If Jesus Could Heal the Sick and Raise the Dead

Great Debates
201

As I said, I didn’t mean it isn’t a “living document” (a stupid term, IMO, but I guess a useful one in this context). What I meant is that what “living document” means is open to interpretation.

Perhaps I should have focused on the Bill of Rights, vs. the entire Constitution, which obviously does change. The point being that even those 10 amendments are interpreted very different ways by different people. Whoever is right and whoever is wrong about the interpretation, it doesn’t change the fundamental truths of those 10 amendments.

202

That’s cool, but it’s also as good a definition of ‘cherry-picking’ as I’ve seen.

With that reasoning,why encourage people to discuss their religious beliefs at all, much less in public life, or in public school, or anywhere other than in their own hearts where they’ll devise their own personal ethical standards? (I’m not asking you personally, because you’ve indicated that you’re agreeable to something like this.) If that’s the case, why have religious exemptions for churches, or for that matter why have churches at all, if everyone’s on his own to interpret by his own personal standards? Why brainwash your kids to believe what you believe?

203

Y’know what? I have grown tired of being the straw man/tilting dummy for this thread.

PRR, if you are not playing games, then: (1) Look up a good book on the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and find out the answers to the questions you asked. (2) Search for “living Constitution” in SDMB Great Debates, and see the arguments on styles of interpretation.

Valteron, what goes on in your life is between you and your partner and God. My job, as defined by Him, is to affirm you, to love you as a brother. Kanicbird is giving one school of evangelical theology here, and it’s one I don’t agree with. The most I can do, myself, is to witness by my own character and arguments on an Internet message board in favor of decent, equal treatment for you. And that is what I’m doing. If you feel that my holding my beliefs is somehow an insult to your personal character, that is, quite frankly, your problem and not mine. If my beliefs were in any way demeaning of you, then you might have a point. But as it stands, there are better targets for your ire.

204

So what part of the Bible is fundamentally true? Innocents have been slaughtered over thousands of years over interpretations of the Bible, yet you can’t agree on much of anything except Jesus is…uh, I don’t know. The son of his father? And the father is God, and God is good, and bip ba bip and doot de doo, and let’s kill some Moslems and couple of Jews and get some gays and call it a day. Figuring out what a text means, man, that’s some hard, hard work. Let’s give it another millenium, shall we?

205

See ya next time! I didnt say the Constitution doesn’t have many styles of interppreation, I just asserted that no one thinks of it as anything other than a living document, capable of being changed and interpreted, by design.

You won’t recommend a book? Or answer my questions? Well, thanks anyway.

206

It’s kind of amusing how you miss people’s points on purpose…you are quite the master at it, but unfortunately it makes it very difficult to have a reasonable discussion. So, I think I’m going the way of Polycarp on this one.

207

I sympathize. It’s very hard to have a discussion with people who don’t grant you your fundamental premises, and are infuriatingly polite besides. Deprives you of all that ‘hijacking’ and ‘thread-shitting’ and ‘rudeness’ and other excuses, I understand. But thanks for your attention, brief as it’s been.

208

Bold mine

The ‘rapture’ in not in Revelation. but in:

And hinted at other places:

but not in Revelation.

209

I am still laughing about the above quote by kanicbird and I thank him for contributing it, because it makes my argument for me.

Kanicbird’s slightly loony homicidal rant about when it is ok to murder homosexuals is derived from the same gospels and the same sayings of the same Jesus as Polycarp’s libreal Christianity! Come to think of it, Torquemada and the Inquisitors, the people who burned witches, Francisco Franco, General Augusto Pinochet and the Crusaders who massacred everyone they could find in Jerusalem were all animated by the same message of the same Jesus. So was Jean Calvin when he burned his theological opponents at the stake in Geneva. So are certain Christians who want the death penalty applied to gays today. So are the Catholics and Protestants who have killed each other in Northern Ireland over the years.

If Jesus had a clear message to deliver, I think he had a problem with his Communications department. Or why don’t you admit the simple fact that the Bible, Christianity and religion in general, are nothing but gobbledegook open to a thousand interpretataions that have been and continue to be used as a weapon, and a dangerous one, by religious believers throughout the world?

210

No, I do not call that “evidence” and you will note that nowhere in this or any similar discussion did I call it evidence. Switching topics in midstream does nothing to bolster your efforts to proselytize me, either.

You asserted that Polycarp’s (only) source was scripture. I noted that there are other sources besides scripture that indicate that the group that became Christianity held certain beliefs even before scripture was collected and canonized–and further noted that you are under no compulsion to believe them. You demanded to know what other sources there were and further asserted that they all relied upon scripture as their source. I pointed out that several of them could not have relied upon the (then non-existent) New Testament, indicating that the belief preceded the scripture, at which point you changed the topic to whether I have “evidence” for my or Polycarp’s belief.

