|
|
pimple
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 375
|
|
|
far inside your cheek!
I hinted at where I stand, but poking fun aint nice.
Simon
Joy Peace and Tranquility
Joyceility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
let me try that again, my post was so unclear. I'm sorry, i know how to write better than that..
Brian, God directed that abraham's son, Isaac which he bore to his wife sarah, was to be the inheritor of the blessings.
Ishmael & his mom were eventually sent away because ishmael was picking on little Isaac. It seems Ishmael was 13 yo at that time.
Genesis 17:
19 Then God said: "No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him.
20 "And as for Ishmael, I have heard you. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall beget twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation.
21 "But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this set time next year."
Life's a trip * Friends help you through * Adventure on life!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With all due respect, sir, you must mean Israelite perspective. Of course they're the main focus of the bible as they were God's chosen ones. other nations only enter the picture incidentally as they have some interaction with israel.
But of course (lest anyone misunderstand) god is no respecter of persons & gives same love & promises to all people who've ever lived.
traditional christianity can't explain (to my satisfaction) many details, such as... oh i'm gettin so sleepy now, why even start into this..?
Point is it is all ISRAEL, not just little judah, the Bible is concerned about.
The nation we know as Israel today is only a small portion of god's chosen people, mostly Judah with parts of benjamin & manasseh (? I'm unsureon that last one). Guess who Isaac's sons were. Saxons, Saxony, Anglo-saxons!
The preponderance of the evidence suggest that we're God's beloved nation, enjoying the promised blessings, given divine protections.. Hadn't we felt so all along? was it only by our might & the strength of our hand that gave us this wealth & blessed land?
I'm going to sleep now. i enjoy you ALL. you too cossie. sorry i upset you! TeddyBear
Life's a trip * Friends help you through * Adventure on life!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Handyman wrote:
> With all due respect, sir, you must mean Israelite perspective. Of course they're the main focus of the bible as they were God's chosen ones. other nations only enter the picture incidentally as they have some interaction with israel.
>
Oh give me a break..... The Israelites chose themselves.....
> But of course (lest anyone misunderstand) god is no respecter of persons & gives same love & promises to all people who've ever lived.
>
What God? Show me please.....
> traditional christianity can't explain (to my satisfaction) many details, such as... oh i'm gettin so sleepy now, why even start into this..?
>
Traditional Christianity is a for-profit business
> Point is it is all ISRAEL, not just little judah, the Bible is concerned about.
>
> The nation we know as Israel today is only a small portion of god's chosen people, mostly Judah with parts of benjamin & manasseh (? I'm unsureon that last one). Guess who Isaac's sons were. Saxons, Saxony, Anglo-saxons!
>
> The preponderance of the evidence suggest that we're God's beloved nation, enjoying the promised blessings, given divine protections.. Hadn't we felt so all along? was it only by our might & the strength of our hand that gave us this wealth & blessed land?
There is no evidence.... none.... Not one iota of physical proof any of this hocus pocus is true or even partially true.
>
> I'm going to sleep now. i enjoy you ALL. you too cossie. sorry i upset you! TeddyBear
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Handyman wrote:
> let me try that again, my post was so unclear. I'm sorry, i know how to write better than that..
>
> Brian, God directed that abraham's son, Isaac which he bore to his wife sarah, was to be the inheritor of the blessings.
Without concrete proof..... Abraham directed that his son..... and so on
>
> Ishmael & his mom were eventually sent away because ishmael was picking on little Isaac. It seems Ishmael was 13 yo at that time.
>
> Genesis 17:
> 19 Then God said: "No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him.
> 20 "And as for Ishmael, I have heard you. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall beget twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation.
> 21 "But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this set time next year."
God did NOT say anything...... These are the words of men.... Bedtime stories told to scare little children into obeyance.....
If the Brothers Grimm had lived 2500 tears earlier then we would all be worshiping in the Grimmace Faith.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Out of context) Marc wrote:
Oh give me a break..... The Israelites chose themselves.....
Hilaire Belloc: "How odd of God to choose the Jews"
Unattributed riposte: "It's not so odd; the Jews chose God."
