Posts by RWC

29

Saintly Sluttiness?

by patio34 in

i ran across this this morning at lucianne.com and thought it really had a different perspective than the usual bible-based values in a lot of our world today (that aren't really adhered to anyway).

i highlighted the pertinent parts, imo.

i put it in bible research because it contradicts the bible and is based on evolutionary science.

You are right when you say that the Bible is full of imperfect men. You should however do two things before you criticize them- one is to follow through on the complete story and two is to understand the teaching that is evident in the story. As for Abraham, the story is actually very beautiful and is an example of what God was willing to do when he sent Jesus to die for our sins. If you read it carefully you will see how heartbroken Abraham is at the notion that his only son, who he clearly loved very much, should be sacrificed. Issac, who also clearly loves his father obeys him willingly. And both of them, who love God know that he will provide for them, which he does. The story is one of a test of faith and devotion. It is not a story of human sacrifice and should not be portrayed as such.

As for David, he did do some horrible things beyond adultry. He sent the husband of his lover into battle to be killed so he could marry her. But the story doesn't end there. David had to pay for his sins and he had to confess them The story of David's life is one of a sinful man who loves the Lord and through his repentance and acknowledgement of his wrongdoing is used by God to do great things. He is an example to us all.

The problems thee people faced in their lifes as a result of their sinful behavior is not ignored. Far from ignoring them we can learn from them.They are examples of how sinful actions can cause sorrow, pain, and can destroy the family. Their lives prove the point I was making. A lifestyle like that that is attempted to be justified and glorified will only lead to pain and destruction. The men of the old testament who you mentioned saw the error of their ways and repented and their familes were better for it.

With all this said, how does their actions disprove that the morality taught by the Christian faith promotes the values I expressed earlier?

By the way, even if I was walking around with all of the physical infirmities that you mentioned, I would believe I was in a better situation than most if my faith was strong and I was a good moral person who cared for his spouse and his family.I would still be happy with myself. (Note I said better situation, not better)

God Bless

29

Saintly Sluttiness?

by patio34 in

i ran across this this morning at lucianne.com and thought it really had a different perspective than the usual bible-based values in a lot of our world today (that aren't really adhered to anyway).

i highlighted the pertinent parts, imo.

i put it in bible research because it contradicts the bible and is based on evolutionary science.

RWC

This post is an example of how far people will go to rationalize their behavior and justify their actions. I can hear it now: "I am sorry I fooled around on you honey, it wasn't me it was evolution. I couldn't help myself"

Men have been trying that argument for years with no sucess and rightfully so. Now that a study has come out that claims that a few tribal cultures profess that women need to have multiple sex partners, the slutty lifestyle will become saintly. I would venture to guess that the idea that conception takes more than one man was an argument first professed by the men of that culture ( not unlike the Morman idea that multiple wifes was God's idea)

A society that not only accepts, but actually applaudes and encourages multiple sex partners and at the same time takes steps to destroy the family which ours is doing today, is on the road to destruction. We will reap what we are sowing just like we are now, with the rise of teenage pregnacy and the epidemics of sexually transmitted diseases.

No matter how you attempt to justify it, multiple sex partners outside of a marriage is not a heathly practice for the individual or society. And without a moral compass there is no way to determine what type of behavior is "responsible". The moral compass provided by Christianity establishes values that promote the sanctity of marriage, that values committment, that encourages family security, and protects children. These values will never be enhanced by a society that promotes promiscuity. Nor with they be replaced by science.

God Bless

89

Why do so many people believe that jesus is god?

by Legendary U.2.K. in

i still say that, christiaity is f--- up in these last days.. christianity teaches that the messiah is god, when the bible clearly points out that jesus is a prophet sent by god... jesus prayed to god<----that's the biggest proof... so i think if anybody believe that jesus is god, is not only an'-ti-christ(not accepting) but also a liar, foolish, and you knoweth nothing, and you are not close to god or christ, you are closer to that devil which we call satan....

RWC

plmkrzy- Thank you for the posts. They explain the doctrine behind the Trinity wonderfully. They do not include the Biblical references to support that theology but those are readily available.

Legendary- Your idea of the Trinity is incomplete. The Trinity involves three manifestations of the God. My personal thought is that people should not insult others as being "fools" for their religious beliefs.

51

JAH REASONS WITH DICTATORS OF SODOM

by You Know in

peter once wrote concerning paul's writings, saying: "in them, however, are some things hard to understand" that being the case, it is understandable why jehovah opened his long-running dialogue with israel, through isaiah, by saying: "my own people have not behaved understandingly.

