The Bible Isn't Stupid, We Are

reply to post by Furbs


"But what happens when obedience to civil law would be disobedience to God’s law? Then we are to obey God rather than man."

Unless you can tell me why we should follow our leaders, ALL OF WHOM... ALL OF WHOM are in direct violation to God's law, then we can only conclude that God is the only Shepherd fit to lead his flock.

Originally posted by Furbs

Originally posted by thegagefather

Originally posted by Furbs

Originally posted by thegagefather
Something to think about:
Since God is sovereign and His laws are immutable and because He has commanded that we obey civil authority (Romans 13) – to disobey civil authority is to disobey God’s law. But what happens when obedience to civil law would be disobedience to God’s law? Then we are to obey God rather than man. This, however, cannot be used as a salve for the conscience, because to disobey civil law (when in fact obedience clearly would not violate God’s law), would become disobedience to God’s law under Romans 13.

–adapted from a pamphlet by Emmett Lehman,
The Fraud of Civil Disobedience

Your pamphlet backs up what I am saying.

As long as there is no -direct- violation of God's Law, you are to obey the laws of man.

God didn't grant us second amendment rights. Man did. If man decides to take these rights away, it is not your Christian duty to take them back. It is your christian duty to put you head down and take it.

God like tyranny in his name, as long as those tyrants are following God's law.

Kind of spooky.

edit on 7-4-2012 by Furbs because: (no reason given)

Name a politician in any part of the world, and I'll give you a direct example of them directly disobeying the bible's teachings.

Ignorance to the Bible's teachings is not an excuse for an elect official (who by your logic, is appointed by god, even though we KNOW that isn't true, I'll just humor you anyways) to disobey the Bible.

I can see you do not even have the basic framework of understanding to know what Rule of Law is, or how THAT is our leader, not our elected government, nor do you have the understand of what Romans or ant book of the Bible is actually saying about anything.

Get a few more years under your belt, and then come back and debate, because I do not feel it is my calling to instruct someone in something I find to be a waste of intellect.

edit on 7-4-2012 by Furbs because: (no reason given)

No, we were talking about following patriachs.

That is all we were talking about.

You KNOW this, and now you're trying to skew the arguement.

"Patriach" can in no way, shape, or form be twisted into meaning "the law of the land" because "Patriach" is a noun which requires a living creature.

PERIOD

So tell me why we should follow our LEADERS, and not the WRITTEN LAW, which we were NEVER TALKING ABOUT.

Or just quit your trite and pathetic argueing for the sake of argueing.

Originally posted by thegagefather
reply to post by Furbs

 

"But what happens when obedience to civil law would be disobedience to God’s law? Then we are to obey God rather than man."

Unless you can tell me why we should follow our leaders, ALL OF WHOM... ALL OF WHOM are in direct violation to God's law, then this conversation should be over.

Our Leaders are sinners, as everyone is, according to the Bible. You argument is moot, and is a means to argue a point which no one would counter. This is not about leadership, this is about LAWS. If the LAW doesn't break Gods LAW then you are bound as a Christian to follow it. What part of this are you having a hard time with?

Originally posted by Furbs

Originally posted by thegagefather
reply to post by Furbs

 

"But what happens when obedience to civil law would be disobedience to God’s law? Then we are to obey God rather than man."

Unless you can tell me why we should follow our leaders, ALL OF WHOM... ALL OF WHOM are in direct violation to God's law, then this conversation should be over.

Our Leaders are sinners, as everyone is, according to the Bible. You argument is moot, and is a means to argue a point which no one would counter. This is not about leadership, this is about LAWS. If the LAW doesn't break Gods LAW then you are bound as a Christian to follow it. What part of this are you having a hard time with?

EXACTLY.
OUR LEADERS ARE SINNERS.

In the Bible, it says to "follow your leaders" at one point, but if you continue to read, you'll find it says "But don't follow your leaders if they are blatant sinners!"

Ding-ding-ding-ding!

He just realized the loophole!

Despite you suddenly being jaw-agape and wide-eyed, we were ALWAYS talking about this, and just because you suddenly realize you're wrong DOESN'T MEAN WE WERE EVER TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE.

