Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is God Self-Evident
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 91 of 155 (522857)
09-05-2009 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by iano
09-05-2009 8:03 AM


The contradiction is quite simple. You claim that the human conscience is a communication from God - but you also claim that it is a mere subjective judgement that can - and should be ignored.
You say that suppressing our consciences leads to evil and then insist that we should suppress them whenever they say anything that you don't like.
Then again you preach that God is good - but you mean that God is an amoral tyrant - and THAT is your "good".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by iano, posted 09-05-2009 8:03 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by iano, posted 09-05-2009 9:50 PM PaulK has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 155 (522863)
09-05-2009 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by purpledawn
09-05-2009 4:14 PM


Re: Plan is Not Self-Evident
Anything said to be the will of the God of the Judeo/Christian Bible is good. Anything contrary is bad
Wow, somebody gets it.
It's a matter of garbage-in, garbage-out in that whatever the bible says they assume beforehand that it is truth. We're instructed to take it all on faith, but other religions require the same thing. If the beliefs fundamentally contradict one another, then faith in which direction wins out?

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by purpledawn, posted 09-05-2009 4:14 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by purpledawn, posted 09-06-2009 5:07 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 93 of 155 (522865)
09-05-2009 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Hyroglyphx
09-05-2009 1:32 PM


Re: Bump for IANO
hyroglyphx writes:
That's a tautology and circular reasoning. What you are saying is, assuming that God is real and the Bible is true, everything in the Bible is therefore "self-evident." That's not how things work, as you set up an answer to ANY question a priori.
I'm not saying that. Honestly.
I start out with certain basic assumptions (God exists and the Bible is his word) and lay other basic assumptions upon that (my own take on the Bible (which is already assumed to be the word of God) is as God meant it to be taken...) and, after all those basic assumptions are applied, I lay out a mechanism of salvation that doesn't require God's self evidency. That is the topic of the thread and that is my concern
What is (does) unwaivering morality mean?
Sorry. It meant a moral viewpoint that never changes. Stealing will always be wrong (although you might have a long discussion as to ownership rights before actual theft is established)
Psalm 137
Could you elaborate - regarding the bit about God's declaring of his rejoicing in the manner you suggested.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2009 1:32 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2009 9:44 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 94 of 155 (522867)
09-05-2009 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by purpledawn
09-05-2009 4:14 PM


Re: Plan is Not Self-Evident
PD writes:
I don't ever want to step into a church full of people who actually believe that what you just dished out is real.
Contentless. As you well know.
Anything said to be the will of the God of the Judeo/Christian Bible is good.
Some definition of good has to be applied to the discussion. It happens to be this one. What one would YOU apply?
Anything contrary is bad. The problem is that there are other religions who worship other gods and odds are their holy writings imply the same thing.
Given the above..so?
Why does the mechanism need to be based on assumptions? Either it exists or it doesn't.
I can't prove the existance of it. What I can do is suppose the existance of it (and all that it is supposed to have inspired by way of writing) and present the logic/reasonableness of it's supposed (I suppose)way of salvation
With all these assumptions, you're really just writing a back story to fit your story. The story changes to fit the needs of the writer. I don't see anything based in reality.
Too vague PD. You need to follow the mechanism suggested in order to pick holes in it.
Only in your story are the nonbelievers geared towards running counter to who God is and what he's about.
Er.. that's the definition of a non-believer (leaving aside the saved persons ability to sin for the moment)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by purpledawn, posted 09-05-2009 4:14 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by purpledawn, posted 09-06-2009 3:36 AM iano has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 155 (522868)
09-05-2009 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by iano
09-05-2009 9:18 PM


