Summations Only

As if we haven't gotten to this point several time so far and suggested that we agree to disagree at least twice.

That the people in the Bible were not superstitious would be an extremely difficult premise to defend. In fact examples of superstitious beliefs in the Bible are easy to come by. How could anyone worship a golden calf and not be superstitious? Was pouring out drink offerings to the queen of heaven not a superstition, or do you believe there actually used to be a queen of heaven?There is plenty of mention of magic and fortune tellers and astrologers. Although I suppose we are going to find that you believe that stuff used to work. I think it most likely that the people who consulted fortune tellers or astrologers were superstitious.There is a prohibition in Deuteronomy on worshiping the sun, moon and stars. Was this just empty rhetoric? Surely this was the purest superstition.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You are not making any sense. Do you yourself reach the conclusion that God must have done it?Yes, God sending bears is what the authors describe. Their interpretation of events is that God punished the kids for their teasing a prophet. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell blamed the September 11 attacks "the pagans, the abortions, the feminists and the gays and lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way."Now Jerry and Pat were of course putting forth superstitious clap trap. Doesn't mean that the 9-11 attacks did not happen. It also does not mean the ACLU, gays, abortions, and lesbians do not exist.

I'm not completely comfortable with the term myth, but so far I have not said anything about the term one way or another.

Surely most people recognize Harry Potter as fiction. Again, most of that is known to be stupidity.I'm not sure what your point is. Nobody is saying that superstition is absent today. You are the one on the hook for claiming that the people in the Bible were not superstititious. That's exactly the way my lucky cat's eye marble used to work!!Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This does not answer all of your questions, but it is a discussion of where "casting lots" appears in the Bible, and gives at least one person's take on it.http://carm.org/what-casting-lots-in-the-bibleFor example, here is the given explanation for lots now being "off the table".

quote:

---

Since the New Testament does not have any instance of Christians casting lots to discern the will of God after Pentecost, we conclude that after the arrival of the Holy Spirit we do not need to rely on that method but instead must rely on the ministry of the Holy Spirit and the further revelation found in the New Testament.

---

In short there is no indication that God ever approved or disapproved of the casting of lots.One thing we can say about the casting of lots is that its use removes any human influence or bias from decisions, and makes it impossible to say that decisions were unfair. For most of the times that casting lots is used in the Bible, those features provide ample justification for using it.However, the story of Jonah suggests something different. In Jonah, the lot casters were expected the lots to reveal the cause of their troubles. Proverbs 16:33 indicates that every lot decision is from the Lord. I'm not sure we can get this from any of the other Biblical uses of lot casting. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Context does not save your remarks, Faith. The fact remains that there is plenty of evidence of superstition among people in the Bible.

An inconsisteny, yes. But of what magnitude? Is it greater than the inconsistency between the stories of people describing a bar fight?And of what consequence is the inconsistency? Absolutely none.

No, I did not answer your question. I instead attempted to make the case that your question was unimportant. I acknowledged that you pointed out an inconsistency. Some detail is wrong. Luke is not an eyewitness. So unless the detail is of some consequence, then you're going to have to tell me why the inconsistency is not just a mistake on one writer's part.

When you write than an idea "makes more sense" without explanation, what should a reader make of that. To me your statement is an entirely subjective statement which provides no clue as to how you reject one conclusion over another.And what is the standard for judging plausibility? Are you actually saying anything more than that you are a particular type of theist? I don't see a case for anything more.

I thought you said nothing was random? I guess that makes my marble the only thing random in the entire universe?The marble never worked at all. Ever. It also appears to be what the chosen people in the Bible practiced. And I gave my critique of your "biblical context". Describing something that works "sometimes" sounds exactly like your claiming that my random marble worked sometimes (randomly). In reality, the marble never "worked" at all regardless of the outcome obtained. Do you even understand what superstitions are? Rally caps don't generate wins in a baseball game. We can't really say that the rally caps "worked" when we win the game. And we don't unless we are superstitious.

duplicateEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

duplicate. what key do i hit that causes stuff to post before I am ready????Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I was very explicit about my comparison. I said that the marble worked in exactly the way your description of the "biblical context" said lots worked; i.e. "sometimes". Obviously the point was that my "cat's eye" marble, which is what essentially all marbles are, does not work.The misunderstanding here arises because you are superstitious. You cannot bring yourself to believe in the evidence that 'X' does not cause 'Y' as long as there are anecdotal reports that they have happened together. That explains your stance on any number of things including immunization, alien abductions, and casting lots.

Interesting. I don't recall making such an analogy; at least not recently. Sounds like something I might say though. Some hearsay is allowed, and some isn't. I'd be happy to review article VIII of the Federal Rules of Evidence with you if you'd like. Besides that, is 'allowed in a court of law' all that great a standard? A mom's alibi for her drug dealing son is admissible evidence. Let's see you back up your claims about precedence and Pilate's conceivable actions. Just how much do you really know about Pilate? How much do historians know? This argument was just as convoluted as when Faith used it. Sounds like both ancient and modern people are loony.