- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,747
- 52,532
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Like Jesus walking on water? or the virgin birth?Well, in a group of people as big as those frequenting these forums, you'll always get a handfull believing even the strangest stuff, I guess.
is so much nonsense. Please cite a passage 'condoning' slavery, rape or talking back to a parent in context.Old Ned said:...willing to stone a child for talking back to a parent, nor condone slavery or rape or genocide... all those things have been "changed"...
I do not know if this will mean anything to anyone, but in fact, the Bible does NOT declare as part of doctrine that the world is flat OR the center of the Solar System, Universe or much anything.
There are a few passages written in the late Stone Age/early Bronze Age that indicate the writer assumed so - like the 'corners of the Earth' and such. Most Christians - currently - are aware the Earth is NOT flat, nor the center of the Universe. Most, anyway. Yes, there are a couple on this forum, unless they're agents provocateur.
In much the same way, few actual scientists will claim to deny the existence of God. Most will say "There is no evidence to confirm or deny the existence of God, so no scientific determination can be made."
One could say, "I do not believe in God, as no scientific evidence exists to prove such an existence"; but that would leave the speaker open to the challenge to prove nothing exists without 'scientific proof'.
And I will admit, God does not appear in a test tube or equation at will. His existence is - as far as I can tell - impossible to prove by scientific inquiry in the normal sense of the word.
Just to set the record straight, the nonsense about is so much nonsense. Please cite a passage 'condoning' slavery, rape or talking back to a parent in context.
I realize this sort of idiocy gets repeated from various atheist 'sources', but still, they are evidence the originator either knows nothing of what he says or is simply lying.
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Like Jesus walking on water? or the virgin birth?
I believe it though.Let's forget the walking on water. It is fairly clear that the nativity story was made up after the fact. A mistranslation of a O.T. prophecy and a nonexistent poll pretty much put that myth to bed.
I believe it though.
Isn't that the strangest thing you've ever heard?
And geocentrism has nothing on the Resurrection!
As I recall, you weren't the one who posted the silliness. This response is directed at the errant claim posted earlier.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (New English Translation)
[18]"If a person has a stubborn, rebellious son who pays no attention to his father or mother, and they discipline him to no avail, [19] his father and mother must seize him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his city. [20] They must declare to the elders of his city, Our son is stubborn and rebellious and pays no attention to what we say he is a glutton and drunkard. [21] Then all the men of his city must stone him to death. In this way you will purge out wickedness from among you, and all Israel will hear about it and be afraid."
So, for this to happen, the parents must get the agreement and approval of the elders at the gate of the city. (The reference to the 'gate of the city' indicates the elders are those who are men of local importance and respect who decide such things.) So the final decision did not rest solely on the parents. Also, note the wording indicating the accused is '...rebellious... glutton and drunkard...' That seems to rule out the accused being a 'child' in the modern sense.
Further, in Jewish society, parents were responsible for the harmful damage caused by their children. This was a way of demonstrating their good faith in trying to teach their sons the correct way to live in society. (Long absent from ours, I fear.)
So while I know it is an argument dear to the hearts of atheists - yes, I've heard this nonsense before - there is no direction to stone an eight year old for sassing. The accusation is bunk.
I'll wait for the citations showing endorsement for slavery and rape.
Perhaps. Of course you understand a fifteen or sixteen year old male was considered a man at that time and in that society; he could get married and live on his own - as much as that happened. At fifteen or sixteen he was capable of being a glutton, drunkard and detriment to society.Subduction Zone said:And yet it could easily apply to a 15 or 16 year old back then. I would still call that a child. The parents are also the ones listed as starting the action.
Good work.Subduction Zone said:I will grant that it does not apply to an eight year old.
Only if the one to whom it looks bad champions the cause of young men running wild and acting without honor or decency. I'm sure this clause looks really, really terrible to many young gang members.Subduction Zone said:It still looks pretty bad for the Bible.
Would tacit non-comment suffice? Nowhere is rape or slavery - nowadays recognised as near enough the worst thing any human can do - condemned in the Bible.I still haven't heard from the rape and slavery supporters.
Perhaps. Of course you understand a fifteen or sixteen year old male was considered a man at that time and in that society; he could get married and live on his own - as much as that happened. At fifteen or sixteen he was capable of being a glutton, drunkard and detriment to society.
Good work.Only if the one to whom it looks bad champions the cause of young men running wild and acting without honor or decency. I'm sure this clause looks really, really terrible to many young gang members.
RichartT used to be one.
Recently another one just started posting here.
I can't remember his name.
[serious];65204904 said:I've been trying to remember his name for a while now, thanks!
Some astronomer, who wrote several scientific treatises, believed in geocentrism as well.JacobLaw is one, Netzarim is another.
Some astronomer, who wrote several scientific treatises, believed in geocentrism as well.
Ptolemy, I think, was his name.
What a weirdo, eh?The ancient Greeks were geocentrists, but they were confronted by the fact that the planets seemed to move in anomalous ways. Ptolemy fixed the geocentric model by inventing epicycles.
What a weirdo, eh?
In other words, he contracted a case of cognitive dissonance?Like any scientist, he saw the conflict between empirical data and theory.
I'd say he was a little hasty in his resolution ... wouldn't you?He modified the theory to better fit the data, rather than saying "science can take a hike" and pretending the facts didn't exist.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?