Why should I respect the Bible?

[HubZilla]

Some background: A friend of mine earlier said a Japanese psychic would be stoned because the Bible said so. I disagreed, saying the Japanese wouldn’t care about what an old Hebrew book said. His reply:

One part of your reply I'd like to comment on is your referring to the bible as an "old book." I would appreciate it if you please show a little more respect when talking about God's holy word.
****************

I'm afraid I don't see what you're talking about here. I stated the Japanese really wouldn't care what that book said about psychics.

85% of Japan is either Buddhist or Shinto, religions that don't require belief in a deity. Other than the Catholic Philippines, Christianity has never caught on in eastern Asia, despite all the missionaries. Islam has been far more successful in gaining converts there: Indonesia, which has the 4th highest population in the world, is 87% Muslim! (figures from the 2001 World Almanac)

Concerning the bible, how can I possibly show respect for a book that tells me:

A girl must marry her rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-9)
If someone "lies with a beast", the poor animal that was attacked must be killed (Leviticus 20:15)
Lot offers his virgin daughters to be gang-raped by a frenzied mob (Genesis 19:8)
Those same daughters get their father drunk and perform incest with him (Genesis 19:31-36)
A guy named Pekah somehow massacred 120,000 people in one day (2 Chronicles 28:6)
An enlightening story about a girl who was raped, abused, and cut into 12 pieces (Judges 19:25-29)
God accepts a human sacrifice without objecting (Judges 11:30-40)
Two bears were sent to slaughter 42 children for teasing a bald man (2 Kings 2:23-24)
Advice on how severely to beat a slave; it's okay if they recover in two days (Exodus 21:20-21)
Happiness is crushing defenseless infants against rocks (Psalms 137:8-9)
There's an earthquake and a bunch of dead people arise from their graves and are seen by many people (Matthew 27:51-3), yet no one other than the author records this astounding event.
Jesus says you'll go to hell for calling someone a fool (Matthew 5:22), then he later goes and calls people fools (Matthew 23:17)
In a thinly veiled parable, Jesus says bring to him those who don't believe in him and kill them (Luke 19:27)

And then I'm told that this is "God's Holy Word"?

Okay, assuming you're correct that this is a god's word (ignoring that this is an unsupportable assertion), which god? Certainly those who follow Allah or Vishnu (the two largest religions) do not consider the bible the holy word. What about those who follow Zeus, Akua, Odin, Jupiter, Ahura Mazda, Osiris, or the many polytheistic or pantheistic religions? M. Jordan's "Encyclopedia of Gods" (Facts on File, 1997) lists over 2500 gods.

Suppose we narrow it down to the Hebrew deity Yahweh (and why should we believe in that one over the other 2499?), how do we know which is that god’s words? The Jews consider 39 books of the bible as Yahweh's holy word. Christians have added more books to those: Protestants add 27 books, the Orthodox add 33, the Catholics add 34, and Mormons developed a completely different book. I should note that all those additional books are rejected by the Jews, who started the religion in the first place (they should know, right?). So, which bible is god's word?

Suppose we say the Protestant Christians have it right (another bald assertion), which version of the bible is that god's word? In 2 Chronicles 22:2, the New American Standard Version says Ahaziah was 22 years old, while the Revised Standard says he was 42. In Acts 22:9, the King James Version states Paul's men did not hear a voice, while the New International Version said they heard but did not understand it. In Deuteronomy 5:17 (the Ten Commandments), the KJV commands us not to kill, while the NIV relaxes this and says not to murder. So, which one should I trust?

But let's just say one of those versions is correct and the others wrong (yet another assertion). Then it casts doubts on how "holy" the bible is! If the books were written or inspired by an all-powerful god, then there couldn't be any errors, he would make sure his word and translations was inerrant. Yet, the bible is full of contradictions that appear in all versions and translations. One of the fundamental rules of logic is that two statements that contradict each other cannot both be true. Something cannot be both "A" and "not-A". Not just in "minor areas" like Ahaziah's age, but in critical matters, like the details of Jesus' resurrection:

Who was Jesus' grandfather (Joseph's Dad)? Matthew: Jacob, Luke: Heli
When was the crucifixion? Mark: 3rd hour, John: 6th hour
When did the women go to the tomb? John: while it was dark, Mark: after sunrise
Was the stone already moved when they arrived? Luke: yes, Matthew: no, they watched it roll
Who did they see at the tomb? Matthew: 1 angel, Mark: 1 man, Luke: 2 men, John: no one at the tomb, but 2 angels later
Did Mary Magdalene recognize Jesus? Matthew: yes, John: no
How many apostles did Jesus appear to? The 4 gospels: 11 (minus Judas), 1 Corinthians 15:5: 12 apostles

It's important to remember the books of the bible did not just appear ex nihilo on a sunbeam to Jesus' followers. The New Testament was written between 60-200 AD, with the first gospel (Mark) not written until 4 decades after Jesus' death. We do not know who the real authors were and have no original manuscripts. We do not have any copies of the epistles before the 2nd century AD, no gospel transcripts until the 4th century, and none of those in the original language. The 27 books that comprise the present NT were not agreed upon until nearly the 5th century, so early Christians had little access to them. The books themselves underwent many changes, for example: the resurrection story in Mark (16:9-20) is considered an interpolation, that is, added to the book by another later author.

Therefore I cannot see the bible as anything more than a mythological book that its adherents irrationally consider sacred. It's not as harsh as it sounds: many Christians feel the same way toward the Muslims' Qur'an, the Hindus' Vedas, the Buddhists' Tripitaka, and all other sacred texts besides their bible. I just don't make that exception.

[Phlosphr]

WOW!! someone has done their Homework.... I will not quibble over loose translations of the bible or mis-refrenced cites. That would be silly. You are quite right, I am sure that need not be said. As for the actual question of your OP.....??? what.... You have outlined the basic world premise that people around the world can worship/read/be a deciple of/and beleive in whatever they want. If you are trying to come up with a logical reason why you should not beleive in the bible, you just did... Just because your friend asked you not to refer to the bible as just an old book, should be respected simply because s/he is your friend. You don't have to beleive in the bible to respect it, other people beleive in it, you don't have to. 95% of the world population beleive in some sort of religion. And yes a lot of the books are different. I commend your homework and your dilligence to a topic but your lack of respect for anothers beleif is a little out there to say the very very very least.

[SpaceGhostofArrakis]

Hey Hubzilla Did we get up today and say to ourselves "How am I going to piss off the Christians today?"

Besides, most Christians (But not enough, sadly) Mostly follow the New Testament. There were many would'be Messiah's wandering Judea at the time of Jesus, so I'm sure if you looked around, you'd find all sorts of claims of miracles outside of the New Testament, even if said miracles weren't atributed to Jesus.

Also, haven't you ever heard of the phrase "Do as I say, not as I do?"

:D

[seawitch]

I'm in no position to say whether you should respect the bible (IANAC), but I have to say you should respect your friend, and accept differing beliefs as part of the package. If you two are really unable to agree to disagree, you might want to take another look at your definition of "friend".

[lestrange]

Hubzilla, you've got two different issues here.

The first one is, was calling the Bible an old book disrespectful? I'd say not--it is an old book. A collection of old books, in fact. The newest books in that collection are nearly two thousand years old. I really don't think that, on the face of it, it's disrespectful of the Bible to say that some group or other won't care about the contents of an old Hebrew book. Unless you made the statement in a really contemptous or dismissive tone of voice, I can't see any disrespect here and your friend is being oversensitive.

On the other hand, just because you disagree with a religion doesn't give you the right to mock it in front of its believers. There are lots of religions (including large portions of Christianity) that I not only disagree with, I find ridiculous. But I'm not about to belittle them. I may have a polite, rational discussion with people I disagree with on these topics, and if they aren't capable of being rational or polite, I move on. But by being insulting and disrespectful, you only anger the person you're dealing with, instead of convincing them of the rightness of your position. You catch more flies with honey and all that.

Besides, I don't doubt that you yourself would like others to treat the things you value highly with respect. If you claim that you should be treated respectfully because you're right, and others can be ridiculed because they're wrong and stupid, you're acting just like the people you're so contemptous of, now aren't you?

[Duck Duck Goose]

Um, well, here's a thought:

You should respect the Bible for the same reason you'd respect any other holy book that was followed by millions of people, like, say, the Q'uran, or the Book of Mormon, or the Talmud, or the writings of Buddha, or the sayings of Confucius, or the Hindu scriptures...

[andros]

You should respect the Bible for the same reason you'd respect any other holy book that was followed by millions of people, like, say, the Q'uran, or the Book of Mormon, or the Talmud, or the writings of Buddha, or the sayings of Confucius, or the Hindu scriptures...

And that reason is?

[cmkeller]

Short answer: Why should you respect the Bible? Because people with open minds respect things with which they disagree. If there's no respect, there's no basis for discussion or understanding.

Longer answer: You post a list of reasons why you don't think the Bible is worthy of respect. I'm not going to bother explaining each of those issues, because I'm certain that those are merely a sampling, and even if those are answered, you'd come up with more, which would seriously hijack the point. I will use a few of these as examples of why the Bible is worthy of respect, and I will trust that the point I'm trying to make has been made with those examples.

There are two approaches to dealing with Bible-believers. Respectful and disrespectful.

The disrespectful way is to use these points merely as rhetorical questions and to make accusations without actually caring whether or not there is an answer.

The respectful way is to exhibit genuine curiosity over how one can believe in the benevolence of a diety who would allegedly require a raped girl to marry her rapist. Asking a question like that of, say, an Orthodox Jew, would get you the following response: "She's not required to marry him. The verse is merely saying he doesn't have the choice to throw her away...if she doesn't want to marry him, she's allowed to refuse." Having used the respectful approach, you no longer see this person as a monster who thinks it's a good idea to force victimized girls into a cruel situation.

Having this respect enables you to come to an accurate understanding of other people and cultures, even if in the end you still disagree with them.

[MEBuckner]

Some background: A friend of mine earlier said a Japanese psychic would be stoned because the Bible said so.
Did your friend say that psychics in Japan are in fact, routinely stoned based on Biblical (Old Testament) law? If so, that's simply blatantly false, on a factual basis, like saying "the Taliban is a Shinto movement". It would be hard to have much respect for a statement that silly, or for the beliefs of someone who is that out of it.

Or did your friend say that psychics in Japan ought to be stoned to death based on Biblical law? In other words, all societies--including Japan--ought to adopt laws based on the Bible, including provisions for the stoning of pyschics? If so, your friend may have other ideas about law that might, when you get right down to it, include the belief that you (HubZilla) have no right to express your own opinions about the subject (or about religion in general). If that's the case, it would be hard for me to agree that I should "respect the beliefs of" someone who has no respect for my beliefs, to the extent of wanting to have the State suppress my freedom of speech and religion.

But I don't really know. What exactly did your friend say? What's your friend's religious background?