Re: Bump for IANO
after all those basic assumptions are applied, I lay out a mechanism of salvation that doesn't require God's self evidency.
I don't understand how that would God self-evident, especially in light of a multitude not believing in God or a multitude of people who can't agree on what God is, what God's attributes are, etc, etc.
It meant a moral viewpoint that never changes. Stealing will always be wrong
What's the difference between stealing and God-inspired plundering (war booty)? The victims are no longer alive to protest?
I know what the answer will come down to eventually for you. and that is because the bible said it happened that way (which is infallible) and God cannot commit sin (philosophically) by his nature, therefore the outcome will always be in favor of God no matter how transparently wrong it would be for anyone else to have ordered such carnage.
That's the very problem with your basic assumptions. If you only operate under the assumption that the bible is completely true, then you nullify any possibility of being objective as you set up the protagonist in the bible, God, as just and merciful regardless of what he does and regardless if it appears contradictory to other passages. You do this a priori and posteriori.
You may in turn claim that you aren't doing this, but by definition that is circular and tauological reasoning.
You then feel compelled to defend the God of the bible regardless of whether or not he orders the massacre of the elderly, men, women, children, or infants, which all but would have to do if you go by those basic assumptions you stated earlier.
There is so much at stake for fundamentalist Christians because they set the bar so high for themselves -- so high that it's like a deck of cards on a wobbly precipice. Because it is supposed to be infallible, if even ONE solitary part of the puzzle doesn't fit, the entire deck of cards falls.
This is why many find themselves doing mental gymnastics to try and not only convince others that it's infallibly true, but themselves as well.
I think it is presumptuous, arrogant, and dangerous to take such a hardline approach to the bible and to speak about God in such a sure manner. After all, isn't that what hardline Muslims do?Exploit the Qu'ran and their belief to act on God's behalf, as if God (the Creator of the entire universe) needed them to enact his will?!?!?!?!
quote:
Psalm 137
Could you elaborate - regarding the bit about God's declaring of his rejoicing in the manner you suggested.
It's not that long of a psalm, plus I already posted it and am feeling too tired and lazy to go get the exact verbiage.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by iano, posted 09-05-2009 9:18 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by iano, posted 09-05-2009 10:17 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 98 by Bailey, posted 09-05-2009 10:48 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 96 of 155 (522869)
09-05-2009 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by PaulK
09-05-2009 5:39 PM


PK writes:
The contradiction is quite simple. You claim that the human conscience is a communication from God
Yes
- but you also claim that it is a mere subjective judgement that can - and should be ignored.
You're welcome to quote me saying same. Given that you won't find me saying anything of the sort (except by convolution) we might as well wind back to some agreed point in discussion and re-progress.
You say that suppressing our consciences leads to evil
Indeed. More correctly: I say that suppressing conscience is the act of our will whereby God's restraining hand is shook off in order that the attractions that sin offer can be obtained.
Then again you preach that God is good - but you mean that God is an amoral tyrant - and THAT is your "good".
You were always God-antagonistic. You appear to have become rabidly so since I last visited EvC. Irrationally so, given the poor state of your argumentation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by PaulK, posted 09-05-2009 5:39 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by PaulK, posted 09-06-2009 4:27 AM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 97 of 155 (522870)
09-05-2009 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Hyroglyphx
09-05-2009 9:44 PM


Re: Bump for IANO
hyroglyphx writes:
I don't understand how that would God self-evident, especially in light of a multitude not believing in God or a multitude of people who can't agree on what God is, what God's attributes are, etc, etc.
I'm not arguing that God is self-evident. I'm arguing that God has a mechanism whereby he saves, whilst remaining self-INevident.
(Assuming I've read your intent above correctly)
What's the difference between stealing and God-inspired plundering (war booty)? The victims are no longer alive to protest?
The answer lies in righteousness. If taking anothers goods is God-ordained then it is righteous. If not then not. God is the definition of goodness.
You might not like that but if not then you'll have to come up with some other abitrator of what's good. Will it be some man-made committee?
I know what the answer will come down to eventually for you. and that is because the bible said it happened that way (which is infallible) and God cannot commit sin (philosophically) by his nature, therefore the outcome will always be in favor of God no matter how transparently wrong it would be for anyone else to have ordered such carnage.
Transparently wrong...?
Could you inforn us as to your own guide informing all here gathered so transparently. And whether it is fallible or not. And how you know this.
Your very appeal to absolute (ie: transparent) indicates acceptance of some or other absolute judge. God help you if you resort to "mankind and his brother knows.."
On carnage: was D-Day and what it represented, good? And if not, was it bad?
oes and regardless if it appears contradictory to other passages. You do this a priori and posteriori.
You'll have to be a bit more specific
You may in turn claim that you aren't doing this, but by definition that is circular and tauological reasoning.
Forgive me but you'll have to spell things out a bit more.
You then feel compelled to defend the God of the bible regardless of whether or not he orders the massacre of the elderly, men, women, children, or infants, which all but would have to do if you go by those basic assumptions you stated earlier.
I "defend" the God of the Bible. I've got no problem with him killing men, women and children largely because I have no problem with him killing me. All those people were all like me at their own point in time: subject to and beholden to their creator.
The idea that a God capable of producing us and all that we see around us (however he created it) is incapable of ensuring we live as long as is needed to ensure his goals met...
.is but an arrogance on your part. I say "your" because I've no problem with it .. and you apparently have.
There is so much at stake for fundamentalist Christians because they set the bar so high for themselves -- so high that it's like a deck of cards on a wobbly precipice. Because it is supposed to be infallible, if even ONE solitary part of the puzzle doesn't fit, the entire deck of cards falls.
This is why many find themselves doing mental gymnastics to try and not only convince others that it's infallibly true, but themselves as well.
I think it is presumptuous, arrogant, and dangerous to take such a hardline approach to the bible and to speak about God in such a sure manner. After all, isn't that what hardline Muslims do?Exploit the Qu'ran and their belief to act on God's behalf, as if God (the Creator of the entire universe) needed them to enact his will?!?!?!?!]
Nigh on content-less
It's not that long of a psalm, plus I already posted it and am feeling too tired and lazy to go get the exact verbiage.
Fair enough. No argument presented.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2009 9:44 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-06-2009 9:06 AM iano has replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 98 of 155 (522871)
09-05-2009 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Hyroglyphx
09-05-2009 9:44 PM


