no evolution for you...

Discussion in 'Spirituality & Religion' started by msilverstein47, Dec 31, 2013.

  1. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    By allegedly, do you mean that Jesus is quoted as saying this somewhere in the New Testament? I don't recall this. Do you have a reference?
     
  2. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    i would guess he means Paul, but to most people who aren't biblically literate, whatever is in the NT is "Jesus said".
     
  3. benztown

    benztown Member+

    Jun 24, 2005
    Club:
    VfB Stuttgart
    Phew, and here I was thinking for a minute I'd actually have to be nice to my slaves...
     
  4. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    Not so fast...

    "In five ways should a master minister to his servants:
    by assigning them work according to their ability,
    by supplying them with food and with wages,
    by tending them in sickness,
    by sharing with them any delicacies,
    by granting them leave at times."

    The Buddha (From the Sigalovada Sutta)
     
  5. benztown

    benztown Member+

    Jun 24, 2005
    Club:
    VfB Stuttgart
    Lies by the devil my son. The Lord's inspired word says that the unjust suffering of slaves makes them even holier (1 Peter 2:18-25). So I'm really doing them a favor, don't I?
     
  6. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    Well yeah you are -assuming that what your slaves really want is to become holier.

    According to Luke, Jesus did say -while quoting the prophet Isaiah- that he came "to free the oppressed". But he probably meant it in a spiritual sense.
     
  7. Justin Z

    Justin Z Member

    Jul 12, 2005
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Club:
    Heart of Midlothian FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You know, this does create a conundrum for you, however. Jesus is God is the Holy Spirit--and Luke, I am your father AND your son--because of the Trinity doctrine. You have said on multiple occasions that the books of the Bible are divinely inspired.

    So . . . Since God is Jesus, and Jesus is God, and God inspired the authors to write the words in the books of the Bible . . . isn't anything in the entire New Testament "what Jesus said?"
     
  8. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    divinely inspired means...divinely inspired. if Donald Barthelme inspired me to write a short story in the style of a post-modern absurdist, does that mean that he wrote the story. (he did, btw...inspire me).
     
  9. Justin Z

    Justin Z Member

    Jul 12, 2005
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Club:
    Heart of Midlothian FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    A large portion of Jesus' fanbase consider being divinely inspired by God to be significantly different than being ho-hum inspired to write something by another human being. The Bible is often referred to as "The Word of God." Well is it, or not?
     
  10. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    what do you mean by "ho-hum inspired"? i wrote the story specifically because i had read a bunch of stories in the collection called "60 Stories" by Barthelme. i wouldn't have written the story unless i had read the book. there wasn't any ho or hum about it.

    the Bible is the Word of God. that doesn't mean that God wrote it. it means that it contains nothing but Truth and is reliable on all accounts. men were inspired to write the words; God chose the language*, the timing, and the occasion. but it's not accurate to say that God wrote it. Moses, David, Isaiah and Paul didn't take dictation.

    *God chose to write the NT in Greek because there are Greek words that have specific meanings, connotations, that English, for example doesn't have. the word for belief or faith (the verb form) isn't a word that simply connotes a mental action. it means, roughly, "act as you have mentally determined". that's why James says "Faith with out works is dead."
     
  11. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    #111 argentine soccer fan, Jun 1, 2014
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2014
    I don't know about that. What about the quotes ascribed to the devil?
     
  12. Justin Z

    Justin Z Member

    Jul 12, 2005
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Club:
    Heart of Midlothian FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    ASF--those would still be God/Jesus'/the Holy Spirit's "version" of what the Devil said.

    I'm on my phone and on a train, so I'll get more substantive with the rest later.
     
  13. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    Oh, come on. Surely God/JC/HS would not be above fact-checking with the devil to give him a chance to approve and confirm all his contributions to their book.

    Okay, and how about the letter of Saint Paul where he specifically writes that a particular instruction comes from himself and not from The Lord (Jesus)? Surely we cannot assign that particular instruction to Jesus, right?
     
  14. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    And to tie in the issue of authorship of the Bible with the original topic of this thread, somebody sent me this picture:

    [​IMG]
     
  15. Justin Z

    Justin Z Member

    Jul 12, 2005
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Club:
    Heart of Midlothian FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    See how confusing this is getting?

    Did God also decide for Matthew to make clear errors stemming from a lack of familiarity with Old Testament source texts in languages besides Greek when writing his gospel? Riding two donkeys into Jerusalem when harkening back to Zechariah for prophecy cred, for example?

    Also, these assertions are great for philosophy, but you haven't provided evidence for any of them. But in the philosophical vein, shouldn't an all-powerful being be able to, you know, do all-powerful things and stuff to produce a message that is crystal clear in any language? Because, well, he can do anything? Being omnipotent?
     
  16. Chesco United

    Chesco United Member+

    Jun 24, 2001
    Chester County, PA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Ah, the Creation Museum. As one correspondent said, "For this to be true, several hundred years of science would have to be very, very wrong."
     
  17. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    two things:

    a) it might not be "several hundred years"; it might only be about 150 years at the most.
    b) some of what is thought to be actual science might be something else. it might be conjecture based on speculation undergirded by supposition.

    some of what some creationists put forth is certainly no better, but the "scientists", like Dawkins, who show graphically how the eye developed, are engaging in largely unfounded speculation. it's all about "if this is true, then that is true".

    they cannot show that this is true...but it must be because there isn't another "scientific" explanation.
     