A minor factual nitpick:
Other than the Catholic Philippines, Christianity has never caught on in eastern Asia, despite all the missionaries.
Actually, I believe Christianity has caught on fairly well in South Korea.

[Sofa King]

Well, now that the smart folk have weighed in, it's worth mentioning that there are other good reasons to respect the Bible, and other "old books".

Take, for example, the Communist Manifesto. That little rag is rapidly declining in social relevance to the point where some people would consider a contemporary edition of Punch to be more applicable to today's world. Yet, it is worthy of respect. Why?

Paper cuts. You can still severely injure yourself with a copy of the Manifesto. With age comes mold and other nasty critters which can complicate the injury. In the hands of a Navy SEAL, it can kill a dozen different ways.

Now consider a big honkin' bastard like the Old Testament. Your friend could well nigh beat you to death with one of 'em. Or, he could slide it out from underneath the broken leg of your couch just when you're tipping up that glass of pig's blood, or whatever it is you non-Christians drink. You could wind up ruining your slacks.

That's why you should have respect for old books. Come to think of it, I'm suprised nobody has tried to ban 'em yet.

[capacitor]

Hey Sofa, the Bible was banned and burned more than any other book.

[bagkitty]

Originally posted by andros
You should respect the Bible for the same reason you'd respect any other holy book that was followed by millions of people, like, say, the Q'uran, or the Book of Mormon, or the Talmud, or the writings of Buddha, or the sayings of Confucius, or the Hindu scriptures...

And that reason is?

'Cause zealots get real testy when you question their road map... they do VERY nasty things to you.

Other than that, very little reason.

[Earthworm Jim]

You should respect it for its historical significance, of course. Without the bible, the history of western civilization would be far different. What would Gutenberg have printed first? Who would have fled to America and established New England? What holidays would we celebrate??? How can not show respect for the book that makes Christmas vacation possible?!

Oh, and it's got some pretty good ideas in there too. The whole "Do unto others" bit, and the "Judge not", and the "Thou shalt not kill" etc.

Oh, and a couple of religions have popped up around it. Religion has been a serious force in human history, regardless of what you might think about it.

As for respecting "God's Holy Word": <waves hand and says> pffft...

[ssj_man2k]

I could give a rats ass about the bible. It is so messed up and hypocritical, i don't have the words to describe it. For example: "Thou shalt not kill." The Crusades: lets go kill people in the name of god even though he told us not too!!

Silly Christians.

[MEBuckner]

Well, strictly speaking, "Thou shalt not kill" vs. the Crusades isn't an example of the Bible being hypocritical, but of Christians being hypocritcal. There are, however, plenty of other examples of the Bible contradicting itself.

[Duck Duck Goose]

Originally posted by andros
You should respect the Bible for the same reason you'd respect any other holy book that was followed by millions of people, like, say, the Q'uran, or the Book of Mormon, or the Talmud, or the writings of Buddha, or the sayings of Confucius, or the Hindu scriptures...

And that reason is?

Um, because thinking, rational, grownup human beings treat other cultures, and their religions, with respect?

I didn't say "believe", I said "respect". I, personally, wouldn't dream of coming onto a message board and posting something like, to paraphrase SSJ:
I could give a rats ass about the Q'uran. It is so messed up and hypocritical, i don't have the words to describe it. For example: "Thou shalt not kill." The Jihad: lets go kill people in the name of god even though he told us not too!!

Silly Moslems.

See what I mean?

[Mars Horizon]

I'm getting deja vu all over again (http://thebruces.stormbirds.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4438). Must be a consequence of reading multiple boards...

Hi Hub! Nice to see you again! :D

Seriously though, when you said Therefore I cannot see the bible as anything more than a mythological book that its adherents irrationally consider sacred. It's not as harsh as it sounds: many Christians feel the same way toward the Muslims' Qur'an, the Hindus' Vedas, the Buddhists' Tripitaka, and all other sacred texts besides their bible. I just don't make that exception.I think you've hit the proverbial nail on the head. In the same way that Christians are atheists where all other gods but YHWH are concerned, I am an atheist where *all* gods are concerned. They just believe in one more god than I do.

I think you are saying that where Christians regard other religion's holy books as mythology and their own as sacred, you regard *all* religious books as mythology.

It's a valid point.

But DDG's post above makes the *also* very valid assertion that non-belief does not require non-respect. There's really no point in just going around pissing off various theists for no good reason.

IMHO.

YMMV.

[Little Bird]

Bravo! Encore! Hear Hear! Yay! Lovely!

It seems to me that the friend of yours was showing no respect to that Japanese psychic's religion, why should you or she respect your friend's?

[kniz]

Myth - a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon.

According to the above definition I believe that most Christians would accept that the bible is a collection of myths. I have seen another definition that stated that: the facts (in a myth) were usually, but not necessarily, false.

according to HubZilla
Certainly those who follow Allah or Vishnu (the two largest religions) do not consider the bible the holy word.

I have no idea about Vishnu, but Islam is based on the OT and they consider Jesus a great prophet, so I question the above statement. Personally, I have no problem with God and Allah being one in the same.

according to HubZilla

Advice on how severely to beat a slave; it's okay if they recover in two days (Exodus 21:20-21)

Happiness is crushing defenseless infants against rocks (Psalms 137:8-9)[/b]

Exodus 21:18-25

18 "If men quarrel and one hits the other with a stone or with his fist[4] and he does not die but is confined to bed,
19 the one who struck the blow will not be held responsible if the other gets up and walks around outside with his staff; however, he must pay the injured man for the loss of his time and see that he is completely healed.
20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished,
21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[5] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.
23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life,
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

The above shows the context in which the statement was made about beating the slave and that it was not just about the beating. This sounds harsh at present, but back then slaves could be beaten to death without punishment.

[Quote]Psalm 137
1 By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion.
2 There on the poplars we hung our harps,
3 for there our captors asked us for songs, our tormentors demanded songs of joy; they said, "Sing us one of the songs of Zion!"
4 How can we sing the songs of the LORD while in a foreign land?
5 If I forget you, O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget .
6 May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth if I do not remember you, if I do not consider Jerusalem my highest joy.
7 Remember, O LORD, what the Edomites did on the day Jerusalem fell. "Tear it down," they cried, "tear it down to its foundations!"
8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us--
9 he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.[Quote]

Again read in context it is much different than portrayed in the OP. I agree with the point Phlosphr made about agruing over every point. The above to me shows that the homework HubZilla did was [i]subjective

[Mambo]

Originally posted by ssj_man2k
I could give a rats ass about the bible. It is so messed up and hypocritical, i don't have the words to describe it. For example: "Thou shalt not kill." The Crusades: lets go kill people in the name of god even though he told us not too!!

Silly Christians.

Aside from being one of the rudest posts I've read in awhile, this is also one of the most ignorant comments I've heard. Your basis for the Bible being hypocriticial is that its followers are hypocrites? Makes a lot of sense to me.

Believers in the Bible are not ignorant and illogical. There are atheists of all degrees of intelligence and education and there are Christians of all degrees of intelligence and education.

As I've said in a previous thread, there is reason to believe in the Bible as the Divine Word of God. One-third of the Bible consists of very specific prophecies. These are in the Bible to prove to the skeptics that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. The following prophecies (this is just a sample) have been fulfilled and no historians can argue that the prophecies were either post-dated or that they did not come true:

1) The prediction against Tyre in Ezekiel 26:3-21. This prophecy was fulfilled in three waves by Nebuchednezzar, Alexander the Great, and the Arabs. Alexander did throw the city's (mainland Tyre's) debris into the sea (26:12) as a means to get to the newly-formed island fortress the Tyrians had hid on. Today, the city is a "bare rock" (26:4) and local fisherman are using the area to spread their nets to dry (26:5). Read the prophecy, there is no doubt that it came true.

2) The prophecy of Jerusalem's enlargement in Jeremiah 31:38-40. You may need a map of Jerusalem for this. Jeremiah uses specific landmarks to describe, in detail, how Jerusalem would be enlarged in the future. Jerusalem, indeed, did enlarge in this way since the State of Israel was created. At the time, the people did not realize they were fulfilling Biblical prophecy.

3) The prophecies against Gaza-Ashkelon in Amos 1:8., Jeremiah 47:5, Zepheniah 2:4, 6, 7. These prophecies say the Philistines will not continue (fulfilled), desolation shall come upon Ashkelon (fulfilled), and that Ashkelon will be reinhabited by the Jews (fulfilled by the State of Israel). For a long time, people thought that the prophecies against Gaza were not fulfilled because a city of Gaza did exist. But after a search was done, they found the ancient city of Gaza buried under a sand dune. Jeremiah 45:7 said "Baldness has come upon Gaza."

The concept of the Messiah was not new at Jesus' time. Throughout the entire OT, prophecies were made concerning the Messiah. Jews simply do not believe the Messiah has come yet. Christian's believe that those prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus. Daniel 9:24-27 is a prophecy concerning when the OT Messiah would come to earth. The term "weeks" in this context is a group of seven years not days. Daniel says that between the time the proclamation is made to rebuild Jerusalem and the time the Messiah is "cut-off," there will be 69 weeks--483 years. The proclamation to rebuild Jerusalem was made by King Artaxerxes to Nehemiah in 444 BC (Neh. 2:1-8). Using the Jewish year of 360 days, 483 years later we arrive at 33 A.D (there is some debate about the exact date we would arrive at but all the calculations have come to around 32-34 A.D.--the time of Jesus' crucifixion). Daniel also wrote that after the Messiah was cut-off, Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed. That sub-prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D.

And one last point against the argument that Jesus never rose from the dead. Jesus did, in fact, walk this earth at the beginning of the first century. Shortly after His crucifixion many people claimed (to their deaths) that they saw Jesus Christ and a fever spread over Jerusalem. Many Jews were becoming Christians. The Temple Priests and Pontius Pilate were not happy with this religious fervor. Since the priests and the Romans knew where Jesus was buried they could've easily nipped this movement in the bud by producing the body of Jesus. Yet they couldn't. Paul to King Agrippa: "For the King, before whom I also speak freely, knows these things; for I am convinced that none of these things escapes his attention, since this thing was not done in a corner." (Acts 26:26). All the events around Jesus's Crucifixion and Resurrection were well-known throughout the empire very shortly after the actual events. Not one person could refute the disciples. They accused them of stealing the body of Jesus, but these same people, who wrote about loving God and your neighbors, being charitable, rejecting money, etc. were willing to die for their belief. People do not die for something they know to be untrue. If they stole the body (hard to believe the guards were sleeping since punishment for that was death or that they didn't get woken up), they would not have allowed themselves to be stoned in the name of a mere man they took from a cave. Martyrs and liars are not the same type of people.

Not one person can refute the prohpecies that have been fulfilled throughout history. No one can chalk them up to mere coincidence. No other book has attempted and succeeded in making such specific prophecies that were actually fulfilled. No one can make the assertion that 1) Jesus didn't live, 2) Jesus didn't have a ministry, 3) Jesus didn't claim to be God, 4) Jesus wasn't crucified, 5) or that Jesus' tomb was not empty the Sunday after he was crucified.