Regarding baby smashin' ...
Thanks for the exchange.
Hope things are well ...
This is not to imply that I agree with either one of you in this specific instance, but rather the exact opposite.
brutha hyro writes:
brutha iano writes:
brutha hyro writes:
brutha iano writes:
brutha hyro writes:
brutha iano writes:
I see no reason to skip over the righteousness of Gods actions. To repeat: God killing isn't murder (murder being defined as 'unrighteous taking of life') because the life belongs to him. Us killing without Gods say so is murder - the life isn't ours to take.
So it is God's righteousness to not only smash little babies on rocks, but to "delight" in the savage act as well? What ungodly affront is God "repaying" them for?
Where does this occur?
Psalm 137
Could you elaborate - regarding the bit about God's declaring of his rejoicing in the manner you suggested.
It's not that long of a psalm, plus I already posted it and am feeling too tired and lazy to go get the exact verbiage.
To put things in context ...
quote:
Psalms 137:7
Remember, O Lord, what the Edomites did on the day Jerusalem fell. They said, Tear it down, tear it down, right to its very foundation!
8 ~ O daughter Babylon, soon to be devastated! How blessed will be the one who repays you for what you dished out to us!
9 ~ How blessed will be the one who grabs your babies and smashes them on a rock!
In the end, the text does not infer any god as the baby smasher, the speaker of the narrative/poem or even that one may have condoned such nonsense.
The baby smashin' refers to Edomite babies and it's being spoken by a pissed off jewish author, bent outta shape because the Edomites were talkin' shit.
Apparently, not only were the Edomites not on the side of the captives, they were allegedly rooting for the destruction of Zion.
So then, the psalmist is dramatically anticipating and establishing a certain blessing for whoever may carry out the revenge.
It seems as though somebody overlooked the power of forgiveness ...
In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : title
Edited by Bailey, : sp.

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2009 9:44 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-06-2009 9:15 AM Bailey has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 99 of 155 (522885)
09-06-2009 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by iano
09-05-2009 9:35 PM


Re: Plan is Not Self-Evident
quote:
Some definition of good has to be applied to the discussion. It happens to be this one. What one would YOU apply?
Why not use the actual definition of the English word "good"?
quote:
Given the above..so?
If actions of each inevident god are always considered good just because they are actions of a god and anything contrary is bad, then humans will always be caught in the middle.
So while humans are trying to do their respective god's will, they are also going against the will of another god.
Within their own respective holy writings the situation is explained by saying that when they win, their god is with them and when they lose, their god isn't with them and he uses others to chastise us.
This really just sets humans up as chess pieces when the inevident gods instruct their people to retaliate. People die at the whim of the gods. How is that good?
quote:
Too vague PD. You need to follow the mechanism suggested in order to pick holes in it.
But there is no mechanism. You said yourself you can't prove the existence of it. So you're supposing (guessing) based on writings over 2000 years old, which contain as much, if not more, fiction as fact.
quote:
Er.. that's the definition of a non-believer (leaving aside the saved persons ability to sin for the moment)
Yes, in your story. Non-believer just means one who doesn't believe in whatever you present. Their actions may or may not be running contrary to who God is or what he is about. Of course if their non-belief is the will of God, then they are not running contrary. They are right on target. Part of that master plan.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by iano, posted 09-05-2009 9:35 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by iano, posted 09-06-2009 1:02 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 100 of 155 (522886)
09-06-2009 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by iano
09-05-2009 9:50 PM