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Then that would make then the "choosing people"
Not the chosen people....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc wrote:
Then that would make then the "choosing people"
Absolutely. Blame the King James' translators of 1611. Their knowledge of Hebrew in places was quite quaint. (Though one must make allowances: a Jehovah's Witness whom I once kept at the street door for nearly 4 hours was quite put out when I explained that the Bible wasn't originally written in English!)
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>proof, it takes proof. not blind faith.
As far as I am concerned, proof is a tenet of scientific thought. So I have no objections to you "believing" something if you have very good proof for it (though if that is the case, you shouldn't need to believe it at all -- it should be commonly accepted as fact!).
The closest we can get to proof, in historical terms, is when there are multiple, trustworthy texts from the same time period, all saying the same thing. And how do we know if a person is trustworthy? Well, knowing who they are, and how they are regarded by their peers, certainly helps.
From a scientific viewpoint:
- We don't know who wrote the Bible, so how can we verify their intentions or agenda?
- The vast majority of the events in the Bible are not covered in other contemporary texts (even down to major, major things like the life of Christ), and where they are it is in the most general terms; much of the time it is not even possible to tell whether they are actually referring to the same event, or just a similar one (sometimes there is even evidence that later texts that seem to support the Bible have actually been doctored many centuries later);
- It is common knowledge that the Bible has been written, rewritten, copied, edited to remove any inconsistent parts, and translated, many, many times since it was written. This is regardless of whether the original authors were acting on the word of God or not. Any text that is known to have been doctored is highly suspect.
- As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The very vague supporting facts that churches use to further convince the faithful are simply not scientific proofs: they only work if you are already convinced! There's a thriving industry in "guess what? What the Bible says is actually true!" books, but what they don't tell you is that the vast majority of what they say is conjecture, and no genuine historian would even start to be convinced.
I'm sorry, but there is no such thing as proof for Christianity and Judaism. Otherwise, why would the churches have to put so much emphasis on the "faith" part?
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> I disagree with traditional christianity
Why?
> [I] think the catholic church is about as close to the church of satan as it can get & still use parts of the bible & the name "Christian"!! Ah! what a LIE!
Why? That's a very inflammatory comment, you know. I don't know if there are any Roman Catholics here, but it's hardly going to get people to accept your beliefs if you denounce the largest Christian church in the world as the church of Satan. If you're being pedantic, my own ex-faith, Anglicanism, is also Catholic, though not Roman Catholic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>if there's something i say that rings true with you then take it with you, if you've no use for it, leave it where it lies. Just as you would in a grocery store. It sounds corny or red-neckish perhaps, but "the grocery store approach" has stuck in my mind for years.
Yes, but, sorry to be blunt...
You're not taking the grocery store approach. This isn't a religious forum, so there is no reason to think that the people already here will want someone to come and evangelise at them. It's fine to have a level discussion, but generally a discussion requires that each party should acknowledge and respond to the other parties' ideas on the topic. You're not really doing that.
You're taking an approach more like Jehovah's Witnesses, who come and bang on your door and demand to be let in so they can try and force their beliefs down your throat. And I think that jars with a lot of people here. Most people here who lack belief have not chosen to disbelieve in God simply out of spite -- they have, through bitter experience, come to realise that there is no good reason to believe in him. Quoting verses from the bible in support of spurious mythologies and blood-lines (something I am personally suspicious of; historically, it has been a very bad idea) is not going to change their opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yeah, i don't even want to talk about it.
i start out by answering something. Then i'm expected to answer anyone's else's statements coming from all different points of view. And there are some intellectual arguments , but I haven't time & what's the point?
I don't recall how it started. It's become an unpleasant topic.
Forget it.
Ted
BTW I'm not trying to cram anything down ones throat. i answered brians question. i think it's an interesting subject, one i've studied 20 years one that arceology & science are proving to be true at an incresing rate, prophecies that are coming true (to those who know & read the book) etc.
It's interseting to me. the principles work in practice.