[Homer]

Originally posted by bagkitty

'Cause zealots get real testy when you question their road map... they do VERY nasty things to you.

Other than that, very little reason.

This is the most asinine, ignorant, immature thing I've read in weeks.

You should respect the beliefs of an organized religion, whether you believe them yourself or not. It has nothing to do with "VERY nasty things", it has to do with respecting other people as people. YOU expect YOUR beliefs to be respected regardless of their merit, why would you deny this treatment that you would demand of others to others?

Are you so immature, bagkitty, that you do not respect any person with whom you disagree? Or do you claim divine knowledge which allows you to decide exactly which religion or belief is worthy of respect, and which isn't? You are certainly no smarter or more intuitive than anyone else, so what makes you able to decide which beliefs are allowed respect and which aren't?

I ask again: Do you not respect ANY person with whom you disagree, on any matter? Or only a religion with which you disagree? And if you answer yes to one and no to another, please tell me the difference between the two.

Thank you.

--Tim

[HubZilla]

Originally posted by Mambo
Not one person can refute the prohpecies that have been fulfilled throughout history. No one can chalk them up to mere coincidence. No other book has attempted and succeeded in making such specific prophecies that were actually fulfilled. No one can make the assertion that 1) Jesus didn't live, 2) Jesus didn't have a ministry, 3) Jesus didn't claim to be God, 4) Jesus wasn't crucified, 5) or that Jesus' tomb was not empty the Sunday after he was crucified.

I wouldn't even have to be an atheist to challenge some of those "prophesies". How about a Jew? They made up the prophesies in the first place and are unconvinced about Jesus fulfilling them. To wit:

Matthew 2:5-6, the author talks about Jesus coming from the town of Bethlehem (I'll ignore that he is called a Galilean and Nazarene throughout the gospels). Micah 5:2 discusses Bethlehem Ephrathah as a person, as does 1 Chronicles 4:4. Why doesn't Matthew include "Ephrathah" when reciting the prophesy?

Matthew 2:15 tells us about Jesus leaving Egypt. He refers to Hosea 11:1 describing a past event, the Mosaic exodus. Exodus 4:22 calls Israel God's son.

Matthew 21:5-7 has Jesus riding both a colt and donkey into Jerusalem. I want to know how he did this. Circus-style with a foot on each animal? Zechariah 9:9 uses parallel structure to refer to a colt as a baby donkey. Matthew couldn't grasp this grammatical concept and got confused, although Mark and Luke only list the colt. BTW, Zechariah 9:10 refers to a military leader riding said animal.

Matthew 23:35 tells us Zechariah Berekiah was murdered. ZB in Zechariah 1:1 was not murdered. There was a Z (no B) in 2 Chronicles 24:20-22 murdered in the fashion Matthew describes. Oops.

Isaiah 53 is probably the most famous prophesy. However, Isaiah refers to the nation of Israel as the servant in 41:8 and 49:3-6 (Israel will be a light to the Gentiles). Besides, the verses really don't describe Jesus accurately. Take 53:7. He was not a sheep led to the slaughter, he knew full well what was going on (remember Gethsemane?). Plus he opened his mouth quite often, especially lecturing Pilate in John.

Of course, I would be remiss without mentioning Matthew 1:22-23 where Matthew mistranslates "virgin" for "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14 (the baby in question was born in 8:3). Perhaps Matthew should've left it alone, it's hard to have a virgin birth and claim lineage from David (to fulfill 2 Samuel 7:12-14).

Now, I would be more impressed if the OT addressed these extremely Jesus-specific prophesies:

Luke 24:46-47 Where was it written that the Messiah would rise in 3 days and preach to all nations?

Matthew 2:23 Where was it written that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene?

John 7:38 Which scripture said whoever believed in Jesus would get the Holy Spirit?

Jude 14-16 Where did Enoch say God would be a judge? (okay, that was a trick question, it quotes the non-canonical 1 Enoch 1:9)

[MEBuckner]

1) The prediction against Tyre in Ezekiel 26:3-21. This prophecy was fulfilled in three waves by Nebuchednezzar, Alexander the Great, and the Arabs. Alexander did throw the city's (mainland Tyre's) debris into the sea (26:12) as a means to get to the newly-formed island fortress the Tyrians had hid on. Today, the city is a "bare rock" (26:4) and local fisherman are using the area to spread their nets to dry (26:5). Read the prophecy, there is no doubt that it came true.
For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army. He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls and raise his shields against you. He will direct the blows of his battering rams against your walls and demolish your towers with his weapons. His horses will be so many that they will cover you with dust. Your walls will tremble at the noise of the war horses, wagons and chariots when he enters your gates as men enter a city whose walls have been broken through. The hoofs of his horses will trample all your streets; he will kill your people with the sword, and your strong pillars will fall to the ground. They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea. -- Ezekiel 26:7-12 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=EZEK+26:7-12&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
Tyre (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=75954&tocid=0) -- ...it successfully withstood a prolonged siege by the Babylonian king Nebuchadrezzar II.
I will bring you to a horrible end and you will be no more. You will be sought, but you will never again be found, declares the Sovereign LORD. -- Ezekiel 26:21 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=EZEK+26:21&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
Tyre (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=75954&tocid=0)...Pop. (1961) 16,483; (1991 est.) 70,000.

[MEBuckner]

Hey, HubZilla--what exactly was it your friend was saying? That Japanese psychics would have been stoned, if they had lived in ancient Israel, and had practiced psychic readings then and there? If so, true, but kind of irrelevant. Or was your friend saying that Japanese psychics ought to be stoned today, in the 21st Century, based on what the Bible says?

[HubZilla]

Originally posted by MEBuckner
Hey, HubZilla--what exactly was it your friend was saying? That Japanese psychics would have been stoned, if they had lived in ancient Israel, and had practiced psychic readings then and there? If so, true, but kind of irrelevant. Or was your friend saying that Japanese psychics ought to be stoned today, in the 21st Century, based on what the Bible says?

Basically, the Japanese psychic would be stoned today.

Okay, a little more background. We are both Godzilla fans, and the newer series of movies (1989-1995) have a psychic that communicates with Godzilla. Okay, not so much communicates, but can sense when Godzilla comes near.

Anyway, I didn't like the character because she did some bad things, and she should've died in the ending of one of the movies (set in 1996). He retorted that it didn't matter, that she would be stoned later as a psychic because the bible said so.

That's pretty much the entire context. So I retorted the Japanese wouldn't care what an old Hebrew book said.

[rjung]

Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
Originally posted by andros
You should respect the Bible for the same reason you'd respect any other holy book that was followed by millions of people
And that reason is?
Um, because thinking, rational, grownup human beings treat other cultures, and their religions, with respect?
Better catch a flight to Israel and tell that to the Jews and Palestinians trying to kill each other, then. Oh, and on the way, you might want to talk to that Governor?/Congressman? from a few months back who refused to meet with the Dhali Lhama because he was a "cult leader"...

(Sorry for the lack of details on that last one, but it got paged out of my short-term memory)

[HubZilla]

Originally posted by kniz

The above shows the context in which the statement was made about beating the slave and that it was not just about the beating. This sounds harsh at present, but back then slaves could be beaten to death without punishment.


These are recorded as God's direct words (Ex 20:22). Why would God condone slavery at all? Didn’t he just free "his people" from that immoral institution in Egypt? Slavery has been condemned by humanity over 100 years ago, and today there is nothing but revulsion that the cruel practice ever existed. What happened to the commandment “Thou shalt free thy slaves”?

Why was Moses, Paul, et al so virulent against homosexuality, yet silent on the abolition of slavery?

[MEBuckner]

HubZilla, it sounds to me like your friend is pretty confused. Maintaining a decent respect for the deeply held beliefs of others is all well and good, but if someone is seriously maintaining that present-day Japan is governed according to the Mosaic Law, I think even the most sweetly reasonable of persons would be tempted to reply (to quote a little Scripture of our own (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_062a.html)): "If ignorance were cornflakes, you'd be General Mills".

[Mambo]

MEBuckner

From your link:


Probably the best-known episode in the history of Tyre was its resistance to the army of the Macedonian conqueror Alexander the Great, who took it after a seven-month siege in 332. He completely destroyed the mainland portion of the town and used its rubble to build an immense causeway (some 2,600 feet [800 metres] long and 600–900 feet [180–270 metres] wide) to gain access to the island section. After the town's capture, 10,000 inhabitants were put to death, and 30,000 were sold into slavery. Alexander's causeway, which was never removed, converted the island into a peninsula.


From the Bible:

'They will plunder your riches and pillage you merchandise; they will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses; they will lay your stones, your timber, and your soil in the midst of the water.'
Ezekiel 26:12


True there is a fishing village on the bare rock that was Tyre but that is in full keeping of the prophecy.


'I will make you like the top of a rock; you shall be a place for spreading nets, and you shall never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken,' says the Lord God.
Ezekiel 26:14


Hmm, a fishing village on the bare rock that is Tyre. Spreading their nets on the bare rock of Tyre. Hmm. It would seem the fishermen spreading those nets would have to erect a make-shift village in that area to live but the ancient city of Tyre is in the water. It is "no more."

From your link:


Captured and destroyed by the Muslim Mamluks in 1291, the town never recovered its former importance...

In 1998 UNESCO created a special fund for the preservation and archaeological excavation of the ancient treasures of Tyre...

Excavations have uncovered remains of the Greco-Roman, Crusader, Arab, and Byzantine civilizations, but most of the remains of the Phoenician period lie beneath the present town.


From the Bible:

"'I will make you a terror, and you shall be no more; though you are sought for, you will never be found again,' says the Lord God."
Ezekiel 26:21


This prophecy has been completely fulfilled. Ezekiel wrote it around 570 B.C. The destruction took three waves but it was done over history so God could be proven.

[Duck Duck Goose]

Originally posted by rjung
Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
Um, because thinking, rational, grownup human beings treat other cultures, and their religions, with respect?
Better catch a flight to Israel and tell that to the Jews and Palestinians trying to kill each other, then. Oh, and on the way, you might want to talk to that Governor?/Congressman? from a few months back who refused to meet with the Dhali Lhama because he was a "cult leader"...
Dunno how it is where you live, Rjung, but around these hyar parts, "people who are trying to kill each other" are not generally considered to be "thinking, rational, grownup human beings". :D

As for the congressman--um, well, he's a congressman, for heaven's sake. :D And apparently he does this sort of thing frequently. It was Minnesota House Rep. Arlon Lindner, R-Corcoran.

http://www.daily.umn.edu/daily/2001/05/03/editorial_opinions/e0503/

Thursday, May 3, 2001

Lindner does it again

In an e-mail sent to colleagues on Monday, Lindner stated he would boycott the joint session of the Legislature where the Dalai Lama will address lawmakers. Lindner stated in the e-mail, "As a Christian, I am offended that we would have the Dalai Lama come and speak." He also wrote, "These beliefs are incompatible with Christian principles and those Christian principles are or have been the governing principles in American society." It is disturbing that a legislator chosen by the citizens of this state to uphold the principles of America has so blindly misconstrued some basic principles held by the framers of the constitution.