" further, in that 1st chapter, at verse 10, jehovah addresses the leaders of his people saying: "hear the word of jehovah, you dictators of sodom.

give ear to the law of our god, you people of gomorrah.

RWC

The idea that most Biblical scholars wouold easily refute the theology behind the Trinity is a bold statment not based upon fact. The vast majority of Christian sects believe in the Trinity. JW's are very much in the minority in not believing in the Trinity and even more so in preaching that Jesus was Michael the Archangel.

The theology behind the Trinity is sound and Biblically based. The Bible is clear that there is only one God. Without adding words to John1:1 the Bible is also clear that Jesus is God. Jesus himself says he is God in multiple places in the Bible - John 5:18-27; 12:44-45, 14:9, for example. The idea that there can only be one God and yet Jesus is God, along witht the Holy Spirit is answered by the doctrine of the Trinity, one God ervealed in three persons. It is the accepted Christian view.

21

proof for xander and Jan H.

by RWC in

the original "will religion be banned " thread has moved to page 16 so i thought i would start a new one here.. both xander and jan h. asked for proof that the gospel wruters were martyred.

here is the proof of that plus the proof that other persons identified as disciples were martyred as well:.

stephen - stoned to death.

RWC

Saint Satan- I have never been a JW but I do believe in the Bible. I only pointed out my occupation to show Jan H. that I am very familar with the standards of evidence. The fact tht I am a lawyer doesn't make anything I say right, but the evidence looked at objectively makes it right. Your sarcasm aside, the evidence stands on its own merit regardless of my profession.

ThiChi- you make an excellent point

21

proof for xander and Jan H.

by RWC in

the original "will religion be banned " thread has moved to page 16 so i thought i would start a new one here.. both xander and jan h. asked for proof that the gospel wruters were martyred.

here is the proof of that plus the proof that other persons identified as disciples were martyred as well:.

stephen - stoned to death.

RWC

Xander and Jan.H-

Both of you can call be ignorant all you want but I will not lower this discussion to a personal attack.

Jan.H. you would lose your bet on being able to list scholarly works on the Bible. I have done far more study than you seem to understand and being a trial lawyer by trade I am more than capable of understanding evidence. In fact, in the responses by both you and Xander I see a glaring lack of it. What you both present is mere conjecture and opinions. You have yet to name one scholar that agrees with you.

Xander, who do you think would be discussing the authorship of the Gospels but Christians? Christians, more than anyone want to know the validity of their faith. I trust that you have limited knowledge of how the canons were selected and want went into those decisions. Authorship was one of the tests to determine if certain works were considered to be part of the canon. Please name a mainstream Christian scholar who rejects the accepted authorship of any of the Gospels.

Biblical scholars have been studying this issue for centuries. The opinions that you have both presented have been discarded over and over again. Some of them are being raised again at this time through the Jesus seminar and others but these are not accepted premises.

What you discount as "tradition" cannot be thrown out so readily. Accepted "traditions" in the church are tested based upon the other evidence available. Those that don't stand up are noted as such. They are not accepted blindly.

You are wrong that there is no evidence that "John" wrote the gospel that bears his name. There is both extrinsic evidence and internal evidence to support this conclusion. For example, the writing style of Revelation which was written by John is strikingly similar to that of the Gospel. Additionally, early writings by other apostolic writers accept this as the case.

Your quote from Matthew 9 does nothing to destroy the authorship. One reference to Matthew in the third person is not evidence that he did not write the gospel. The gospel makes it clear that he was writing an historical text. He was not writing to tout his own accomplishments.

Let me ask you some questions: If the Gospels were anonymous, why is there no surviving tradition of another author for the Gospels? Second century testimony is unanimous in attributing the four gospels to the persons that now carry their name. This is different from the apocryphal gospels. As one writer put it, "It is hard to believe that the Gospels circulated anonymously for 60 or more years and then someone finally thought to put authors on them-- and managed to get the whole church across the Roman Empire to agree."

Why then were such unlikely persons chosen to be the authors? Matthew was a reviled tax collector who the jewish peoplpe hated, Luke was only mentioned breifly by name in the new testament, Mark is described as a person who abandoned Paul in Acts 15. Highly unlikely people to attribute the basis for a religion on when there were other more sutiable people, such as Andrew or Peter.

The premises that you set out are not logical, are mere speculation and do not refute the accepted evidence of authorship.

I would also ask if you raise the same questions and skepticisms about other secular ancient texts. There are countless secular ancient texts that are internally anonymous but whose authorship is accepted by external references and tradition.

21

proof for xander and Jan H.

by RWC in

the original "will religion be banned " thread has moved to page 16 so i thought i would start a new one here.. both xander and jan h. asked for proof that the gospel wruters were martyred.

here is the proof of that plus the proof that other persons identified as disciples were martyred as well:.

stephen - stoned to death.

