I’m sure it is. And there are several magazines devoted to molecular endocrinology, but you’d hardly be happy with me if I posted unsupported “common knowledge” about molecualar endocrinology, would you?
Again, I’m sure it has. But the keywords “flood” and “Mesopotamia” give a heckuva lot of hits in any of those journals.
Do not presume you know what I have or have not read. My immediate response is completely inappropriate to this forum, so I’ll assume for the moment that you were not really trying to be offensive.
Yes, I read the verses you cited. None of them offer any background on Hebrew or early Christian demonology, as I requested. And they sure don’t offer empirical evidence of Noah’s flood or “Eve,” as I also requested.
In fact, I read those verses you mentioned in four (count 'em, 4) different translations (KJV, NIV, RSV, and Young’s). And I have in fact read the entire book, cover to cover, in two different translations (NIV and RSV). I was living with my brother while he earned his M.Div. from Duke University, and have spent many a long night discussing theology with him. I don’t presume to be a Bible scholar or a theologian. But I am far from an enemy of yours or of Christianity, and I’d appreciate it if you’d take the chip off your shoulder.
Let us pretend you own a dog. It is, perhaps, a very nice dog and you are quite fond of it.
Mr Demon breaks into your house and takes possession of your dog. This, understandably, makes you sad.
I come by and tell Mr D to go back where he came from because he’s not wanted here. I have the power to make him do whatever I command.
Mr D says, “okay, but please let me kill the dog first.”
I say, “sure”.
What is your opinion of my ethical decision?
So this is not the position of many Christians. Many Christians hold to the belief that Jesus was Divine and infallible. That Jesus was necessarily without sin. That Jesus took no action and made no statement that was not informed by Divine wisdom and Divine perfection.
If you truly beliee Jesus was human and fallible, then why are you bothered by people pointing out his human weaknesses? Why not react with, “Of course, he was only human, but don’t forget all of the great things he did, too.”
Andros, you continuous scepticism of nonfactual, uncited, or debatable material is notable. It intrests me whether you approach Bible with the same doubts, of if you aspire to have faith in it wholly.
Romans 5: “Since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand.”
I asked Daniel to back up his statements. I made a point of NOT disputing what he said. I don’t think he’s a liar, and if you or he inferred otherwise, I apologize. Additionally, if you or Daniel feel I was attacking anyone, please accept my humble apologies–that was never my intent.
Personally, I cannot find any evidence that I have posted “continuous skepticism” in this thread, but I suppose I’m biased. ('Course, calling me skeptical around Phil, Spiritus, and Slythe is quite a compliment, and I take it as such.) I do confess to taking some small umbrage at Daniel’s last message, IMO justifiably.
And for what it’s worth, I have no desire or inclination to accept the Bible as the only Truth, or as inerrant, or as the sole Word of God. I approach the Bible, and Christianity, with the same doubts I approach everything I study.
Sorry, Andros, but I have to say this is a cheap shot.
Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, refers to a couple common practices, then redefines what our actions and motives should be. “You used to think an eye for an eye was the way to do things, but I’m telling you if someone slaps you, then turn the other cheek. If someone asks for your shirt, give him your coat, too.” Pretty radical stuff, and it encourages us to look beyond the self-centeredness that plagues our existence.
There is a big difference, however, in not seeking revenge for a slight and reacting in a severe manner to the profaning of a holy temple.
The moneychangers and those selling animals were allowed to do so in the courtyard of the temple, since many people would have traveled great distances to Jerusalem, and didn’t want to bring sacrificial animals along on the trip. They also came from other countries, and had to exchange their currency for the coin of the realm. Fine. In this instance, though, these people had turned the actual temple into some kind of flea market, moving their tables and wares into a place of worship. Not only was Jesus justified in overturning their tables and routing them, the priests and Levites should have done it long before, if the practice had been going on for any length of time.