Lindner went on in his e-mail, "They don't believe that there is one God. They don't believe Christ is God ... They believe in evolution and reincarnation. That is not Christian."

< snip >

On Tuesday, 60 members of the Minnesota House accused Lindner of religious bigotry and asked for an apology for his e-mail.

[MEBuckner]

Mambo:

Let's put Ezekiel 26:12 back in a little context, shall we? (As I had already done in my earlier post.)

Once again, this time with emphasis added:
For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army. He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls and raise his shields against you. He will direct the blows of his battering rams against your walls and demolish your towers with his weapons. His horses will be so many that they will cover you with dust. Your walls will tremble at the noise of the war horses, wagons and chariots when he enters your gates as men enter a city whose walls have been broken through. The hoofs of his horses will trample all your streets; he will kill your people with the sword, and your strong pillars will fall to the ground. They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea. -- Ezekiel 26:7-12 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=EZEK+26:7-12&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
Ezekiel 26:21 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=EZEK+26:21&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on) does not say "Tyre will be reduced to a lowly fishing village"; it says Tyre "will be no more" and "will never again be found". A town of more than 70,000 people is hardly a "bare rock". And this town of 70,000+ is in exactly the same place as the Phoenician city, which was supposed to have been destroyed, by Nebuchandezzar, so thoroughly that it would never be found again. "Your city will be wiped off the face of the Earth so thoroughly that it will never be found again" would not normally be taken to mean "Centuries from now people will have trouble seeing the ruins of your homes and places of business, what with the thriving city which will still exist there being in the way and all".

So, we have here a prophecy, supposedly fulfilled, which states Nebuchadnezzar would do such-and-such. The "fulfillment" of this prophecy is that a bunch of other guys--who were not Nebuchadnezzar--also failed to do what the prophecy said Nebuchadnezzar would do.

If that's your idea of a "hit", what would you consider to be a "miss"?

[kniz]

Originally posted by HubZilla
These are recorded as God's direct words (Ex 20:22).

Pardon? Did I say that those were the direct words of God. I posted the biblical verses that you had condensed and rephrased. I do not believe that these are the "words of God", but rather words from people who worshiped God. Not having the foresight to see that slavery would be condemned some 2500 years later, they wrote down a law that said you could not kill your slave and not be punished. This is not the only law in the bible that concerns the treatment of slaves. If read today they seem cruel, but back then the Jews were more just to slaves than anyone else, just by the fact that they included them in the law. That may be because they had the myth** about escaping Egypt.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by HubZilla
Why was Moses, Paul, et al so virulent against homosexuality, yet silent on the abolition of slavery?

I personally do not have a dog in that race.


** a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon

[Mambo]

MEBuckner,

Actually, the current town of Tyre isn't on the same exact spot but is near the ancient mainland city. I hardly think what is there now is a "thriving city" considering the considerable influence and power Tyre had in its heyday. They are the famous purple-dye folks who built Carthage, Rome's biggest competitor in the west. What is there now is what it was reduced to.


"Therefore thus says the Lord God: 'Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and will cause many nations to come up against you, as the sea causes its waves to come up."
Ezekiel 26:3


The prophecy clearly says that "many nations" will be involved in the destruction of Tyre. Nebuchednezzar sieged the mainland city for 13 years. After breaking through the gates he found the city nearly empty. Most of the inhabitants had moved to an island 1/2 mile off shore. Nebuchednezzar destroyed the mainland city in 572 B.C. He was specifically named in the Bible to do this.

In this prophecy, "he" refers to Nebuchednezzar specifically, who was alive at the time of the prophecy. "They" refers to the "nations" that would conquer Tyre like waves.

In 332 B.C., Alexander the Great, who did not have his naval fleet, wanted to conquer the island city of Tyre. To do this, he stripped the mainland city and threw the debris along with dirt and trees in to the water to create a land bridge to the island.


They will lay your stones, your timber, and your soil in the midst of the water. Ezekiel 26:12
I will make you like the top of a rock. 26:14


Although the Tyrians fought him off for awhile, once the land bridge was completed he conquered the island city.

Finally, after 1600 years of rebuilding and getting knocked down, the Muslims conquer them through-and-through in 1291 A.D.

This once great city, the commercial center of the Mediterranean, is now a place for fishermen to dry their nets. Exactly as the prophecy predicted. This prophecy is true in the minutest detail.

[MEBuckner]

"American has had many Presidents. The first was George Washington. He led the brave patriots of the Continental Army, who defeated the mightiest power in the world, Great Britain, to win America's independence. They defeated the Nazis and withstood the tyranny of the Soviet Union for two generations, until they defeated the forces of evil for all time and made the world safe for freedom and democracy and justice and peace for ever and ever."

There you go. A statement which is true right down to the minutest detail.

[Mambo]

Originally posted by MEBuckner
"American has had many Presidents. The first was George Washington. He led the brave patriots of the Continental Army, who defeated the mightiest power in the world, Great Britain, to win America's independence. They defeated the Nazis and withstood the tyranny of the Soviet Union for two generations, until they defeated the forces of evil for all time and made the world safe for freedom and democracy and justice and peace for ever and ever."

There you go. A statement which is true right down to the minutest detail.

Yeah, but I would be amazed if somebody wrote it down a couple of thousand years ago, too.

[MEBuckner]

All, right. Try this one. On Inauguration Day, 1789, someone says:

"Today George Washington is sworn in as our first President--but surely not our last. He was the leader of our brave patriot forces who won our independence from Great Britain. Thanks to them, the threat of war between America and Britain is ended forever. Our nation's unity will endure, and war will never again ravage our country's soil!"

An astonishing prophecy, no? And true down to the minutest detail!

[red_dragon60]

Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose


As for the congressman--um, well, he's a congressman, for heaven's sake. :D And apparently he does this sort of thing frequently. It was Minnesota House Rep. Arlon Lindner, R-Corcoran.

http://www.daily.umn.edu/daily/2001/05/03/editorial_opinions/e0503/

Thursday, May 3, 2001

Lindner does it again

In an e-mail sent to colleagues on Monday, Lindner stated he would boycott the joint session of the Legislature where the Dalai Lama will address lawmakers. Lindner stated in the e-mail, "As a Christian, I am offended that we would have the Dalai Lama come and speak." He also wrote, "These beliefs are incompatible with Christian principles and those Christian principles are or have been the governing principles in American society." It is disturbing that a legislator chosen by the citizens of this state to uphold the principles of America has so blindly misconstrued some basic principles held by the framers of the constitution.

Lindner went on in his e-mail, "They don't believe that there is one God. They don't believe Christ is God ... They believe in evolution and reincarnation. That is not Christian."

< snip >

On Tuesday, 60 members of the Minnesota House accused Lindner of religious bigotry and asked for an apology for his e-mail.




That's 60 people I personally want to shake hands with. HH The Dalai Lama wrote a book on Jesus called The Good Heart. It was about how Jesus taught so many good things that people of any religious persuasion can learn from. He compared it to Buddhism in many ways.

FWIW, us Buddhists believe that Jesus was a Boddistiva, an enlightened man who gave up Nirvana to come and help others until everyone reaches enlightenment.

[SuaSponte]

Certainly the Bible, as well as the Koran, the Vedas, even Homer and Ovid, have useful lessons for us today, atheist, agnostic or religious.

Hey, I'm an atheist, but at least the last seven of the Ten Commandments make a lot of sense to me.
Scriptures of all kinds try to do two things - explain the world and man's place in it (including after death), and set out rules for a proper and ethical life.

I find wanting the various explanations of the world given in the scriptures of various religions, and I disagree with many of the rules set out in them, but there are many I agree with. If you take G-d out of the equation, the various holy books can be seen as the collected wisdom of a people. And as many of our day-to-day issues haven't changed all that much in the past 3000 years, particularly as regards dealings with other people, a lot of the wisdom is still valid today.

Sua

[rjung]

Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
Originally posted by rjung
Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
Um, because thinking, rational, grownup human beings treat other cultures, and their religions, with respect?
Better catch a flight to Israel and tell that to the Jews and Palestinians trying to kill each other, then.
Dunno how it is where you live, Rjung, but around these hyar parts, "people who are trying to kill each other" are not generally considered to be "thinking, rational, grownup human beings". :D
Hey, I'm an atheist, so the idea of anybody getting all worked up over "holy land" just makes me roll my eyes. :) I still say give the whole thing over to Disney and let them run it as a theme park.

And thanks for the Arlon Lindner cite.

[Mambo]

Originally posted by MEBuckner
All, right. Try this one. On Inauguration Day, 1789, someone says:

"Today George Washington is sworn in as our first President--but surely not our last. He was the leader of our brave patriot forces who won our independence from Great Britain. Thanks to them, the threat of war between America and Britain is ended forever. Our nation's unity will endure, and war will never again ravage our country's soil!"

An astonishing prophecy, no? And true down to the minutest detail!

This wouldn't actually be a prophecy. Just a summary of events that had happened before I-day, and a reasonable guess at what would happen in the future.

Ezekiel's prophecy was written around 570 B.C. The first part of the fulfillment occured in 538 B.C. The final blow occured in 1291 A.D. Over 1800 years passed between the prophecy and the actual fulfillment--about six times the age of the U.S. Doesn't seem like a lucky guess too me, especially considering all the prophecies that were fulfilled. At the time of the prophecy, there was no reasonable reason to believe that Tyre would fall--it was a major city.

If you wanted to impress me, I would want you to tell me which major U.S. city (NY, San Fran, Chicago, Miami, etc.) will fall. Not only the city's fate, but how this will happen (invasions, weak economy, drought, ?) and what the city's final destiny will be. And in a couple of thousand years, if you got all the details right, then I'd be impressed.

[MEBuckner]

At the time of the prophecy, there was no reasonable reason to believe that Tyre would fall--it was a major city.
Oh, horsefeathers. The statement " will fall and be sacked" is about one step up, in terms of prophetic vagueness, from "There will be conflict in the Middle East". [i]Every city in the A.N.E. has been overrun, sacked, pillaged, suffered periods of decline, etc. The fact that Tyre was a major city made it all the more likely that it would someday be sacked--which it has been, several times in its history.

The fact remains that Tyre did not fall in the time and manner which Ezekiel predicted--it fell, and was sacked, and was rebuilt, centuries later. That Tyre would someday fall to someone, given the realities of Middle Eastern politics for about the last six or ten thousand years, approaches certainty.

The United States is in a very different cultural and geopolitical situation. We aren't one of many nations and city-states crammed together on the main invasion route between two centers of world civilization; we're a large, continental nation-state with our only immediate neighbors both militarily weaker than us and largely friendly to us. Warfare has changed in many ways as well--if Chicago or New York are destroyed by human agency, it won't be by horse-riding barbarians from central Eurasia or the Arabian deserts, it will likely be by high-tech weapons of mass destruction of some kind.