But i only keep writing about it in response to other's posts. Not trying to push it. We don't do that. the bible disagrees with that too.
Life's a trip * Friends help you through * Adventure on life!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deeej wrote:
The vast majority of the events in the Bible are not covered in other contemporary texts (even down to major, major things like the life of Christ)
Just to illustrate one of the points made by David. The earliest document outside of the New Testament that mentions Jesus was a history of the Jews, written by Flavius Josephus (a Jew) about 60 years after the crucifixion. But even his account was 'touched up' by pious frauds. Here is what Josephus wrote [Antiquities of the Jews 18:63-64] with the later additions in square parentheses. Read the passage first without the additional bits and then with them and you will see how the whole tenor of the passage was changed.
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man [if it be lawful to call him a man], for he was a doer of wonders, [a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure]. He drew many after him [both Jews and gentiles. He was the Christ.] When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, [for he appeared to them alive again on the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and then thousand other wonderful things about him,] and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
We know that these fraudulent changes were introduced because Professor S. Pines found a version of Josephus' book in Arabic - a translation probably made in the 10th century for Arabic speaking Jews. Clearly this translation was made from a copy which did not have the Christian interpolations:
At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets had recounted wonders.
As far as the Old Testament is concerned, there is a fascinating book by Richard Friedman called "Who wrote the Bible?" in which he identifies authors and motives in a very convincing manner.
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>BTW I'm not trying to cram anything down ones throat. i answered brians question. i think it's an interesting subject, one i've studied 20 years one that arceology & science are proving to be true at an incresing rate, prophecies that are coming true (to those who know & read the book) etc.
It's interseting to me. the principles work in practice.
Okay. But the problem is, I'm a sceptic. And when someone says to me "prophecies are coming true!" I need specific proof of that. Otherwise it rather irritates me. It would be like me coming here and saying "The moon is made of cheese. I have proof it's made of cheese. No, nothing you can say will make me change my mind. But I won't say why I think it's made of cheese." It would undoubtedly annoy other people.
"Proof" of a prophecy after it happened (when people try and say that 9-11 was predicted by the Bible, or Nostradamus, for example) does not count -- you are twisting the facts to suit the theory, not the theory to suit the facts (to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes). As far as I'm concerned, I will only believe that the Bible has any power of prediction if it, consistently, specifically and accurately, predicts things that are going to happen years in advance.
If you've read round the subject I'm sure you're aware that most scientific people don't share your opinions. It's not a conspiracy -- the fact is that religion works much better when you accept that it relies on faith, not fact. There are many religious scientists. But they don't pretend they are basing their faith upon proof.
>But i only keep writing about it in response to other's posts. Not trying to push it. We don't do that. the bible disagrees with that too.
Yes, but notice you've brought up the same subject several times. No-one tried to make you do that. It may be dear to your heart, but the problem is: except as mythology/tradition, it is not really dear to very many other people's round here. And some dislike your opinions.
Please, in no way think I am attacking you personally. I'm just pointing out inconsistencies in the doctrine.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I had started a reply, but don't think it's worth it.
From your perspective I don't disagree with you.
I love you all & don't want to argue. I haven't time to try to post facts & quote sources all. It's not my intention.
Ted 
Life's a trip * Friends help you through * Adventure on life!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not quite sure what you mean. The site is extremely well done from what I can tell. I wasn't posting with any one person in mind if thats what you mean. I was really just looking for an excuse to post a link to that site 'cause it's fun.
It's always the old to lead us to the war
It's always the young to fall
Now look at all we've won with the sabre and the gun
Tell me is it worth it all
~Phil Ochs "I Aint Marching Anymore"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
...and then again, you may be so ignorant that you think that you're intelligent, or you may be mistaking knowledge for wisdom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, i suppose i spoke prematurely, some of the scenes do seem a bit crass. I apologize for my ignorance regarding this and i apologize if it offended anyone as that was not my intention.
It's always the old to lead us to the war
It's always the young to fall
Now look at all we've won with the sabre and the gun
Tell me is it worth it all
~Phil Ochs "I Aint Marching Anymore"
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