quote:
You're welcome to quote me saying same. Given that you won't find me saying anything of the sort (except by convolution) we might as well wind back to some agreed point in discussion and re-progress.
I've already pointed out what my conscience tells me - and you rejected it as a mere subjective opinion.
quote:
Indeed. More correctly: I say that suppressing conscience is the act of our will whereby God's restraining hand is shook off in order that the attractions that sin offer can be obtained.
And the clear need for you to suppress your conscience to follow your religion is one of the problems you need to address.
quote:
You were always God-antagonistic. You appear to have become rabidly so since I last visited EvC. Irrationally so, given the poor state of your argumentation.
I'm not antagonistic to God. I am following MY conscience - which tells me that your religion is evil - and by Christian standards, blasphemous. Nor am I being irrational in pointing out the contradictions and the amorality of your beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by iano, posted 09-05-2009 9:50 PM iano has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 101 of 155 (522888)
09-06-2009 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Hyroglyphx
09-05-2009 8:44 PM


Re: Plan is Not Self-Evident
quote:
It's a matter of garbage-in, garbage-out in that whatever the bible says they assume beforehand that it is truth. We're instructed to take it all on faith, but other religions require the same thing. If the beliefs fundamentally contradict one another, then faith in which direction wins out?
IMO, that what's wrong with theocracies. The leader is not self-evident. The only thing evident is the human middleman. What isn't evident is whether the middleman actually has contact with the inevident leader. So when power corrupts, the gods battle, and the peons suffer.
While the God of the Bible as viewed today is not self-evident, I think the gods as originally viewed were self-evident.
The gods were personifications of their environment and human traits, what they could see and feel. God is that which sustains us. As humans started to gain knowledge of their environment and humanity, gods were moved to the untouchable realm of imagination and took on a life of their own independent of reality. Hence the backstories.
Oddly enough, civilization tends to abuse that which sustains them. The planet. Religions around here seem to want bigger and better churches. More cement over the dirt, lights on all night, etc. I guess when one expects a new place later, there's no reason to take care of the current one.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2009 8:44 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-06-2009 9:22 AM purpledawn has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 155 (522904)
09-06-2009 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by iano
09-05-2009 10:17 PM