I'm not really sure if your grasp of American history is any better than your grasp of Ancient Near Eastern history. You do realize that my Inauguration Day "prophecy" is, by any reasonable and normal reading of what I said, completely inaccurate, right?

[quixotic78]

From the OP (remember that??)
Certainly those who follow Allah or Vishnu (the two largest religions) do not consider the bible the holy word.
Well, the only numbers I have are from my 1996 World Almanac, but it lists Christianity at 32.4% of the world's population, Islam at 17.1%, and Hinduism at 13.5%. Maybe you meant the two largest religions besides Christianity?

From Duck Duck Goose
You should respect the Bible for the same reason you'd respect any other holy book that was followed by millions of people, like, say, the Q'uran, or the Book of Mormon, or the Talmud, or the writings of Buddha, or the sayings of Confucius, or the Hindu scriptures...
Well, I don't see much respect in America for religious texts besides the Bible. My WAG is that 90+% of Americans couldn't tell you what religion reveres the Vedas, which feels that the Tripitika contains most of the core beliefs... hell, I've got a B.A. in Religious Studies and I can't even recall if Shinto has any sort of canon. How can people respect something they don't even know exists? It seems that if people as a whole did respect other texts besides the Bible, they'd do some research. Oh, and maybe stop trying to get the Ten Commandments posted everywhere they can. :rolleyes:

From red_dragon60
FWIW, us Buddhists believe that Jesus was a Boddistiva, an enlightened man who gave up Nirvana to come and help others until everyone reaches enlightenment.
Well, maybe some of you wacky Mahayanan Buddhists do. I'll be spokesman for the Theravadans and say, "Bodhiwhatsva?"

Wow, if that wasn't a tremendous waste of time and an extreme display of nitpickery, I don't know what is. I mean, fighting ignorance is one thing, but you just fucking suck, Quix! [Mods--I apologize for the Pit-like sentiments, but this dickhole really deserves it]

Quix

[jab1]

If they are put down in Holy Scripture, most everyone has heard of them. So if someone goes out and fulfills a prophecy that he's heard about most of his life, what he's really doing, isn't he, is simply following instructions?

Prophecies that come true even when the people at the center of them are unaware of them are more likely to be true prophecies. The same goes for prophecies about natural phenomena like a storm or an earthquake striking some city. Only Divine Revelation could account for such a prophecy. Is there any such prophecy in the Bible?

[tracer]

capacitor wrote:

Hey Sofa, the Bible was banned and burned more than any other book.
And you know who's responsible for most of the bannings and burnings of the bible? Christians! The Catholics banned all but the Latin translation of the Bible, for example, and many modern English-speaking Fundamentalist Christians view all English translations other than the King James Version as heresy (including Jack Chick (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01.asp)).

[Mambo]

Originally posted by jab1
If they are put down in Holy Scripture, most everyone has heard of them. So if someone goes out and fulfills a prophecy that he's heard about most of his life, what he's really doing, isn't he, is simply following instructions?

Prophecies that come true even when the people at the center of them are unaware of them are more likely to be true prophecies. The same goes for prophecies about natural phenomena like a storm or an earthquake striking some city. Only Divine Revelation could account for such a prophecy. Is there any such prophecy in the Bible?

This is a very valid point jab1. But if you look at the players in the prophecy concerning Tyre (above) they are Phoenecians, Babylonians, Macedonians, and Muslims. They didn't exactly have a reason to try to fulfill the prophecies as they were not concerned with them. Also, the prophecy was not fulfilled by one person but a group of people over history so that coersion is tossed out the window.

How about the prophecy that Ashkelon would become desolate and then reinhabited by the Jews.

For Gaza will be abandoned, and Ashkelon a desolation; Zepheniah (2:4)
And the coast will be for the remnant of the house of Judah, they will pasture on it. In the houses of Ashkelon they will lie down at evening; For the Lord their God will care for them and restore their fortune. Zepheniah (2:7)


This prophecy was written around 621 B.C. In 1270 A.D., Sultan Bibars destroyed it. The first part of the prophecy was fulfilled 1800 years after it was written by a man who had no concern for, and probably no awareness of, this prophecy! Between then and the 20th century, Ashkelon was deserted, except for a turkish garrison in the seventeenth century.

The second part of the prophecy was fulfilled by the state of Israel 700 years after the first part was fulfilled. The city was reinhabited by the Jews and was rebuilt into a garden city. They rebuilt Ashkelon because it was in a great location.

Also, consider all the prophecies concerning the Diasapora and the regathering of the people of Israel. The Jews were the ones who were persecuted for thousands of years. They were the ones that had to keep moving from one country to the next. When they became a state in 1948, the impetus towards that moment had been an over-drive persecution of the Jews. They did what had to be done considering the circumstance but were not doing it to fulfill the prophecies.

[Kaje]

I've heard this "there's prophecies so it must be God" before... not only from Christians but from Muslims...

Exhibit A:
http://www.mohammedi.freeserve.co.uk/judgement.html

That site contains so-called "signs before the day of judgement"... and many of them have "come true"
here are a few I picked out:

"Rain will be acidic or burning" OH MY GOD!

"The people of Iraq will receive no food and no money due to oppression by the Romans." EEEK

"Female singers and musical instruments will become popular." UH OH

"When the shepherds of black camels start boasting and begin to compete with others in the construction of taller buildings." OH ALLAH SAVE US NOW

"The conquest of Constantinople by the Muslims." THAT CAN'T BE COINCIDENCE!

hopefully you see my point... these are "the word of God" even more directly than the Bible because Muslims assert that not a single word or syllable has changed in the Qur'an since it was sent directly to the prophet muhammed 1400 years ago... And these prophecies are "coming true"!

I'm sure you could find similiar fulfilled prophecies in many if not all other religions as well, point it is doesn't prove squat

[Mambo]

Kaje,

Link was interesting but most of the interpretations given were pretty loose. But keep in mind two things: 1) Mecca, at the time of Mohammed, had many Jews and Christians, and Biblical stories are repeated in the Koran with a few modifications, and 2) Mohammed was illiterate and did not write the Koran. It was recited for years before it was actually penned down. As for the conquest of Constantinople, I don't know too much about the prediction but it seems that the Muslims had a reason to make sure this "prophecy" was fulfilled. See jab1's last post above.

The reason I believe the Bible's prophecies over the other prophecies made throughout history is because the Bible's prophecies were fulfilled in all details. The prophecies were not vague and generic as people have been claiming here. Many prophets wrote in detail about events that happened over thousands of years in the natural course of history.

A nice quote by Thomas Urquhart:
"[The prophecies] contain what I may call prophetic pictures. They do not merely indicate one feature among the many after-characteristics of peoples and of countries: they describe one feature after another till their condition is fully portrayed. With the fulfillment of one, or perhaps two, of these it might be imagined that chance had had to do, but, as one after another is added, the suspicion becomes more and more unreasonable, till, before the accumulating evidence, it is swept away completely and forever."

[MEBuckner]

Link was interesting but most of the interpretations given were pretty loose.
Like, maybe, interpreting a statement like "This city will be completely and finally destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar" to mean "This city will be sacked, but never completely and finally destroyed, by various people other than Nebuchadnezzar (who himself will never in fact take the city) centuries after Nebuchadnezzar dies"?

[Kaje]

Originally posted by Mambo
2) Mohammed was illiterate and did not write the Koran. It was recited for years before it was actually penned down.

From what I've read (http://www.islamzine.com/quran/quranh.html for instance), the Qur'an was written as it came to Muhammed. Not by him, but said by him to scribes who wrote it down and then those scribes recited back to Muhammed what they wrote so at to ensure absolute accuracy.

[Mambo]

Originally posted by MEBuckner
Link was interesting but most of the interpretations given were pretty loose.
Like, maybe, interpreting a statement like "This city will be completely and finally destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar" to mean "This city will be sacked, but never completely and finally destroyed, by various people other than Nebuchadnezzar (who himself will never in fact take the city) centuries after Nebuchadnezzar dies"?

You keep ignoring the fact that the Bible says clearly "many nations" will be involved in the destruction of Tyre. The statement, as you said it, is not in the Bible. There were several parts to this prophecy. Nebuchednezzar fulfilled, in whole, his part. He broke through the gates and destroyed the mainland city. He used battering rams, as predicted. He broke down the towers. Alexander threw the remnants of the mainland city in to the sea to reach the island city. He conquered the island city. The muslims destroyed all of Tyre. It is now a place for the spreading of nets. Nothing has been built in its place (the modern village is not on the same location) and the ruins of the city are in the sea somewhere. You do not want to accept prophecies so you are trying to twist what they said. You're insisting that the prophecy said Nebuchednezzar would be the only one involved although anyone so inclined can read Ezekiel 26:3: "Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and will cause many nations to come up against you, as the sea causes its waves to come up." The prophecy is clear no matter how much you wish to puddle it.

[red_dragon60]

Originally posted by quixotic78

Well, maybe some of you wacky Mahayanan Buddhists do. I'll be spokesman for the Theravadans and say, "Bodhiwhatsva?"

Quix


Wow, got it right on the head! Mahayana here!

[MEBuckner]

You keep ignoring the fact that the Bible says clearly "many nations" will be involved in the destruction of Tyre.
Nebuchadnezzar (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=56518&tocid=0) was an emperor, a "king of kings" (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=EZEK+26:7&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on). His armies even included mercenaries from Greece. Jeremiah (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=JER+28:14&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=off&showxref=on) speaks of "all these nations...[which] serve Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon". The prediction in Ezekiel 26 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=EZEK+26&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on) is simply that Nebuchadnezzar, with his imperial army (including contingents from many subject and vassal nations) will completely destroy Tyre. Not only did Nebuchadnezzar fail to fulfill this "prophecy", no one else has fulfilled the prophecy either. The "prophecy" says Tyre "will never be rebuilt", yet Tyre has been rebuilt many times, and in fact it's still there today. The "prophecy" says that Tyre "will never again be found," yet archaeologists have excavated artifacts from just about every period in Tyrian history. Other cities have in fact been destroyed or declined so completely that we can't even find their ruins-- Tartessus (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=73186&tocid=0) or Agade (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=67469&tocid=6417) or the capital of the Mitanni Empire (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=78211&tocid=0)--but not Tyre.

[Mambo]

MEBuckner

I didn't know mercenaries count as a whole nation. Look at the second part of Ezekiel 26:3, "as the sea causes its waves to come up." Here's a quote from John C. Beck: "Because a characteristic of waves is that they come in succession with their destructive force due to their repetition and continuous pounding, this author understands Ezekiel to be reffering to a succession of invaders extending over a prolonged period of time."

Tyre kept being rebuilt and destroyed between the time Nebuchednezzar made the first blow until the Muslim's made the final one in 1291 A.D.