There is nothing wrong with Jesus’s righteous anger and his severe reaction. Turning the other cheek doesn’t mean not seeking justice or failing to do what’s right. Nor does it mean tolerating sin, evil and the profaning of what is holy. As Jesus used it, it means keeping a cool head and not making a bad situation worse.
andros: I apologize for the tone in my post. I cited Chapter & verse which showed that Jesus did NOT call the Mother a “pig” or “swine”, and others which showed that the “sword” is a clear metaphor. Slythe chose to ignore those cites. I also showed that JC did not kill the pigs, nor did he “give permission” or in any way suggest the pigs be killed. Slythe also ignored this, AND so did you, apparently. So, since one tiny thing you did was slythe- like, I allowed my anger at Slythe to show in my post to you. And as far as your “dog” analogy goes, I believe most would say your anger was unreasonable if you had plans to kill & eat your dog yourself the next day.
All these incidents are either taken out of context, misquoted, or blown out of proportion. The only time where JC reacted out of anger, was when he 'scourged" the moneylenders out. Note that the verses do not say he WHIPPED them, ie actually struck them. He “drove them out” with a scourge of strings. This may mean he hit them, or it may mean he struck at them to scare them. Since the penalty for this blasphemy was death by stoning, I believe yelling at them & waving a whip around, altho it shows anger, also shows mercy.
Daniel:
The dog analogy was mine, not Andros’, and you seem determined to make light of the facts. Jesus confronted the demons with the intention of driving them from the pigs. If you believe the Gospels, Jesus had the power to do this with simply a word. The demons pleaded to be allowed to kill the pigs and leave on their own. Jesus let this happen, though he had the power to prevent it.
You keep saying, in effect, “they were only pigs”. True. But to a farmer they would have represented a significant investment in time, effort, foodstuff, etc. They would also represent a significant amount of wealth and/or resource for personal subsistance.
Do I think the Jesus portrayed in this account is evil? No. He did act to drive the demons away from people, which can certainly be seen as a good act. I also do not think the Jesus shown in this story is perfectly good, and I have never seen an adequate demonstration for the morality of His choice to allow the demons to slaughter the pigs. Most that I have seen, like your own, reduce to “they were only pigs”. Pardon me if I fail to see this as an example of moral perfection.
Spiritus: The demons did not ask to kill the pigs. Jesus did not tell them to kill the pigs. They asked to be put into the pigs, and then of their own accord (they ARE demons, you know), drowned themselves. I suppose you could argue JC could have saved the pigs, or that he knew they would drown themselves. But it does not say. I have read 2 intrepretations of this. One was as I said, and the other was that the demons were SO ashamed to be “unclean”, they drowned themselves. The first sounded better, to me. You could, I guess, think that JC was just saving the people from eating an unclean animal. Or maybe the demons did it out of spite. But i don’t know. There is no indication this was done out of cruelty or meanness. And I was not indicating one should be cruel to pigs as they are “just pigs”, but after all, they WERE going to be slaughtered & eaten. They don’t keep pigs for their milk or wool, you know. The verses in Mark & Luke make no mention of pigs. And, I guess you could say JC deprived the men of some $$ from the sale of the pigs, but he also drove the demons out of the swineherds, and I would say that they paid a fair price.
DAVEW0071: I suppose I should have phrased my “cheap shot” a little more accurately. How about
I’m sorry you felt it to be a cheap shot, but I in no way claimed that as my position. Ever.
melenhead, thank you very much for the link. As soon as I have a break I’ll get to it.
danielinthewolvesden . . . sigh. Once agian, I think we’re talkign cross-purposes. You say I ignored you when you explained that the Christ did not kill someone’s swine. However, not only did I not ignore you, I don’t care about the pigs, or the ownership thereof
Let me go back and rephrase my questions, and maybe we can clear up the communications difficulties we’re having.
Firstly, I’m wondering about the “devils” of Matthew 8:28-33, and what you call “Christian legend and ‘magic’.”
You said,
Obviously I don’t know Christian legend and magic. The idea of banishing demons versus killing them and destroying their souls is not a new idea, but is it Biblical?