I love your infalleable logic.

If you think we weren't talking about physical people this whole time, go back over the last 3 pages posts and read. You won't even need to read CAREFULLY to discover that we were indeed talking about flesh and blood leaders, and not metaphysical laws of the land which you pulled out of nowhere when your arguement began to weaken.

reply to post by Furbs


Also you use the phrase "Rule of Law" and say I don't know what it means.

Well we never even used that phrase once previous to you telling me I don't know what it means.

Awfully Christian of you to "judge me before standing in my shoes."

Originally posted by thegagefather

Originally posted by Furbs

Originally posted by thegagefather
reply to post by Furbs

 

"But what happens when obedience to civil law would be disobedience to God’s law? Then we are to obey God rather than man."

Unless you can tell me why we should follow our leaders, ALL OF WHOM... ALL OF WHOM are in direct violation to God's law, then this conversation should be over.

Our Leaders are sinners, as everyone is, according to the Bible. You argument is moot, and is a means to argue a point which no one would counter. This is not about leadership, this is about LAWS. If the LAW doesn't break Gods LAW then you are bound as a Christian to follow it. What part of this are you having a hard time with?

EXACTLY.
OUR LEADERS ARE SINNERS.

In the Bible, it says to "follow your leaders" at one point, but if you continue to read, you'll find it says "But don't follow your leaders if they are blatant sinners!"

Ding-ding-ding-ding!

He just realized the loophole!

Despite you suddenly being jaw-agape and wide-eyed, we were ALWAYS talking about this, and just because you suddenly realize you're wrong DOESN'T MEAN WE WERE EVER TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE.

I love your infalleable logic.

If you think we weren't talking about physical people this whole time, go back over the last 3 pages posts and read. You won't even need to read CAREFULLY to discover that we were indeed talking about flesh and blood leaders, and not metaphysical laws of the land which you pulled out of nowhere when your arguement began to weaken.

I can see you aren't any closer to understanding anything, so I am just going to let you sit in this pool of ignorance you have drenched yourself in. Hey, it's cool, don't get me wrong, I think the bible is a giant turd, but it is clear when it is clear, and the passage I cited is pretty damned clear, as is the idea that all men are sinners.

It's cool, man.

As for Rule of Law, google it. You have been googling your Bible info, so you can google that phrase as well.

Originally posted by thegagefather
Awfully Christian of you to "judge me before standing in my shoes."

Whoa, half-pint.

I ain't a Christian, so don't go judging my actions by your standards.

reply to post by chr0naut


Homosexuality exists in nature, not just among humans, but also among a wide array of animal life as well. Bear, bison, cat, barn owl, chicken, the houting whitefish, the jewel fish, salmon, and many more. The "offense" against your god exists in species he did not give free will to, so God must have given them homosexual tendencies. Or, there's always the possibility that homosexuality is a natural sexual orientation, and sex is really nothing more than an action.

Rapists being accountable for their actions has nothing to do with forcing the victim to marry them. No rape victim should ever be made to marry the person who assaulted them, and forcibly penetrated them. To even believe that the proper punishment for rape is to "marry the two" is sick and cruel. All that this would lead to, is more rape, and less defense for the victim, as now the rapist is the husband, and therefore "in charge" of the woman. Whatever fancy trappings you place around it, forcing the victim to marry the rapist is wrong.

Not all children are disobedient. A child becomes disobedient when they are hurt by their parents, or ignored by their parents. Parents who love their children, and give them the proper attention, and spend time with them, helping the child to develop decently, do not become disobedient. Further, stoning is not a "walk it off" punishment. You're trying to suggest that stoning someone is no different than spanking them. It is quite different. Stones can easily be used to kill adults, how well do you think adolescents would handle it? A disgusting, barbaric activity from a dead age.

To suggest that, because it only lasted seven years, slavery is OK is horrendous. Slavery is never OK. Even if it's slavery for only a day, it is still forcing someone to perform activities against their will, as well as removing their freedom. Everything concerned with slavery is wrong. Slave-holders should not have to pay reparations to family for abusing slaves because slave-holders and slaves should not exist. Slavery is another proof that the Bible is an outdated, archaic, tome of spiritual, scientific, and moral guidelines.