Re: Bump for IANO
I'm not arguing that God is self-evident. I'm arguing that God has a mechanism whereby he saves, whilst remaining self-INevident.
So are you saying that God is not self-evident?
The answer lies in righteousness. If taking anothers goods is God-ordained then it is righteous. If not then not. God is the definition of goodness.
Therein lies the problem though, as I stated earlier. If you rely on two assumptions, namely that the bible is infallible and that God is perfect, there leaves a void of reason. Allah is also the definition of goodness. The Qu'ran is also supposed to be infallible. Both texts require that it is by faith we come to know and believe these ideals as true. But both contradict one another. So who's right? How are we supposed to honestly know either way?
You might not like that but if not then you'll have to come up with some other abitrator of what's good. Will it be some man-made committee?
That is often what it comes down to. The Council's of Trent and Nicea come to mind.
Transparently wrong...?
Could you inforn us as to your own guide informing all here gathered so transparently.
Society has a standard which, admittedly, is often flexible and constantly evolving. Nonetheless, by today's standards, if a soldier were to pick up an infant and smash their heads on the rocks, the world would be outraged. That much is transparent.
Your very appeal to absolute (ie: transparent) indicates acceptance of some or other absolute judge.
Laws only make sense in black and white, as there he has to be some absolute sense of legal and illegal. Seldom, though, do we apply them so rigidly as every case has to look at the overall circumstances involved.
This goes back to that great paradox I was referring to earlier concerning truth.
"Every experience is a paradox in that it means to be absolute, and yet is relative; in that it somehow always goes beyond itself and yet never escapes itself." -T.S. Eliot
On carnage: was D-Day and what it represented, good? And if not, was it bad?
Yet another paradox. It was not absolutely good, but relatively bad.
quote:
You may in turn claim that you aren't doing this, but by definition that is circular and tauological reasoning.
Forgive me but you'll have to spell things out a bit more.
Meaning, by the assumptions you hold to (that God exists exactly as the bible describes and that the bible is infallible) you set yourself up for absolute success. That does nothing, however, to advance the belief of God or the bible since it requires no evidence to prove itself.
Your logic is therefore circular.
I "defend" the God of the Bible. I've got no problem with him killing men, women and children largely because I have no problem with him killing me. All those people were all like me at their own point in time: subject to and beholden to their creator.
Would you care if God ordered someone to smash your infant son or daughter's head on some rocks?
Even if we are beholden to God, what purpose does it serve? What purpose does it serve God or humankind to kill Job's family, inflict him with disease, just to teach him about obedience to God? What valuable moral lesson was learned for Job's family members?
The idea that a God capable of producing us and all that we see around us (however he created it) is incapable of ensuring we live as long as is needed to ensure his goals met.
Why create us at all then? You know that's the one question never answered by the bible -- the reason he created us? Why force us to be weak and then blame us on our weaknesses? He gave us the capacity to sin and then says, "Oh, now look what you've done," and then punishes us for the very thing he imparted.
is but an arrogance on your part. I say "your" because I've no problem with it .. and you apparently have.
That just may very well be your conditioned response, as captives often suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.
Nigh on content-less
So you disagree?

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by iano, posted 09-05-2009 10:17 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by iano, posted 09-06-2009 2:27 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 155 (522907)
09-06-2009 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Bailey
09-05-2009 10:48 PM


Re: Regarding baby smashin' ...
In the end, the text does not infer any god as the baby smasher, the speaker of the narrative/poem or even that one may have condoned such nonsense.
The baby smashin' refers to Edomite babies and it's being spoken by a pissed off jewish author, bent outta shape because the Edomites were talkin' shit.
So what???!!! I'm pretty pissed at the Taliban, but that doesn't mean that I would delight in taking their precious and innocent infants and smashing them on the rock.
Apparently, not only were the Edomites not on the side of the captives, they were allegedly rooting for the destruction of Zion.
Infants don't root for the destruction of Zion, Bailey.
So then, the psalmist is dramatically anticipating and establishing a certain blessing for whoever may carry out the revenge.
"Vengence is mine, saith the Lord, I will repay."
Great, except this is more like a mafia hit than a righteous killing. The description is of genocide, attempting to wipe out an entire people's regardless of whether or not they were directly involved or incidentally happened to be there.
It seems as though somebody overlooked the power of forgiveness ...
Yeah... God.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Bailey, posted 09-05-2009 10:48 PM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Bailey, posted 09-08-2009 11:08 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 155 (522910)
09-06-2009 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by purpledawn
09-06-2009 5:07 AM


Re: Plan is Not Self-Evident
IMO, that what's wrong with theocracies. The leader is not self-evident. The only thing evident is the human middleman. What isn't evident is whether the middleman actually has contact with the inevident leader.
Yes, and what exactly makes it any different than the worship of Baal or Molech?

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by purpledawn, posted 09-06-2009 5:07 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by purpledawn, posted 09-06-2009 11:34 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 105 of 155 (522920)
09-06-2009 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Hyroglyphx
09-06-2009 9:22 AM


Perspective
quote:
Yes, and what exactly makes it any different than the worship of Baal or Molech?
Exactly!
Paul pulled the Ephesian women away from their Goddess Diana/Artemis who they believed protected them during childbirth. So from their god's standpoint Paul was enticing them away.
If we had religious writings from the perspective of the believers in those religions, would they put for the same idea that whatever their god does is good? I don't know if any exist.
It is common for one group to demonize another group. Gentiles did so concerning the Jews and their practices and even made some up. So how much of what the Bible writers say about another religion is true and how much is just bad mouthing?

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-06-2009 9:22 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-07-2009 1:29 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024