  18. benztown

    benztown Member+

    Jun 24, 2005
    Club:
    VfB Stuttgart
    The point that may be hard to grasp for you is that unlike religion, science does not come by revelation. It's not that Charles Lyell or Charles Darwin revealed the truth about geology or biology. Rather both of them followed the evidence and logic where it lead, using a method that had been centuries in the making.Unlike with self proclaimed prophets, everyone can follow their steps and so far, everyone who has done so was forced to agree with their conclusions.

    Only people who lie and distort the truth, who employ double standards and deny reality have been doubting the validity of this knowledge, in short, creationists.

    It might be, but as everyone with an honest approach and half a brain can easily see, it is not.

    Of course they can show it. This is where you're double standard comes in once again. They may not be able to show it with 100% certainty, but that's not how operate anyway, because as we cannot show anything with absolute certainty, you'd have to reject every single claim or proposition that you were ever confronted with.
    They can however show it to the same degree of certainty that anything can be shown. Like that gravity exists or that I didn't have breakfast today.

    Furthermore, what they definitely do have is a plausible and possible narrative of the origin of the earth, the eye, the species, you name it, one that is in line with everything that we know and can test.
    That is way more than creationists have and which itself blows the god of the gaps argument on which it is based out of the water.

    Worse, all the pseudo-scientific arguments creationists like to use can and have been debunked. Stuff like the idea that the flood created the sediments that we see. You can easily debunk that claim yourself, just take a big bucket, fill it with water, then add various sedimentary materials and give it a good stir. Then wait until it all settles down and look what you end up with.
    Or the so called proofs of rapid fossilization that always turn out to be calcification or something like it, which superficially may look similar, but which is completely different, at the very latest once you saw the resulting object in half and look inside.
    Or the idea that an oxygen rich atmosphere could make people live to be a thousand years old. That is so wrong, it beggars belief. Not only is oxygen a poison that nature adapted in order to generate energy (ever heard of the Free-radical theory of aging, a consequence of burning oxygen in your cells?), too much of it leads to excess CO2 in the blood as your lungs can't dispose of the CO2 at the rate it's being generated which will eventual kill you, particularly once you get older and your lungs don't function as well anymore. In this day and age, we probably all know elderly people who are dependent on oxygen, if you do, then you also know how dangerous it can be if they turn up their oxygen tanks too much for too long.

    So when you look at it, science is to follow the evidence where it leads and to adapt your model of nature accordingly. That is what biologists, physicists, geologists, etc. have been doing for hundreds of years. Creationists on the other hand don't care about that, they make up idiotic ad-hoc explanations on the spot that always turn out to be wrong, but instead of adapting their model of reality, they shut their eyes and ears and keep on making up stuff without having any clue whatsoever.
     
  19. Justin Z

    Justin Z Member

    Jul 12, 2005
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Club:
    Heart of Midlothian FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    A simple question I thought of last night:

    "What is the function of goosebumps (or goose pimples)?"

    Stilton, would you like to take a crack at it?
     
  20. RichardL

    RichardL BigSoccer Supporter

    May 2, 2001
    Berkshire
    Club:
    Reading FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    a book written in English in 100AD might have lacked a few readers, given that the language didn't exist then.

    I see it as remarkable that anyone would believe the NT was in Greek for any other reason that in being the common language of those who wrote it.
     
    dapip, song219 and Justin Z repped this.
  21. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    it is remarkable, and it could have been written in Aramaic or Latin or Hebrew, for that matter. John's Greek is lousy and he wrote 5 of the NT documents. Paul's Greek is cumbersome, with lots of long, run-on sentences.

    no. your observation lacks perspective.

    typically.
     
  22. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    Don't display your ignorance. Everybody knows that God wrote the Bible in Spanish, and the original unchangeable Word of God is the Reina-Valera version.
     
    dapip and Chesco United repped this.
  23. RichardL

    RichardL BigSoccer Supporter

    May 2, 2001
    Berkshire
    Club:
    Reading FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    And what examples of their Latin and Hebrew do we have for comparison?

    Was Paul perhaps known for also producing a selection of Aramaic novellas and Hebrew children's stories?


    It also seems that if god chose to have the new testament in Greek, and he also chose a group of people whose grasp of Greek was dreadful to write it all, then he made an exceptionally crap decision.
     
  24. benztown

    benztown Member+

    Jun 24, 2005
    Club:
    VfB Stuttgart
    #124 benztown, Jun 8, 2014
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2014
    Wait a second, everybody knows that the Vulgata is the only authoritative version of the Bible. Everything else is just heresy.
    The Bible is a cobbled together mish-mash of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, including some translations from one into the other. Therefore the holy spirit in his wisdom decided to inspire St. Jerome who translated all of that into a proper language so that humanity would once and for all be in possession of the true word of god.

    Of course then came Martin Luther who was in love with sin and therefore turned away from god and his word and created his own fallible translation where he decided to cut out the bits he didn't like against the explicit wish of the holy spirit. As a monk he took a holy vow in front of god to dedicate his life to Jesus, instead he figured out that he did want to have sex after all, so he said screw that (literally). And in order to justify this demonic behavior, he also figured that he needed to heavily reinterpret the word of god and pretend as if whatever you do in your life has no bearing on salvation, that it comes by faith alone, despite the Bible literally saying the opposite.

    Yes, yes, that's what happens when the love of sin triumphs over the love of god. And now, all those poor kids who are brought up as protestants are fed these lies by the devil and to top it all off, they don't even get the proper Bible to read, instead they take Luther's redacted version in an ancient English translation that is style over substance (or in this case accuracy) and that half of them don't even understand.
     
    fatbastard and song219 repped this.
  25. Justin Z

    Justin Z Member

    Jul 12, 2005
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Club:
    Heart of Midlothian FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Cough
     

Share This Page