Yes, it is used in song. However, the Bible is the inerrant word of God. You cannot pick-and-choose what is literal, and what is not. How do you know the talking snake in Genesis, the Ladder of Lights from Ezekiel, the sun being stalled in the sky, the raining fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, and a variety of other Biblical claims are not also literary devices? When you decide what is truth, and what is fiction, then you are making assumptions for God. The Bible is unclear on the line between reality and fantasy, and humans only make it worse. That is not a good directory for morality or reality.

Ritually unclean, OK. I was hoping you'd take that route. So, why are this God's rituals so important that everyone needs to be clean for Him? What evidence is there that we shouldn't be preparing for Norse rituals to appease the All-Father, Odin? Maybe our supplication should be to Brahma and His three phases as outlined in the Rig Veda. The Noble Eight-fold Path makes for an excellent living code, and it cuts out things like slavery, useless prayer, harmful intentions, insulting speech, and unscientific junk being defended because "God acts in mysterious ways." Why shouldn't we all be Buddhist? Hindu? Asatru? Wicca? Muslims? Jains? Neopagans? Even atheists?

Concerning blended fabrics, I guess God is not all-knowing, as He, in His infinite wisdom, never saw that one day humans would be able to wash blended fabrics, clean hoofed animals of disease, and like-mannered things. Truly, your God must have been blind, to not have been able to recognize that within only 2000 years all of these things—and much, much more—would be understood and enacted. Why would I trust a blind God to lead me anywhere?

Yes, I do know that the infant universe was flooded with photons. However, all life requires stars to exist, there couldn't be forms to see the wonderful universe of light without stars. Scientifically, the Biblical account of how things came about is inaccurate. Light, day-night before the two luminaries determining them, all of it is wrong.

The Earth orbits around the sun. The ~24 hour period we know as a "sidereal day," composed of day and night, is a by-product of our revolutions around the sun.

Light, as it is experienced on the Earth, is also a by-product of the sun's radiant nature.

The Earth itself is a compressed formation constructed of the leftover debris deposited by the previous solar body after it entered into supernova.

The Biblical account is all wrong, as the primary factor required for any life, formation, night/day, revolutions, and everything else attributed to God in Genesis, requires the sun to exist first.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


I agree with you on almost everything you said but this...

However, the Bible is the inerrant word of God. You cannot pick-and-choose what is literal, and what is not.

Perhaps i just misunderstood your sarcasm... the bible is NOT the word of God, though it can be found within its pages....

Also i noticed you mentioned Sodom and Gomorah... Have you seen the video by ron Wyatt... he supposedly found the site... Its pretty amazing

reply to post by Akragon


Unfortunately, this depends entirely upon what sect of Christianity you adhere to... if you're a Christian. While there are some more "liberal" sects, there are also some extremely conservative sects which do believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of the LORD. Biblical literalists do exist. As much as we prefer to believe that they are jokes and not "True Christians," asking any of them would garner you the response that they are the "True Chritians," because they are the only ones who follow the Word of God to the letter.

I have not seen Wyatt's work on Sodom and Gomorrah. However, I am familiar with the criticism he has received from archaeologists and Biblical historians alike. The fact that Wyatt never even earned his BA in archaeology, never funded a legitimate excavation in Israel, and was mostly supported by fundamentalist Christian groups desperate for any tangible evidence they could be afforded speaks volumes about the lack-of-credibility in Wyatt's work.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm all for Biblical archaeology. The more we try to unearth these locations, the more light we shed on the false aspects of Biblical literature. So, my dismissal of Wyatt is not because he sought Biblical archaeological evidence. It is because both the Biblical and scientific community discredited his work simultaneously.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


Personally i am not a fan of most of his work... but dispite all the claims that he is a fraud... the S&G videos are still quite amazing.... Im unsure if its real or not..... but well worth the watch...

I realize there are many people who take the bible as the "inerrant word of God"... those people are simply to lazy to try to find errors within said book.... they're told to just believe its the word of God without question...