Other cities have in fact been destroyed or declined so completely that we can't even find their ruins-- Tartessus or Agade or the capital of the Mitanni Empire--but not Tyre.


I would suggest you look over your link again:


He completely destroyed the mainland portion of the town and used its rubble to build an immense causeway (some 2,600 feet [800 metres] long and 600–900 feet [180–270 metres] wide) to gain access to the island section.


The site of ancient Tyre is known. The ruins are gone. They are in the sea. The prophecy said the city would be "no more" but the site would be used for "spreading nets." This is exactly what happened.

[Kimstu]

Mambo, I think you're getting a little over-focused on undecidable details of interpretation, while neglecting what I took to be MEB's main point, to wit:

The statement "[INSERT NAME OF MAJOR ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN CITY HERE] will fall and be sacked" is about one step up, in terms of prophetic vagueness, from "There will be conflict in the Middle East". Every city in the A.N.E. has been overrun, sacked, pillaged, suffered periods of decline, etc. The fact that Tyre was a major city made it all the more likely that it would someday be sacked--which it has been, several times in its history.

The fact remains that Tyre did not fall in the time and manner which Ezekiel predicted--it fell, and was sacked, and was rebuilt, centuries later. That Tyre would someday fall to someone, given the realities of Middle Eastern politics for about the last six or ten thousand years, approaches certainty.

In other words, the fact that the prophecy about the sacking of Tyre more or less came true is not an infallible sign of divine inspiration, unless you choose to believe that it is. After all, I've predicted some things that came true too, but I wouldn't consider myself divinely inspired on that account. Similarly, there are members of other religions who will be happy to explain to you why the accuracy of the prophecies in the Vedas, the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon, or various other holy books means that they're divinely inspired, but I doubt you'd be willing to believe them.

There is also, of course, the issue of how to explain the numerous Bible prophecies that didn't come true, as noted here (http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/some_reasons_why_humanists_reject_the_bible.htm):

Examples of other unfulfilled prophecies in the Old Testament include the following: the Jews will occupy the land from the Nile to the Euphrates (Genesis 15:18); they shall never lose their land and shall be disturbed no more (II Samuel 7:10); King David’s throne and kingdom shall be established forever (II Samuel 7:16); no uncircumcised person will ever enter Jerusalem (Isaiah 52:1); Damascus will be reduced to a heap of ruins (Isaiah 17:1) and the waters of Egypt will dry up (Isaiah 19:5-7).


In short: if your argument is that even a non-believer should demonstrate respect for the Bible (at least when talking to believers), because of its high historical and cultural significance, that's one thing. If you're trying to argue that we should show respect for the Bible because it's demonstrably miraculously accurate to an extent that cannot possibly be accounted for except by divine inspiration---sorry, but you haven't got a logical leg to stand on.

[jab1]

Back on Page One, you wrote the following. (I added the times and dates so they can be easily found again.)

Originally posted by Mambo on 07-12-01 @ 5:57 PM PDT
From the Bible:

"'I will make you a terror, and you shall be no more; though you are sought for, you will never be found again,' says the Lord God."
Ezekiel 26:21


This prophecy has been completely fulfilled. Ezekiel wrote it around 570 B.C. The destruction took three waves but it was done over history so God could be proven.

Originally posted by Mambo on 07-12-01 @ 8:17 PM PDT
The prophecy clearly says that "many nations" will be involved in the destruction of Tyre. Nebuchednezzar sieged the mainland city for 13 years. After breaking through the gates he found the city nearly empty. Most of the inhabitants had moved to an island 1/2 mile off shore. Nebuchednezzar destroyed the mainland city in 572 B.C. He was specifically named in the Bible to do this.

You are aware that when using BC Dates, you must count backwards right? So you have claimed that Ezekiel "predicted" that King Nebuchednezzar would destroy Tyre two years AFTER it was done!

Yeah, that's quite a prophecy, all righty. :rolleyes:

It's also no great work of prophecy to say that a city will be destroyed repeatedly when it lies on a natural invasion route. It's hardly any surprise at all that it should have been repeatedly invaded, destroyed and re-built in the past 4,000 years. At best, Ezekiel got lucky.

[Mambo]

jab1,

The way I wrote it sounds bad. Ezekiel wrote his book between 592 B.C. and 570 B.C. I said 570 B.C. because it was the latest point he wrote any of the prophecies. Besides, Nebuchednezzar's role was only in the beginning of the fulfillment. 1291 A.D. is a long long time from the 6th century B.C.

kimstu

Most of the prophecies you listed are considered end-times prophecies. I do not claim they have been fulfilled. I am saying that most of the prophecies have come true. When they have all come true, then the end is nigh.

Here's another straightforward prophecy:

"Then say to them, 'Thus says the Lord God: "Surely I will take the children of Israel from among the nations, wherever they have gone, and will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land; and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king over them all; they shall no longer be two nations, nor shall they ever be divided into two kingdoms again."'"
(Ezekiel 37:21, 22)


Well, that one pretty much came true in 1948. And that's only one of the prophecies concerning the regathering of Israel. This prophecy was written 2500 years ago and it just came true. Israel had split into two nations in 926 B.C. and it wasn't until 1948 A.D. that they were able to stop wandering from nation to nation.

In Isaiah's prophecy (written by 704 B.C.) concerning the regathering, Isaiah wrote:

"Before she was in labor, she gave birth; before her pain came, she delivered a male child. Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things? Shall the earth be made to give birth in one day? Or shall a nation be born at once? For as soon as Zion was in labor, she gave birth to her children."
(Isaiah 66:7, 8)


This prophecy says that Israel would be reunited in one day. On May 14, 1948, lo and behold, the State of Israel came to be in one day. Foreign control ended, Israel declared independence, and Israel was recognized by other countries all in one day. Isaiah said that the birth would take place before the labor pains. Only a few hours after Israel became a united nation again, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia attacked the new nation. Isaiah's writing indicated that the world would be perplexed by the events of the regathering. It would not be your run of the mill nation creation but one tha would get attention. Hmm.

[Kaje]

Originally posted by jab1
Back on Page One, you wrote the following. (I added the times and dates so they can be easily found again.)

Originally posted by Mambo on 07-12-01 @ 5:57 PM PDT
Ezekiel wrote it around 570 B.C.

Originally posted by Mambo on 07-12-01 @ 8:17 PM PDT
Nebuchednezzar destroyed the mainland city in 572 B.C.

So you have claimed that Ezekiel "predicted" that King Nebuchednezzar would destroy Tyre two years AFTER it was done!

Actually he said ABOUT 570 B.C. and as you know our determining of dates from back then is harrowing at best... nitpicking, while annoying, can be fine, but in this case I don't think it really has any bearing

[drm]

I had a long post all ready but it didn't apply all that much and was erased but may turn up as a new thread if I have the time to put it together later.

ANYHOW

It's pretty tough, if not impossible to respect a book itself, you can only respect the people, their beliefs, and that may include the book they believe.

(if that made no sense, you respect the book because you respect your friend...not because you agree with the book)

[Kaje]

With that whole regathering thing... If it is to regather all the children of Israel, then why are there still plenty of Jews living in other places around the world?

[jab1]

Good question, Kaje. I'd also like to point out that Ezekiel said the re-formed Israel would be ruled by a king. It doesn't say a thing about a Prime Minister.

Also, the Jews knew all about this "prophecy" and no doubt worked very hard trying to make it come true.

[Mambo]

Originally posted by Kaje
With that whole regathering thing... If it is to regather all the children of Israel, then why are there still plenty of Jews living in other places around the world?

Good point. What's important to realize about the Jews is that they have essentially been wandering the earth for the last few thousand years. They were persecuted almost everywhere they went and that's what kept the Diaspora going. In some countries they succeeded. But what is important is that they made it into every nation on earth. This small semitic group, who also are members of the worlds oldest religion and are probably the most persecuted group in history, had a presence in every country in the world.

The regathering into the Holy Land brought Jews from every country in the world. Not every Jew but Jews from every country. The floodgates opened in the WWI/WWII era and the Jews are still continuing to return to the Promised Land. All countries took notice of this prophetic fulfillment.

[Mambo]

Originally posted by jab1
Good question, Kaje. I'd also like to point out that Ezekiel said the re-formed Israel would be ruled by a king. It doesn't say a thing about a Prime Minister.

Also, the Jews knew all about this "prophecy" and no doubt worked very hard trying to make it come true.

I am not an expert on Biblical language but I think the significance is that Israel would have one ruler.

Also, I don't think the Jews were much concerned with the prophecies at the time. They seemed too concerned with the Holocaust and were determined to end the wide-spread persecution against them.

[kniz]

Originally posted by Kaje
With that whole regathering thing... If it is to regather all the children of Israel, then why are there still plenty of Jews living in other places around the world?

Fact is that the USA has a larger Jewish population than any country in history, including Israel. Despite regretable anti-semitism we still are more accepting to their rights than any other country has ever been, with the possible exclusion of Israel.

[Flymaster]

Originally posted by Mambo

Also, I don't think the Jews were much concerned with the prophecies at the time. They seemed too concerned with the Holocaust and were determined to end the wide-spread persecution against them.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Old Testament played very little role in the creation of a Jewish state in the same spot as the traditional Holy Land. In fact, I bet they didn't even consider it, and it's there because of a huge coincidence.

[ssj_man2k]

I'm sorry if what i said may seem ignorant, but it's hard for me to beleive a religion is not hypocritical when everyone who follows it is a hypocrite. Christians may denounce the crusades now (im just assuming most do because the crusade were a horrible thing), but it doesn't change what happened back then.

[MEBuckner]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Old Testament played very little role in the creation of a Jewish state in the same spot as the traditional Holy Land. In fact, I bet they didn't even consider it, and it's there because of a huge coincidence.
Well, the Zionist movement did consider establishing a Jewish Homeland in Uganda (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Zionism/Uganda.html) (not to mention Galveston, Texas), but then they decided that the climate was nicer in Palestine, plus they figured there might be cultural clashes with all those cowboy-boot-wearing Texans, whereas in the Middle East there were only Arabs, and since Jews and Arabs are all brother Semites, everyone was expected to get along just famously....

[Dragonfly]

Originally [Quote]according to HubZilla

Advice on how severely to beat a slave; it's okay if they recover in two days (Exodus 21:20-21)

[QUOTE] [I] according to Knitz
20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished,
21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[5] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.
23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life,
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
The above shows the context in which the statement was made about beating the slave and that it was not just about the beating. Psalm 137

Is this version supposed to make it somehow less offensive? I do not respect the beliefs the Bible fosters or the wars it has caused.
As long as your beliefs do not cause harm to anyone else and it helps you get through life you should be able to believe whatever you like.

Quoted from above This sounds harsh at present, but back then slaves could be beaten to death without punishment.

Not only that but God gives you specific instructions?
You should not need a bible to be your guide to what is right or wrong. You should already know instinctively. If what you are doing causes pain or grief for someone else it is probably wrong.
I believe the original question was why should I respect the Bible?
You can respect the person without respecting the book.