Secondly, you also said,
You have already refused to elaborate here, so I guess there’s not much more to say. I will add that the Judeo-Christian flood story is not the only one (I always like the Gilgamesh story, myself), that the “right time” for Noah is subject to debate throughout the Christian community, and that there is no scientific basis for a claim that homonid evolution began with a single female.
andro: since melenhead & others cited for me, there is no real need for me to do so. Nor is that arguement central to this thread, it is almost not tangential. And I said “Christian legend & magic”, which means no,it is not Biblical. Christian religion has rich tradition, true not as much as the Jews, but it is still there. I am sure you have heard about the “3 Kings”, including their names, etc. None of that is Biblical.
I offered one theory as to why JC put the demons in the pigs, as oppossed to blasting them, and then I even gave you another, both of which I have read. Then I gave 2 other ideas I had came up with. But the fact still remains, JC did NOT kill the Pigs, and he did not suggest the should kill themselves. There appears to be NO justification to saying JC was responsible for their deaths, at all. And I quote you “he allowed the pigs to die”, which seems like you do care about them, at least to a small extent.
Yes, it IS slythe who mainly keeps on & on about the pigs.And I am sorry if I am tarring you with his brush, but I don’t seem to get what your point is. Since you keep calling me out about minor, non-important theories in my posts, I can only assume you disagree with me.
And I do have some info about the Flood. Archaeologist Leonard Wooley (1880-1960), one of the fathers of modern archaeology found extensive flooding had occured in the Tigris-Euphrates basis which “drowned the whole of the habitable valley…for the people who lived there it was indeed the whole world”. Later, this flood was found to likely be too recent for the time of Noah, but researchers found evidence of numerous extensive floods around the right time.
Of course, the Flood did not drown the entire world, only a fundie believes that. But it drowned THEIR whole known world, which is good enuf for me. I do not believe the Bible should be taken absolutely literally, after all, we know the earth is around 4.5 billion years old, not 6000. But every time a new site is dug, they find new info which validates the Bible as a historic work. So far, none of the HISTORIC facts in the Bible have been proven wrong. The miracles you can take on faith, or not, it is your choice ( I tend to be a doubter), but the Bible is still a great work which still can amaze us.
This is not true, of Catholic Christians at least. Catholics believe that Jesus was the son of God, but also a true human being, with all the faults, feelings, and thoughts that any human being has. I, personally, have never heard anyone say Jesus was on the hotline to God all the time, but its possible some other sect believes this. Regardless, Jesus the person may have been fallable, but his general message isn’t all that bad. I believe much of what is told about Jesus that isn’t an explicit event (entering Jerusalem, Crucifiction) is metaphorical or in parable form. Regardless, his message is pretty decent: love everyone, turn the other cheek, he who is without sin cast the first stone, and all that jazz. You don’t have to buy into all the Roman Catholic Church Organized Religion Inc. stuff to see that the message would be a good one if a three-legged dog conveyed it to the world.
and…the wrath in the temple was the result of anger he felt as a human that the moneychangers in the temple were screwing over pilgrims and stealing their money in a holy place.
Besides, who hasn’t killed someones swine to free a demon. Really…
Being a ‘fundie’ my background is in the Penecostal Free-Will Baptist church. Won’t that open up a new can of worms.
I agree that Jesus was the Son of God in human form. We believe that he was given human form, with all the trials and tribulations that we face as humans in order to give us an example to live by. Yes he did have to face the same things that we face every day. It is by his example that we shape our lives.
The pigs? It is true that the demons requested to be sent into the swine. It is true that demons knew Jesus by name. It is stated in the Bible that demons believed in Jesus, but that believing is not the same as having faith and following him.
This may be somewhat of a thread hijack, but our minister has been to Africa many times on missionary trips. It makes us realize when she returns with her reports, just how small a corner of the world our little church really occupies. These threads on religion make me realize just how differently people feel and think.
This is good. It makes me think. I would not ever try to force my beliefs on another, but outlook is sure interesting. I appreciate the opportunity to share thoughts.