I am not one of those people... Nor do i subscribe to any flavor of christianity...

but this video is very kool... and it makes you wonder.... i actually have no explanation for what he apparently found...

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by yourmaker

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by yourmaker
why is it the word of this book is taken over any other person's word when they are one and the same..
both drawn from experience.

the writers of the bible had their experiences just like we have ours in this time, which differ completely.
but the medium through which we express ourselves never changed.
the movies of today portray our moral limits in the same light that the bible would have for an average person back then...

I am not arguing the validity of the Bible. I am arguing that even if it's history is not correct, maybe it has still pointed us down the correct path from the beginning. I can completely misrepresent or inaccurately detail the Revolutionary War and still make some very good points about honor, bravery, and free will.

but it hasn't, there is no way the bible has helped us, it has failed in more then one way.
people have based their lives around it. sure there are good things that come of it, but it's such a division/diversion tactic that the negatives outweight any possible benefits, which are mostly short term.

Has it occurred to you that the Bible didn't fail...we did?

Has it occurred to you that our inability to read things as metaphor and intelligently decipher the meaning of the scriptures instead of blowing everyone up because of their beliefs has resulted in our destruction, whereas the Bible has survived hundreds of years?

The division comes from the fact that no one wants to agree to disagree. Also, it comes from everyone wanting to be right. And some people are just going to prefer to do bad things. There are a lot of reasons we have failed, but it's largely due to our lack of understanding. Is that our fault, or the Bible's?

Remember, it made perfect sense to people living back then, because they were stupid enough to not question it. But now, we're just stupid enough to reject it instead of examining it.

"By the way. You remember that argument we were having about aggression? Well, I have thought of a good reason for starting a war."
Merlyn froze.
"I would like to hear it."
"A good reason for starting a war is simply to have a good reason! For instance, there might be a king who had discovered a new way of life for human beings — you know, something which would be good for them. It might even be the only way from saving them from destruction. Well, if the human beings were too wicked or too stupid to accept his way, he might have to force it on them, in their own interests by the sword."
The magician clenched his fists, twisted his gown into screws, and began to shake all over.
"Very interesting," he said in a trembling voice. "Very interesting. There was just such a man when I was young — an Austrian who invented a new way of life and convinced himself that he was the chap to make it work. He tried to impose his reformation by the sword, and plunged the civilized world into misery and chaos. But the thing which this fellow had overlooked, my friend, was that he had had a predecessor in the reformation business, called Jesus Christ. Perhaps we may assume that Jesus knew as much as the Austrian did about saving people. But the odd thing is that Jesus did not turn the disciples into storm troopers, burn down the Temple at Jerusalem, and fix the blame on Pontius Pilate. On the contrary, he made it clear that the business of the philosopher was to make ideas available, and not to impose them on people."

The Sword in the Stone, T.H White.

S&F Thanks. Nice thread

reply to post by Akragon


I am very glad to see another level-headed, rational person on this thread.

As with all sects of Christianity, it is most commonly a religion which is "grandfathered" in. If your parents were Christian, you are Christian. Yes, there are cases of people being proselytized, evangelized and converted, but often this is because of Soteriological bribes, deception, and appeals to emotion over rational, level-headed discussion. By-and-large, all Christians are indoctrinated by other Christians on being the type of Christian the elder was.

While the discovery in the video is interesting, it is not scientific. The suppositions made by the narrator are erroneous, emotional, and based on visual cues more than rigorous scientific rational.

It is obvious that, if not constructed for the sake of the video, they did discover something. There is nothing which says these five locations were the two Biblical cities though. They may have simply been remnants of an earlier Babylonian city.

A majority of the video subsists off the narrator saying: "we saw some stones which looked like a Ziggurat / a Sphinx / a stone wall / buildings." There's no actual archaeological evidence suggesting they were Ziggurat, sphinx, city walls, or buildings.

I remain unconvinced, sorry.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


Im not trying to convince you of anything... that just isn't my style...

Decide for yourself what you believe is true.... i liked the video, and found it quite facinating... though i would prefer to visit the site myself... i find it highly unlikely that will ever happen...