[Kaje]

odd that a biblical psalm would speak out against its followers =P

[kniz]

originally posted by Dragonfly
Is this version supposed to make it somehow less offensive?

It puts it into context of being a law, at the time. It is offensive to us today, but was progressive at the time. If you are looking for value in it, then it shows you that you should improve the conditions for those who are less fortunate than you.

This all rests on the belief that things have progressed in the last 2500 years. If you believe that we have not progressed or that we don't need to progress farther, then I guess it has nothing to say to you.


I do not respect the beliefs the Bible fosters or the wars it has caused.

You don't respect any of the ten commandments? You don't respect Jesus saying "Love thy enemy" or "Do unto others?"
You don't respect any of the Psalms?

Wars, wars, wars. Most of the crusades were economically inspired and religion was only the excuse used. If it hadn't been available then some other excuse would have been used. In Desert Storm we said we were fighting to free Kuwait. We were fighting to keep oil (economics).


As long as your beliefs do not cause harm to anyone else and it helps you get through life you should be able to believe whatever you like.

Tell me who said any different and I'll help you diss them.

Not only that but God gives you specific instructions?

I am not a literalist, so if the instructions don't seem to come from God, they probably didn't. Only you can make that determination.

You should not need a bible to be your guide to what is right or wrong. You should already know instinctively.

Man is naturally good, all he has to do is follow his instincts. I personally do not believe in original sin, but naturally good is swinging the pendulum all the way to the other side. I'm sorry but we have to have laws and ethics or else even you and I wouldn't be listening to that little voice.
If what you are doing causes pain or grief for someone else it is probably wrong.

"Probably wrong"? So I guess if I can find a way to justify what I do, there it will be O.K.
I believe the original question was why should I respect the Bible?
You can respect the person without respecting the book.

Are you saying that you can still respect me despite the fact that I respect the bible? If so, Gee Thanks.

[kniz]

Originally posted by Kaje
odd that a biblical psalm would speak out against its followers =P

Are you referring to Psalm 137? :confused:

[Duck Duck Goose]

Ducky lost, too. Psalm 137? Huh? :confused:

Psalm 137 (NIV)
1
By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion.
2
There on the poplars we hung our harps,
3
for there our captors asked us for songs, our tormentors demanded songs of joy; they said, "Sing us one of the songs of Zion!"
4
How can we sing the songs of the LORD while in a foreign land?
5
If I forget you, O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget [its skill].
6
May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth if I do not remember you, if I do not consider Jerusalem my highest joy.
7
Remember, O LORD, what the Edomites did on the day Jerusalem fell. "Tear it down," they cried, "tear it down to its foundations!"
8
O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us--
9
he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

[Duck Duck Goose]

[re-posted here so y'all don't have to go back to Page 1 to look at it]

But what does it all MEAN?? :eek:

:D

[tracer]

Duck Duck Goose wrote, re Psalm 137:

But what does it all MEAN?? :eek:
It means that, after Israel was conquered by the Babylonians in 587 or 586 B.C., the Babylonians treated the Israelites just as badly as the Israelites had previously treated their enemies. I.e. the Israelites were exiled from Israel/Palestine and taken into Babylon as slaves. And of course, the Israelites resented it and wished for all sorts of bad things to happen to the Babylonians in retribution.

[Dragonfly]

It seems that everything you get from the Bible is something you already have through common sense, empathy and man made laws.
Actually I AM a little leary of the first 4 commandments. Why would an all powerful one and only God be worried about these things?:
I. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
III. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.IV. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
I ask this because I am truly curious not to try to make you defensive or disrespect you personally.
And how can He be an all-loving God one moment and teaching this the next::I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.::
I thought jealousy was a sin? At least that is what I always thought was meant by coveting.
Yes, I take it literally because I know of no other way to form an opinion. If God did not want us to understand he would not have given us intelligence or curiosity or the ability to reason and solve problems. It is not wrong to question things that I do not understand and my questions certainly have nothing to do with you they have to do with the Bible.
I was hoping for someone to tell me their ideas on the subjects not take a defensive stance. I am only stating some of the things I have been unable to come to terms with that are written in the Bible and therefore keeps me from respecting it. To me it is a book and that is all. I would not go into your home and throw it on the floor. That would be disrespecting you.
It is not natural because of my opinions, however, for me to treat it as any other book written by men that lived thousands of years ago. The same way I would treat books on Greek mythology.

[Dragonfly]

Regarding the post from Kniz:

I DID NOT SAY::
Man is naturally good, all he has to do is follow his instincts.
YOU SAID:
I personally do not believe in original sin, but naturally good is swinging the pendulum all the way to the other side.
MY RESPONSE:
I agree that man is not naturally good. Only that he has instincts or empathy that would help a reasonable person understand right from wrong.
I SAID:
IF what you are doing causes pain or grief to someone else it is probably wrong.
YOU SAID:
"Probably wrong"? So I guess if I can find a way to justify what I do there it will be O.K.?
MY RESPONSE:
Yes, it is ok to cause grief to, say, a criminal as punishment or to protect yourself from enemies. This was another common sense thing. The word PROBABLY was included to point out there are exceptions not to give yourself excuses for being evil.. Had I not put it there you would be arguing that I don't think it is EVER right to cause grief to ANYONE no matter what the circumstance.
I SAID:
You can respect the person without respecting the book.
YOU SAID:
Are you saying that you can still respect me despite the fact that I respect the bible? If so, Gee Thanks.
MY RESPONSE:
That is exactly what I am saying. And you are welcome.

[Mambo]

Originally posted by ssj_man2k
I'm sorry if what i said may seem ignorant, but it's hard for me to beleive a religion is not hypocritical when everyone who follows it is a hypocrite. Christians may denounce the crusades now (im just assuming most do because the crusade were a horrible thing), but it doesn't change what happened back then.

The simplest way to say it is that many apparent followers of Christianity have been hypocritical. It is not fair to make generalizations about any group especially one as diverse as the Christians. I've met many Christians who lead very good, simple lives. They are some of the people I trust the most. They all insist that in the Bible they find the source that defines their lifestyle. I don't believe all Christians have that kind of success with the Bible because the Bible is not a daily presence in all their lives. Those who are true adherents are the ones who best represent the Bible not those who contradict the Bible regularly.

[Kaje]

Originally posted by Mambo
The simplest way to say it is that many apparent followers of Christianity have been hypocritical. It is not fair to make generalizations about any group especially one as diverse as the Christians

first off I would say that the basis of Christianity is hyprocritical from the get-go.. The simple fact taht a Christian says "I'm going to heaven and you are not" or "My beliefs are right and yours are wrong" while on the other hand saying "you're just blind" to somebody who says the same to them is hypocritical... and many Christians may not say this in so many words... but that doesn' change it.. As people have said, a religion HAS to say these things by its very nature, which is precisely why it's all so vindictive/hypocritical.

Originally posted by Dragonfly
I agree that man is not naturally good. Only that he has instincts or empathy that would help a reasonable person understand right from wrong.

Saying "all humans inherently know right from wrong" is just as dumb as saying "all humans inherently know there is a God"... Babies don't share, and many "primitive" tribes kill and rape. Our sense of right and wrong is built up over time by listening to society and occassionally our own survival instincts (ie: "i shouldn't kill cause then I might be killed")

[tracer]

Mambo wrote:

Those who are true adherents are the ones who best represent the Bible not those who contradict the Bible regularly.
Eek! It's the "No True Scotsman" argument! Head for the hills!!

[cmkeller]

Dragonfly:

It seems that everything you get from the Bible is something you already have through common sense, empathy and man made laws.
Actually I AM a little leary of the first 4 commandments. Why would an all powerful one and only God be worried about these things?:
I. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
III. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.IV. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
I ask this because I am truly curious not to try to make you defensive or disrespect you personally.

What do you mean by "worried"? There's no implication in these commandments that G-d thinks that disobeying these commandments is a threat to him. The point is that obeying these commandments would be good for the people.


And how can He be an all-loving God one moment and teaching this the next::I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.::

Ever hear of "tough love"?

I thought jealousy was a sin? At least that is what I always thought was meant by coveting.

"Jealousy" and "covetousness" are not exactly the same thing. In the original Hebrew as well, the words used are different. While this is an oversimplification, I will in the most simple sense address the question by saying that "jealousy" (in the Biblical sense; please do not respond to this by pulling definitions from a modern dictionary) is about zealously guarding what is yours, and "covetousness" is about desiring that which belongs to others.

Chaim Mattis Keller

[Mambo]

Originally posted by Kaje
Originally posted by Mambo
The simplest way to say it is that many apparent followers of Christianity have been hypocritical. It is not fair to make generalizations about any group especially one as diverse as the Christians

first off I would say that the basis of Christianity is hyprocritical from the get-go.. The simple fact taht a Christian says "I'm going to heaven and you are not" or "My beliefs are right and yours are wrong" while on the other hand saying "you're just blind" to somebody who says the same to them is hypocritical... and many Christians may not say this in so many words... but that doesn' change it.. As people have said, a religion HAS to say these things by its very nature, which is precisely why it's all so vindictive/hypocritical.


The first sentence is where I'm having a problem. Because a religion belief system requires that it be viewed as the only true path does not mean it is vindictive or hypocritical. Christian's believe they are saved because they believe in Jesus, not because they are better than others. The Christian claim isn't that we're living up to the standards set by the Bible, it is that we are actively trying to live by the Bible. Nothing wrong with that.

I could just as easily say that all atheists are hypocrites because, although they claim to avoid generalizations, they assume that all believers in religion are illogical and irrational. Is that a fair statement?

Until you've met every Christian, don't make a statement concerning all of them.

[Gaudere]

I could just as easily say that all atheists are hypocrites because, although they claim to avoid generalizations, they assume that all believers in religion are illogical and irrational. Is that a fair statement?Well, if all atheists did claim to avoid generalizations, and then generalized, they would be hypocritical, yes. However, I was not aware that "avoiding generalizations" was an essential tenet of atheism. I better go reread the Big Golden Book of Atheism.

I agree with you that Christianity (or any religion) is not inevitably hypocritical, though. It might be wise to entertain the possibility that your beliefs may be incorrect, but a failure to do so is not neccesarily evidence of hypocrisy. It would be hypocritical if the followers of one religion demanded that other people listen open-mindedly to their religion while refusing to do the same for others, which might be what Kaje is getting at. However, that's not endemic behavior to all theists, so I don't think s/he can say that it's inherent in theism.

[Edited by Gaudere on 07-16-2001 at 02:19 PM]

[kniz]

Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
Ducky lost, too. Psalm 137? Huh? :confused:

Alright I will do my best.

