduction and allows it to continue to operate, without intervention on his part, can't we assume he wants it that way? That he is, in essence, responsible for designing and maintaining a system with a 25% failiure rate; resulting in the deaths of roughly two million unborn humans every month. That represents untold billions throughout history.

If you're talking about cases of it being either the mother or the child, and the life of the child is taken to save the mother, then no.

Why not?



Actually, I'm talking about two types of cases:

1. where your deity orders his minions to kill the unborn (Joshua and Moses leading the Jews, at YHWH's direction, to slaughter all human life in a number of Palestinian cities during the alleged Jewish invasion after the Exodus; or when Samuel claims that YHWH orders Saul (I Samuel) to slaughter all the Amelekites, including women and children)

2. where the deity kills them himself directly (e.g. the Genesis flood, destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, plagues in Israel, etc.)

If the killing of the unborn is always wrong, then why isn't it wrong in those cases?

:think:

or perhaps you'd like to restate your position...

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by granite1010

The gospels were approved and rubber stamped by the Council of Nicea in AD 325. Four were chosen and hundreds more discarded for the very pragmatic reason that the compass had four points and the (flat) earth had four corners. I swear I'm not making this up. The council attributed authorship to these specific men who "wrote" them based on local tradition and favoritism.

There is no proof whatsoever that Paul ever saw Jesus personally during Jesus' ministry, nor does the apostle ever make this claim. You believe the physician Luke wrote the gospel carrying his name because the church says he did. Maybe, maybe not. Really, Lighthouse, does it matter who happened to write the gospels personally? It shouldn't. What matters is your reliance on the church and swallowing what you're told.

Something else, dim bulb needs to consider is that Nicea did not represent the entire Church, any more than a Vatican council does today...

There are at least a half dozen other Christian groups, each with their own "spirit given" canon of scripture, differing from his measley 66-book Protestant Bible used by the churches of the West.

 

[Mr. Coffee]

Originally posted by granite1010
Ilyatur, I really have to ask if you have any original thoughts of your own.

I've posted them on this thread.

You have stayed in this discussion using cut and paste arguments. Can you stand on your own two feet here?

Ad hominem abusive--a fallacy of relevance. Your comment has nothing to do with the content of the quotes. So yeah, I'll take a stand on logic.

The assertion that dead-and-resurrected deities do not appear in mythology is absolutely absurd. The Horus and Osiris myths are there. So is Mithra.

Osiris (father of Horus) was murdered and his body was dismembered and scattered. The pieces of his body were recovered and rejoined. He journeyed to the underworld, where he became lord of the dead. He did not rise from the dead.

In all Mithraic literature (Vedas, Avesta, Plutarch, Statius, inscriptions on ruins) there are no references to Mithras dying. The immortality of the soul and the ascent of the righteous to heaven were well-established ideas in Iranian literature, but they weren't applied to Mithras.

I think it's germane to point out that Christianity was mocked in the pagan world because it worshipped a crucified God.

Look at any sun god myth and the very nature of the god will reflect a death and resurrection.

If you use Christian categories in interpreting the stories, yes. This was the bane of Frazer-era (and Campell's) cultural anthropology. It has fallen out of favor, because it is considered cultural imperialism to do this--especially in this example, where the links are considered tenuous.

The cross is certainly not about mercy. If the godhead cannot show mercy to one of its own members, perhaps we are still dealing with the same savage Jehovah of the Old Testament.

It wasn't cruel; it involved the full consent of the Son, who gave himself in love.