Finding a valley of Ash... is a little strange in a desert.... don't you think?

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


Part 2 is more revealing.
www.youtube.com...

Deposits of 'brimstone' (sulphur deposits), and gypsum crystals formed from extreme heat. Sulphur is commonly found near areas with volcanic activity, or formed after a NUCLEAR explosion (like the bible describes). But since the region has no volcanic activity, a past nuclear detonation is probable. To this day the region does register a higher radiation reading than the surrounding area. The Dead Sea, having no aquatic life can be attributed to the radiation.

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by Akragon

 

As with all sects of Christianity, it is most commonly a religion which is "grandfathered" in. If your parents were Christian, you are Christian. Yes, there are cases of people being proselytized, evangelized and converted, but often this is because of Soteriological bribes, deception, and appeals to emotion over rational, level-headed discussion. By-and-large, all Christians are indoctrinated by other Christians on being the type of Christian the elder was.

And that is the key thing to remember; the majority of religious folks are the way they are because of indoctrination, innocent or otherwise. It is essentially no different to the formation of many people's political leanings, for instance being brought up in a socialist household, and then going on to hold a leftist ideology yourself.

Young children are the most open to teaching, that is why a child will find it far easier to learn a foreign language than an adult. This is because in order to survive in the world a child must sometimes take for granted what others tell them, an example would be walking off the edge of a cliff - that would be something rather dangerous to do, and the child must believe their parents when they tell them that this is not something to try. A child holding their hand above a candle will find that the flame burns them, and they will not do it again. But in many cases, like the cliff scenario, trial and error would not work.

This is why a person indoctrinated with religious nonsense at an early age will be so hard to convert, they have simply accepted what they have been told as fact and cannot be convinced otherwise. Religion is simply a virus to be transmitted between people, often from parent to child, just like the plague but far more harmful.

reply to post by Wandering Scribe

reply to post by Akragon


I am very glad to see another level-headed, rational person on this thread.

Oh? Am I not rational?

Originally posted by SeventhSeal

Originally posted by starheart
reply to post by SeventhSeal

 

No, not the crusades, the real believers in Bible. Crusades were misunderstanding of the Bible by greedy and power-stirved people. Bible never said that we had to control the world on His name, greedy people did. Go in a real monastery, and ask the monks there if they want to control the world.
Even Jesus said no, when Satan tempted him.

Jesus never existed.
Satan is part of ancient mythology.

Let's cut the BS, k?

I'm watching an AWESOME documentary right now that disputes your belief that Jesus never existed. Don't know if you've ever heard of the documentary called 'Bloodline', but I'll post the link anyway.

topdocumentaryfilms.com... atch+Free+Documentaries+Online%29

Though I have no background or business declaring this information to be true, I still find it fascinating. The show is searching, and finding incredible clues that Jesus WAS crucified, but didn't die. He died 22 days later. Supposedly, Mary Magdeline helped Jesus (her husand) slip away, and though it is unclear whether Jesus died on the way or not, he and Mary moved to France. I might add, a very PREGNANT Mary Magdeline.

There is one thing I greatly fear. What if evidence did come to light that jesus was not the son of god, and I mean evidence so powerful and compelling that even the jesus fanatics couldn't deny it. What would happen? My guess is that sheep will always need a leader, so the christians would find another god and another religion to cling to. If that religion is Muslim, then I fear we freethinkers are all doomed.

reply to post by jiggerj


The next religion is not Muslims, cause they are getting banned. My guess is that they will either present us with an alien deity, or a ''God'' that will truly cut our freedom. Any which way, its bad, and no matter how much Christianism may had have flaws, i'll take it more than the two other solutions.

Originally posted by starheart
reply to post by jiggerj

 

The next religion is not Muslims, cause they are getting banned. My guess is that they will either present us with an alien deity, or a ''God'' that will truly cut our freedom. Any which way, its bad, and no matter how much Christianism may had have flaws, i'll take it more than the two other solutions.

LOL, They are getting banned? Not in the United States they aren't, and I may not be a Muslim, but if the United States tries to ban them from being here, I will do EVERYTHING, and I do mean EVERYTHING in my power to stop that from happening.