RWC

Jan-

Before you make a statement about the Gospels, you would do well to read them. John 21:24 : John claims to be an eyewitness. Matthew is a named disciple in the other Gospels as is Luke. Luke States his sources in 1:1 and makes the comment that things have been "fullfilled among us", thus he claims to have been an eyewitness.

As for authorship, what you call "tradition" was based upon information from people who knew who wrote the gospels. Early historians wrote about the authorship at or near the time the gospels were written. After two thousand years of study, the issue of authorship is universally accepted. Where the authors of certain books of the Bible is not known it is stated, such as the book of Hebrews.

I did not attempt to shift the burden of proof. I offered you proof of the early martyrs and then asked you to refute it. To date you have not.

God Bless

21

proof for xander and Jan H.

by RWC in

the original "will religion be banned " thread has moved to page 16 so i thought i would start a new one here.. both xander and jan h. asked for proof that the gospel wruters were martyred.

here is the proof of that plus the proof that other persons identified as disciples were martyred as well:.

stephen - stoned to death.

RWC

Xander,

You have made the statement that Foxe had an agenda and therefore I assume that you think he cannot be believed. However, what proof do you have that his text has been shown to be historically inaccurate? On the contrary, it has stood the test of time. Even more importantly, it is recognized even by the Catholic church as being accurate. If he was writing it to condem the Catholic Church, why would they endorse it?

As I stated before, Foxe mentions in his book that he is relying on texts from Roman historians. Do you have any proof that he is not telling the truth?

21

proof for xander and Jan H.

by RWC in

the original "will religion be banned " thread has moved to page 16 so i thought i would start a new one here.. both xander and jan h. asked for proof that the gospel wruters were martyred.

here is the proof of that plus the proof that other persons identified as disciples were martyred as well:.

stephen - stoned to death.

RWC

Before you dismiss Foxes Book of Martyrs, you might want to investigate it a little. It is based upon secular sources such as documents from the Roman historians. It has been proven over the last seven hundred years to be a reliable history text.

Jan. H.- Matthew wrote a gospel and was martyred, Luke wrote a gospel and Acts and was martyred, John wrote a gospel and was imprisoned, and Mark wrote a gospel and was martyred. All four of the Gospel writers suffered for their beliefs, just as the other disciples who did not write gospels but who died for their faith and their preaching.

There is universal agreement on the authors of the Gospels as can be easily shown. If you want that proof I would be happy to show it to you.

What part of proof don't you understand? Simply saying that you want more does not show anything. What proof do you have that the historians are incorrect and that these people were not martyred or did not write the Gospels as history shows?

Present that proof and we can have a discussion.

God Bless

21

proof for xander and Jan H.

by RWC in

the original "will religion be banned " thread has moved to page 16 so i thought i would start a new one here.. both xander and jan h. asked for proof that the gospel wruters were martyred.

here is the proof of that plus the proof that other persons identified as disciples were martyred as well:.

stephen - stoned to death.

RWC

The original "Will religion be banned " thread has moved to page 16 so I thought I would start a new one here.

Both Xander and Jan H. asked for proof that the Gospel wruters were martyred. Here is the proof of that plus the proof that other persons identified as disciples were martyred as well:

Stephen - stoned to death

James the son of Zebedee - beheaded

Philip - crucified in A.D. 54

Matthew- killed in Ethopia in A.D. 60

Andrew- crucified

Mark - dragged to pieces by the people of Alexandria

Peter - crucified

Luke - Hanged from an olive tree

Thomas - thrust with a spear

John - exciled to the Isle of Patomos ( he was sent to prison for his faith, but did not die there)

James - step brother of Jesus who wrote one of the letters - stoned to death

This information comes from Foxes Book of Martyrs first published in the 1500s. It is the recognized history text on the churches early martyrs.

With this in mind, my premise stays the same- the Gospel writers and the other disciples who were eyewitnesses to the life, death and ressurrection of Jesus died for what they witnessed and what they knew to be true.

Xander- You asked me if I beleive that Kroesch and the founder of Heaven's Gate truly believed what they claimed to believe. Frankly neither I or you can know what these folks truly believed, however, your question misses my point. The Gospel writers and the early disciples did not die for what they simply believed to be the truth, they were eyewitnesses to the events and therefore knew them to have occurred. They did not believe something to be true, they knew it. To say that they made it all up (which it what you are claiming) than you have to say that these men went to their death for what they knew to be a lie (saying they witnessed something that never happened or even followed a man that never lived according to some) when they were given the opportunity to recant. What proof do you have to support your proposition?