The time is about 500 years B.C.
The place is Babylon, a city on the Euphates, 55 miles south of present day Baghdad.
The Jews have been taken there in exile and to them they might as well be on the moon.
Actually they are not truly slaves for they are allowed to form their own communities, start schools, practice their religion and basically everything is lovely.
So what is the problem? They really can't practice their religion because God is back in Jerusalem and that is where they must make their sacrifices to him. This has a dramatic effect on the Jewish religion, because it makes them expand their ideas about God. It also made them think about the fact that theirs was an oral tradition and it needed to be written down, so that was what they did while in Babylon (or at least started the process).

I am not doing a good job of relating how they hated the exile, but being there knowing that the Temple had been destroyed (the one that Solomon built} is one of the main topics of the bible. That is the background of Psalm 137.

Psalm 137 (NIV)
1 By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion.

I don't know what the other river was but one was Euphates.
Zion refers to Jerusalem and also to a place like Utopia (which is how they remembered their homeland).
2 There on the poplars we hung our harps,
3 for there our captors asked us for songs, our tormentors demanded songs of joy; they said, "Sing us one of the songs of Zion!"

They have hung up their harps (and probably other musical instruments), because they don't feel like singing or playing the songs. This might be because it will remind them more of Zion or maybe because the locals are really making fun of them and their songs. Maybe both, but whatever they don't want to play songs and be happy.

4 How can we sing the songs of the LORD while in a foreign land?

God isn't here and so can't hear the songs.

5 If I forget you, O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget [its skill].

To me when it says "forget" it is saying "betray" and it isn't just Jerusalem but also God because that is where He is at. But anyway The writer is saying I might as well not have the ability to play songs without Jerusalem.

6 May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth if I do not remember you, if I do not consider Jerusalem my highest joy.

Enforcing the thought

7 Remember, O LORD, what the Edomites did on the day Jerusalem fell. "Tear it down," they cried, "tear it down to its foundations!"

This verse refers to a neighboring country of Israel, which the Jews consider enemies. I don't know but possibly the Edomites were the ones that actually tore down the Temple. This verse is most likely venting their anger and letting the Edomites know that when they return, all has not been forgotten.

8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us--

Back to the captors. They have done such a terrible thing that they must be destroyed. Whoever destroys them will be happy to be punishing such wicked people.


9 he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

I don't know if their children were dashed against the rocks while they were being taken into exile. If that happened then this explains the verse. I personally think it probably the worst thing they could think of and it is used to show just how much they hated their captors for taking them away from Jerusalem. It sure would have gotten the captors attention, since it is still getting attention.

Another thought about this Psalm. Psalms were songs and what if they were asked to sing a song and instead of singing one of their oldies but goodies, They made up this song?

The Jews were in Babylon for maybe 70 years and then Persia defeated Babylon. Thru connections the Jews were allowed to return to Jerusalem (Book of Esther). Surprisingly not all of them left Babylon, which became a place of learning and also the beginning of the Diaspora.

[Kaje]

first off might i begin by saying i am male... perhaps i should change my name to PenisKaje or KajeThug to avoid the ambiguity... but i digress

what i meant to say, which could be distorted by the oh-so-subtle vitriol... is that in order for a Christian to appeal to an "outsider", they must convince them to consider the fact that their beliefs may be wrong, but when you ask them to make the same concession, (ie: maybe jesus WAS just a prophet?).. the response is resoundingly negative... Now as I said, in a way this is essential for religions, though hinduism among others has no trouble respecting other religions (and in my book truly respecting means accepting the possibility that maybe you don't have the only/complete picture)... furthermore, many atheists make the same mistake...

we call our scientific understandings theories because it gives them room to change as we gather more information. I think we should treat theology no different... as Chris Rock said in Dogma, people get killed over beliefs, its better to have ideas.

[Dragonfly]

CMKELLER

Thank you for the patient response to my post.
However, I never said I was worried about anything. Did you mean when I said leery? All it meant was I was suspicious of it. I wonder what all the fuss is about. And how does it make things better (for people, not God) to follow those first four commandments?

[kniz]

Originally posted by Kaje
first off might i begin by saying i am male... perhaps i should change my name to PenisKaje or KajeThug to avoid the ambiguity... but i digress[QUOTE]

Glad to hear that, so am I. What has that got to do with this thread?

[Quote]what i meant to say, which could be distorted by the oh-so-subtle vitriol... is that in order for a Christian to appeal to an "outsider", they must convince them to consider the fact that their beliefs may be wrong, but when you ask them to make the same concession, (ie: maybe jesus WAS just a prophet?).. the response is resoundingly negative...

Wrong this time, Jack. I too think he was a great prophet and not part of a trinity.


Now as I said, in a way this is essential for religions, though hinduism among others has no trouble respecting other religions (and in my book truly respecting means accepting the possibility that maybe you don't have the only/complete picture)... furthermore, many atheists make the same mistake...

This is true, but I think you should have enough respect for them as to capitalize Hinduism. I have had Atheists assure me that it is only a minority of them that tries to convert believers into non-believers.

we call our scientific understandings theories because it gives them room to change as we gather more information. I think we should treat theology no different... as Chris Rock said in Dogma, people get killed over beliefs, its better to have ideas.

Seriously, are you really a scientist?
Yeah, Chris has got a lot of good ideas and would be thrilled to know he is being cited as a religious authority.

[Kaje]

i posted the sex reference because i was referred to as "s/he" so i thought i would eliminate need for that in the future...

you may be in a small minority of christians who don't get into the trinity bit... but my point was (and perhaps you are an enlightened rarity) that the Christians I've known, which have been quite plentiful, while being open-minded about many things, eventually come to a point where they refuse to admit that there could be any other possibility... Whether this is the divinity of the Bible, the divinity of Jesus, the accuracy of events, or whatever, there is somewhere an assertion made for which there can be no alternative

capitalization? it's petty nonsense.. I don't need a shift key to show respect for one thing or another

with atheists my statement wasn't that many made the mistake of trying to convert... but that many refuse to believe the minute possibility that who they'r arguing with COULD somehow be right

You don't need a PhD. to understand that the word "theory" refers to something which is NOT 100% certain or explained

Why can't Chris Rock's words (which in this case would actually be Kevin Smith's words) be quoted? Satchell Paige has quite a few aphorisms under his belt. whoever's words they are they may or may not make sense, and it just so happens in this case that the lines from a particular movie were suitable... should they be questioned? of course, as quotes from any philosopher or theologian should, that doesn't make it automatically wrong or unworthy of inspection

[kniz]

Originally posted by Kaje
you may be in a small minority of christians who don't get into the trinity bit... but my point was (and perhaps you are an enlightened rarity) that the Christians I've known, which have been quite plentiful, while being open-minded about many things, eventually come to a point where they refuse to admit that there could be any other possibility... Whether this is the divinity of the Bible, the divinity of Jesus, the accuracy of events, or whatever, there is somewhere an assertion made for which there can be no alternative

By divinity of the bible, I assume that you mean that it is divinely inspired. I do not believe this. Actually if God wrote it then all parts of the bible should be equally written. It should all be intelligent, beautiful and with no flaws. This is not true of the bible. John Wesley wrote a book that contained approximately half of the Psalms and said that the rest did not deserve to be included in his book or the bible. The Book of Lamentations is not only boring, but also at times pretty disgusting. A woman in my bible study group said that she thought every word in the bible was true. I asked her what she thought of the part where Paul says a woman has no place in the church. She blushed and said she just skips over those parts that she doesn't believe to be worthwhile.

We may all have a point where we draw the line, but so does everyone else. You seem to say you don't which would be very unlikely.

capitalization? it's petty nonsense.. I don't need a shift key to show respect for one thing or another

us coud awl said it be petty nonsense 2 speel currectli oar too usen goud Anglesh, butt me thincs iten be beter four usen two awl does r bestest.

with atheists my statement wasn't that many made the mistake of trying to convert... but that many refuse to believe the minute possibility that who they'r arguing with COULD somehow be right

And like you to assume that all Christians are fundies

You don't need a PhD. to understand that the word "theory" refers to something which is NOT 100% certain or explained[Quote]

Granted

[Quote]Why can't Chris Rock's words (which in this case would actually be Kevin Smith's words) be quoted? Satchell Paige has quite a few aphorisms under his belt. whoever's words they are they may or may not make sense, and it just so happens in this case that the lines from a particular movie were suitable... should they be questioned? of course, as quotes from any philosopher or theologian should, that doesn't make it automatically wrong or unworthy of inspection

Again granted, but I still think Mr. Rock would get a kick out of it.

[cmkeller]

Dragonfly:

misquoted again
CMKELLER

Thank you for the patient response to my post.
However, I never said I was worried about anything.

Nope, it's I who you misquoted. I never said you were worried. Please re-read: on 7/15/2001 5:44 PM (EDT) you wrote -

Why would an all powerful one and only God be worried about these things?:

To which I responded, on 7/16/2001 2:07 PM (EDT) -

What do you mean by "worried"? There's no implication in these commandments that G-d thinks that disobeying these commandments is a threat to him.
[/QUOTE]

You stated that the first four commandments imply some form of worry on the part of G-d. I responded that that's not true.

And how does it make things better (for people, not God) to follow those first four commandments?

Well, clearly, if G-d exists (and the whole story of the Ten Commandments is predicated on his declaration of them on Mount Sinai). Therefore, it is beneficial for people to understand who is in control of the world and to direct their efforts toward following his commandments and not waste their time and energy (and good will in his eyes) by worshipping other entities, real or imagined. It is additionally beneficial to not trivialize that being by invoking his name falsely or in vain. And it is beneficial for people to be forced to spend some time divorced from the "rat race" so that they maintain their proper perspective on what the purpose of their worldly life is rather than to see it as an end on and of itself.

Chaim Mattis Keller

[jab1]

So what is the purpose of our worldly lives? (I don't think even Cecil would touch that one.)

[kniz]

Joesph Campbell said it was "A Joyful Participation in the Sorrows of the World".

A search on Google shows that others have made their own use of this phrase.

[cmkeller]

jab1:

So what is the purpose of our worldly lives?

Why, eradicating ignorance, of course!

No, wait a minute...that was the purpose of something, but I can't quite put my finger on just what...

Seriously, according to Orthodox Judaism, the purpose of life is to increase the understanding and appreciation of G-d in this world, through performance of the Biblical commandments, including ethical behavior. You can see, no doubt, how it could be easy to lose that perspective if one spends his time, 24-7, concerning himself with the mundane issues of amassing worldly wealth...that ends up becoming and end in and of itself rather than the means to the aforementioned purpose. Being forced to sit it out for a day helps to avoid this.

(I don't think even Cecil would touch that one.)

Well, he might not answer it, but he's at least willing to let the question see print...http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_363.html. :D

Chaim Mattis Keller

[rjung]

Originally posted by jab1
So what is the purpose of our worldly lives?

For some reason, this reminds me of the following...

God: "I even told them, 'Thou Shalt Really Try to Get Along with One Another."
Dean: "Did it work?"
God: "I can't say for sure. Everyone was slaughtered by the followers of the god in the next valley who told them to kill everyone who didn't believe in him."
--Terry Pratchett, The Last Continent