The point regarding the issue of sources is that the belief is carried forward by the faith of the community of believers–including disagreements, misunderstandings, the limits of literary forms, and the filters of culture. Whenever you attempt to make an issue of cherry-picking or faulty scripture, I simply note that your arguments as presented are a strawman based on a requirement that I accept a perception of scripture that was first fully enunciated a little more than a hundred years ago. I am making no claim to be able to prove the historical accuracy of my beliefs or those of Polycarp. Feel free to dismiss such belief.
However, when you present the false claim that my beliefs originate in scripture as a way to claim that the belief must be false because the source is flawed, then I will point out that you are attacking a position held only by Fundamentalist Christians–a group of which neither Polycarp nor I are members.

I am making no effort to convert you (or Valteron) to any beliefs I hold, (while each of you appear to desire that I embrace your beliefs). I merely ask that when you attack my beliefs, you get your facts straight. There is plenty of material to challenge regarding Christianity or religion, in general, without making the errors of trying to attack all Christianity (or belief) based on a position held by only one or two smaller groups within Christianity.

Of course, not. And I have already noted in an earlier post that the idea that any mythology was ever created to explain the physical world was an invention of ignorant people outside the field of anthropology and repeating such silliness (even, as I presume you intended, facetiously), only indicates that a person is willing to rely on the “mythology” of nineteenth century freethinkers in much the same way that Bishop Ussher relied upon the mythology of Judaism to describe the history of the world.

Why? The whole point is that aside from a few Fundamentalist Christians and a few fundy atheists, no one believes that every aspect of Truth is prescribed explicitly in the scriptures and that if some thought or view cannot be found there, then it cannot be from God (or those who invented God).

211

So it is the direct word of god. It is so open to interpretation that anyone can make it mean anything depending on what their desires are.
When god said to kill his enemies (see Valetron for more info) he meant every word and blessed every action, “Kill 'em all and let ME sort them out! Yeehaw!”
God created a book that allowed people to use it as they liked and, by that action, blessed every atrocity done in his name.
And if it is like Polycarp said that it was written by men, then what parts are true, and which are not? Why would you ignore the ‘historical’ bad parts and pick out the Jesus ‘love’ parts? Again I ask, if it was written by man, why not remove the bad parts? It is not a historical document even though that is one excuse I’ve read earlier, so it should be easy to do so. No one says that you have to destroy the old version, just make a new one with the good messages. And when everyone agrees to that then those who spout off about Leviticus, etc, can be shouted down for the iron age throwbacks they are. Yet it doesn’t happen because, even though you may deny it, secretly I think you all agree with kanicbird more than you care to admit. Living document indeed!

212

I’m not sure how thats a definition of cherry picking. Care to elaborate.

For that matter, what’s the big deal with cherry picking anyway? Isn’t it another way of describing interpretation, which is necessary in reading a book like the Bible. If you’re presenting cherry picking as a negative I don’t see it.

Are these serious questions? Why do you suppose we discuss anything or have any community organizations? Why have parents passed on their concepts of life, and right and wrong, for generations?

Because for now, that’s how humans are.

213

Might as well write in braille hjen again wouldn’t understated it either.

Three separate being ns becoming one is so far beyond the scope of what we acknowledge to be common sense/knowledge, that the whole concept remains oterly absurd.

Which brings me back to my original point: you can’t rgur for/or against faith, as all logic/common sense nees to fly out the window first.

Believe what you will, matters little to me – just don’t even try to posit a real debate on the Topic. The IPU is more than willing and able to debunk any/all religious arguments with a hand tied behind his back.

Kid you not. Superstitions have never lasted for long. Or, to be more exact, they only last for as long as Occcam’s razor takes to shave them.

Doubt I’ve re-post in thread, it’s just that I find most believers, folks who haven’t really looked at the real world that surrounds and see little else the real, real world that BushCo and Fox builds for the on a daily basis. “In true form” little else than brainwashed dittoheads. See Shodan and SA for confirmation.

Eeasy to take the hold of a nation if that’s the majority of the “material” you have to pander to.

Here, read thsi and you might actually learn something:

Bush Is About to Attack Iran Why Can’t Americans See it?

Beats me as well.

Cheerio.

PS-Rah, rah USA!

Red:Edited because it because it had to be to be if it was to remain in some sort of English.

214

Except that neither of these verses are referring to the Bible as we know it. The fact is the Bible has been frequently amended by man and the very process that selected which writings would be canonized, and eliminated other writings which were considered sacred by many, and also prevented future writings form being given equal weight, is a man made amendment to the process of spiritual growth.

215

I thought that the moment he announced his “new” plan.

Thats a different thread.

216

Kainbird’s sentiments are pretty unfortunate, however, that doesn’t elevate yours to any level of accuracy.

Going on Jesus words in the NT I think the main thrust of his message is fairly clear. The fact that the majority didn’t really get it is par for the human course. We’re still in the process.While focusing on all the evil done by religion and the potential future evil you completely dismiss anything positive wrought by the teachings of JC.
Since science has enabled man to build bigger and better weapons and helped man poison the atmosphere, I guess all science must be bad, and dangerous. Seems to be similar to your logic about religion.

