Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
This seems to me to be a classic example of ad hominem.
__________________
Господи помилуй нас.
"I have no pleasure in any man who despises music. It is no invention of ours: it is a gift of God. I place it next to theology. Satan hates music: he knows how it drives the evil spirit out of us." -Martin Luther
More liberal nonsense on the bible. Lets see, in your judgment, should Spain join the EU? If I make as much sense as you, the response would be," God forbid, you would go to h e double hockey sticks for passing "judgment.""
THe need to take down the avatar is good judgment. If you think I have passed on the guy's character or salvation, or wish that I had, again, trying re-reading until you get it.
Your words are compelling to me, we must therefore remove Michaelangelo's depiction of The Last Judgement from the Sistene Chapel...
After all, it depicts the same thing as the avatar in question...
If it were pornographic, my "judgment" would be to take it down. Would that be ungracious? Come on. What are you saying? That I have no right (or God forbids me) to post an opinion about the use of symbols on a Christian website?
It'd be nice if the opinion made some sense... And, you didn't just posit an opinion on the avatar, you also explicitly refused to reply to the content of the OP on the basis of that opinion. That's when 'opinion' migrates to 'shunning', with a pit stop at Judgement.
That is some take on the Sermon on the Mount you have there busterdog.
Lets see, in your judgment, should Spain join the EU? If I make as much sense as you, the response would be," God forbid, you would go to h e double hockey sticks for passing "judgment.""
Interesting the way you try to conflate a political and economic view with condemning fellow Christians as unbelieving, or greeting Kyrisch with cries of 'blasphemy' and 'demon avatar'.
No, that is not my interpretation of the passage. And no construction of strawman versions of my views will take from what Jesus says in that passage. You keep fulfilling it yourself. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. You keep rushing in to condemn others and you keep on exposing yourself as just as a guilty, and your judgment one of double standards.
The bible has a lot more to say about judgment than this one passage, but it tells us what our heart should be. There are times when Christians do need to judge, but if you heart if full of judgmentalism and you keep looking for reasons to condemn people then that is the heart of a Pharisee, followers of Jesus Christ should not be like that.
THe need to take down the avatar is good judgment. If you think I have passed on the guy's character or salvation, or wish that I had, again, trying re-reading until you get it.
I thought from his profile he was probably an atheist, though with a 'satire' as an avatar you can't be too sure. But if he is an atheist, do you really think your soapbox condemnation of his avatar as demonic and blasphemy is the sort of thing to win him over to the love of Christ?
If it were pornographic, my "judgment" would be to take it down. Would that be ungracious? Come on.
But it is not pornographic, the nearest thing we have to pornography is your zoophilia signature.
What are you saying? That I have no right (or God forbids me) to post an opinion about the use of symbols on a Christian website?
You are free to post whatever opinions you like as long as mods are happy. Of course we will also answer to the Lord for every idle word. Why? Because our words reveal what is in our hearts Matt 12:34 You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. 35 The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. 36 I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, 37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." Jesus spoke this to Pharisees who kept looking for excuses to condemn Jesus and his disciples. They condemned the disciples for plucking grain to eat on the Sabbath. They condemned Jesus for healing on the Sabbath and said his power was demonic. If you hatred of evolution has grown into such deep bitterness in your heart you are constantly looking for reasons to judge and condemn those you disagree with, you need to get before God and deal with it.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
THe need to take down the avatar is good judgment. If you think I have passed on the guy's character or salvation, or wish that I had, again, trying re-reading until you get it.
If it were pornographic, my "judgment" would be to take it down. Would that be ungracious? Come on. What are you saying? That I have no right (or God forbids me) to post an opinion about the use of symbols on a Christian website?
He has said with good reason that his avatar is in fact a satyr/faun, and not a demon. And if you want to show otherwise, well, tell me where in the Bible demons are described as being goatlike. In fact, goats were perfectly acceptable for some sacrifices in the Temple (indeed it was expected that the sin offering would be a goat, AFAIK) and they were ritually clean as well. The only instance where goats are used to represent evil or imperfection in the Bible (other than symbolizing a kingdom in Daniel, again not demons) is in Jesus' parable of the sheep and the goats, and even then the goats are in fact people (or peoples), not demons, and the language is clearly literary and symbolic (DNA notwithstanding).
As such, the kind of sensitivity that is offended by the picture is certainly not a Biblical, evangelical sensitivity. A Medieval sensitivity, perhaps, or the kind who think Satanists speak accurately for Satan. But I'm not the first to say that you've got a lot of nerve to be pointing fingers for someone whose signature has a picture of a topless man about to kiss a chimpanzee. "Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal must be put to death." (Exodus 22:19 NIV) You who would so vigorously defend your own sensitivities, have you wondered how your picture makes others feel?
If you're wondering, I scroll faster down every thread in which you have a post, just so that I can see less of the picture. And yet I believe that the image you posted does not violate the TOS of this site (and I've had the grace not to check), and so I've respected your right to choose such a silly, disgusting picture to represent your views about evolution and evolutionists. Maybe that kind of respect is wasted on you. I hope not.