217

We had a cherry tree in our front yard when I was very young. Cherry-picking was natural even to a little kid in her father’s arms. You took only the pretty cherries and left the ones with spots and the ones that weren’t the right color or size. You used your good sense and learned quickly what was worthwhile.

The only bad connotation that cherry-picking has for me is when someone is trying to twist someone else’s words for propoganda purposes. They can choose only the good things she or he has said and done or only the bad things – depending on whether the propoganda is to have a positive or a negative impact. When the news media do this, the consequences can be disasterous on a society. But reading material and making careful judgments for yourself about what is reasonable and true makes sense to me. I do take into consideration input from many outside sources and have for as long as I can remember. I cherry-pick those too.

My responsibility is to learn to love those that I don’t. That is exactly what happened on another forum with one specific person and then so much of the rage and anger that I had felt in general for years began to dissolve. I was able finally to direct my anger toward the one person who deserved it and then set even most of that aside. My former enemy taught me an enormous amount about myself before becoming my friend.

I also choose not to quarrel over this. The questions have been asked and answered several times. That should do for a while.

218

You mean, like beginning with a quote I actually said? When you start off by attributing a quote to me that I never said, that’s getting off to a poor start for someone on his high horse about factual accuracy.

Cosmosdan, I have no problem with cherry-picking, either as a term or as a practice, but Xians get all pissed off when they’re informed of what they’re doing, reading the Bible selectively for tidbits that happpen to support their worldview while freely rejecting other parts that some Christians maintain are crucial to Xianity. If your story keeps changing, and if the Bible gets interpreted so variously as to be effectively meaningless, then youll have to forgive us for rejecting it outright as a source of history, as a source of religion, even as a source of meaningful parable. Its just a bunch of mixed-up attempts at propaganda, valuable only for insight into the workings of the screwed up minds of ancient people. If it ever had value (and I don’t deny that primitive religion played a role in civilizing us thousands of years ago), that day has long since passed. Guys like Polycarp and Tom who’ve read widely and seem to understand a good deal of what they’ve read, yet who cling to Xianity for spiritual support seem to me like grown men in suit and tie carrying their baby binkie into high-level meetings for comfort. They don’t seem to get that this clinging to primitive beliefs inclines others to view them as silly and childish. Evolve, guys. Grow up. Deal with the world as you understand it to be, not as you used to wish fervently it were.

Why do I care about what Polycarp and Tom believe? It’s not because I’m trying to convert them. I don’t suppose that will happen, and there are a lot of Xians out there (most of 'em) whose beliefs are far more noxious to me than their rather tame and rather modern versions of Xianity. But I suspect that the more crude Xians take a good deal of comfort pointing out how some smart, sophisticated, educated people buy into Xianity too, so I feel compelled to point out places where maybe they’re not quite so clever as they pretend to be.

For example, Tom, you seem to have spent a good deal of your life mastering arcane details about Xian culture that I’ve only dabbled in, so I won’t try to get into a cite war with you. It’s a silly game you play when you pile on the details and facts of ancient writers which supports my general point, and then dub me ignorant because I haven’t devoted my life to the arcana that you have. My point is a simple one: all of the documentation about Xianity dates from a century or so after his supposed life, though there were contemporary historians around when he was performing miracles, rabble-rousing in the streets of Jerusalem, and generally creating a sensation. Somehow none of these historians or histoical records even so much as mentions him, but you expect that texts written long after his death will support the story. Maybe, if you’re already committed to the story, but if you’re not, it’s highly unpersuasive.

My point about the dates of the writing is that they all derive from and depend on the NT texts (even if they hadn’t been collected or ordered or certified) so it makes no sense to present them as independent sources. They’re secondary sources, deriving straight out of the NT (as far as I can tell)–you cite me Saint Polycarp, who (as even our Saint Polycarp affirms) wrote exactly one work that survives and which is dependent on the NT for much of its content. So this ancient Xian writer, whom you cite as an example of a non-Biblical witness to Xian truth, is just citing that same Bible that you find only marginally relevant to your belief system. You’re using your scholarship in these ancient texts to intimidate people into obeying your authority, but you just don’t have that much authority when you abuse texts into saying things that they explicitly do not say, and proving things that they explicitly do not prove.

This “through a glass, darkly” stuff is finally a weak excuse for ignorance and obscurantism. You may believe as you choose, of course-- no one is stopping you, nor would I try. But I don’t see why you object to having your beliefs questioned on a messageboard.

219

Then you had your ipod on while He was speaking. Jesus’ message is very clear - we are all sinners, all unworthy. Don’t judge lest you be judged, thou without sin cast the first stone.

This does not mean we can’t disagree with a lifestyle choice.

It was from the Old Testament, the New Testament adds to that and teached what I said above,I and Polycarp are consistent in this.

Plus my above post about why the change in the reaction towards homosexuals is a WAG as to the theory behind it.

220

Can I use this for a sig line?

I mean, if Jesus had been a Yuppie, that’s how he would have phrased it: “Don’t disapprove of other’s lifestyles because to some dudes yours probably sucks , you know what I’m saying, but whatever.”