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
This seems to me to be a classic example of ad hominem.
Not unless gifs, jpegs and avatars are people.
Hello?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations") To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. in the presence of Him whom he believed--God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;
That is some take on the Sermon on the Mount you have there busterdog.
Finally, someone understands.
Luk 6:26 Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations") To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. in the presence of Him whom he believed--God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;
He has said with good reason that his avatar is in fact a satyr/faun, and not a demon. And if you want to show otherwise, well, tell me where in the Bible demons are described as being goatlike. In fact, goats were perfectly acceptable for some sacrifices in the Temple (indeed it was expected that the sin offering would be a goat, AFAIK) and they were ritually clean as well. ).
Not so good on your bible or mythology. The image speaks for itself.
Rendering by the English versions of the Hebrew "se'irim" in Isa. xiii. 21, xxxiv. 14 (R. V., margin, "he-goats"; American R. V., "wild goats"), while in Lev. xvii. 7 and II Chron. xi. 15 the Authorized Version renders the word by "devil," the Revised Version by "he-goat," and the Revised Version, margin, by "satyr." The old versions use for it a word denoting a demon, false god, or a hairy being. It is certain that a natural animal is not intended in these passages. Thus in Isaiah the se'irim are mentioned together with Lilith and animals of the desert and desolate places, and are described as "dancing" and "calling to one another"; in the other passages they are referred to as objects of worship. Possibly the versions reflect the ancient conception of the se'irim as hairy and perhaps goat-shaped beings. The association of monstrous beings with ruins and desert places is still a prevalent element in the folk-lore of Arabia and Syria; and the Arabian jinn also are represented as having monstrous hairy forms.
In Ḳid. 72a the Ishmaelites are compared to the se'irim of unclean places, i.e., the spirits ("shedim") which inhabit retreats. Of other monstrous, half-human and half-animal beings referred to in the Talmud may be mentioned here the "adne [or "abne"] sadeh" (Kil. viii. 5, and Maimonides ad loc.), and the "yiddoa'" (Sanh. 65b), explained as a being with human shape and attached to the earth by its umbilical cord (comp. Bertinoro on Sanh. vii. 7).
Indeed, the scholarship only confirms a very natural reaction to the figure itself.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations") To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. in the presence of Him whom he believed--God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;
Rendering by the English versions of the Hebrew "se'irim" in Isa. xiii. 21, xxxiv. 14 (R. V., margin, "he-goats"; American R. V., "wild goats"), while in Lev. xvii. 7 and II Chron. xi. 15 the Authorized Version renders the word by "devil," the Revised Version by "he-goat," and the Revised Version, margin, by "satyr." The old versions use for it a word denoting a demon, false god, or a hairy being. It is certain that a natural animal is not intended in these passages. Thus in Isaiah the se'irim are mentioned together with Lilith and animals of the desert and desolate places, and are described as "dancing" and "calling to one another"; in the other passages they are referred to as objects of worship.Possibly the versions reflect the ancient conception of the se'irim as hairy and perhaps goat-shaped beings. The association of monstrous beings with ruins and desert places is still a prevalent element in the folk-lore of Arabia and Syria; and the Arabian jinn also are represented as having monstrous hairy forms.
In Ḳid. 72a the Ishmaelites are compared to the se'irim of unclean places, i.e., the spirits ("shedim") which inhabit retreats. Of other monstrous, half-human and half-animal beings referred to in the Talmud may be mentioned here the "adne [or "abne"] sadeh" (Kil. viii. 5, and Maimonides ad loc.), and the "yiddoa'" (Sanh. 65b), explained as a being with human shape and attached to the earth by its umbilical cord (comp. Bertinoro on Sanh. vii. 7).
Indeed, the scholarship only confirms a very natural reaction to the figure itself.
Actually this is a discussion of the use of the word satyr in English versions specifically older English versions of the bible.
It was the writers of the KJV and Geneva Bible who took satyr from Greek mythology and used it to translate the Hebrew se'irim. Modern bible translations and modern bible scholarship don't follow the AV's rendering but translate it 'wild goats' ASV NET NIV NLT, 'shaggy goats' NASB. Isaiah does mention Lilith along with the se'irim as the Jewish Encyclopedia points out, but Isaiah also mentions 'desert creatures', hyenas and owls, so the se'irim were in pretty normal animal company too.
A few modern versions don't interpret the Isaiah passages as natural goats, but say 'goat demons' NRSV, or 'evil spirits' BBE. Even where the translators thought the se'irim were demons, they did not confuse the Hebrew se'irim with Greek satyrs. But most modern versions translate se'irim the way it usually means, goats.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Last edited by Assyrian; 20th June 2008 at 09:10 PM.
This seems to me to be a classic example of ad hominem.
Not unless gifs, jpegs and avatars are people.
So if I attack the clothes people wear, the music they listen to, or their favourite film, instead of answering their argument, that is not an ad hominem because clothes, music and films aren't people?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
).
Linear Mode
