Citizen Erased Posted January 12, 2008 Posted January 12, 2008 That little whore was Anne Bolyn, the mother of Elizabeth I agree though. Nice to see you sticking up for the Catholics Boleyn Actually, I kind of feel sorry for her. But no wonder why Elizabeth was such a little bitch You should have seen the essay I wrote on the Tudors. My teacher loved it. I think we were the only two Catholics in the school
FleshNBones Posted January 12, 2008 Posted January 12, 2008 And there we have the one and only reason why religion (any religion) can be problematic.....BELIEF.... Beliefs can be dangerous things....at the very least they stifle debate and restrict the ability of the "believer" to entertain new IDEAS and thus alter there views and perspectives. Beliefs limit a persons growth and render them unable to grow beyond their beliefs.The belief that belief can be dangerous. Ladies and gentlemen, do we have a contradiction? Let's try to limit the contradictions to the Bible.
FleshNBones Posted January 12, 2008 Posted January 12, 2008 (edited) I studied the verses as part of my obsession with the Tudors. And you are completely right. Yes Moose, it did have an effect. In that the Church of England was established to give Henry VIII the divorce he wanted from his wife of almost 20 years. He married her because Deuteronomy gave him the right to, and divorced her because Leviticus gave him an excuse to leave her for some little whore. So yeah, I'd have to say that is a pretty large impact. Thousands of people died during the Tudor years because of this and I find it pretty funny you think it is quite so simple. It is ALL about context.No. Henry wanted a divorce because he really wanted a son. The divorce was about convenience. When he couldn't divorce, he would execute. Edited January 12, 2008 by FleshNBones
Lovelybird Posted January 12, 2008 Posted January 12, 2008 (edited) Beliefs can be dangerous things....at the very least they stifle debate and restrict the ability of the "believer" to entertain new IDEAS and thus alter there views and perspectives. Beliefs limit a persons growth and render them unable to grow beyond their beliefs. Belief isn't dangerous, but comformity is; belief in goodness and love isn't dangerous, but cowardice that afraid to do right, afraid to go against main stream is. Self discipline isn't destructive; but lack of self discipline is Freedom isn't about do whatever you want; the idea of individual has his own right to decide what is right and wrong is a delusion, because either their lawless act is punished by society, or their immoral behaviour cause damage to themselves and others, in fact, cause many bondage rather than freedom a person practice free sex, is a slave to sex, slave to sex organ; quantity may increase, but quality decrease; physical satisfaction may increase, but soul or heart satisfaction decrease (in the case of many sex partner) a person practice adultery, seemly free, but in fact he just created a hellish environment for himself a person freely do drugs, become a slave of drug a person freely watch porn, become porn addictor, a slave as well a person freely satisfy his low natures, he become a slave of low natures a person freely kill, will end up in jail In a word, moral law rules both outside world and the world inside of us. Science cannot save human race, but morality will. think about those future time movies, very advanced science than now, but only increase their ability for mass destruction if without morality back them up Real freedom can be achieved through faith in God and moral discipline. Faith give you courage to do right thing not afraid of what other people might think or say about you. Faith in God can bring you everlasting joy Edited January 12, 2008 by Lovelybird
swansong519 Posted January 12, 2008 Posted January 12, 2008 (edited) Where do you folks get the idea that you have any idea what is are "good" and what is "bad"? Do you honestly think you (or I) have the mental capacity to fully grasp the infinitely complex reasons for why things happen? Eg: If I call you on a Monday morning and say, "you to sleep in and I'll go to work for you", is that a "good" thing? What if you go for a bike ride later that day and get hit by a car and die...was it still a "good" thing? And if you die...is that a "bad" thing? What if, had you not died, you would have had a heart attack while driving and plowed thru a group of school kids...still a bad thing? Murder is considered a "bad" thing...but would it have been "bad" to murder Hitler? Drug addiction... If I am an addict and someone I care about, through witnessing my addiction decides to become a drug counsellor that goes on to help 100s of people get off or stay off drugs...was my addiction a "bad" thing? Who are we to presume to think that we know all the possible reasons for the occurrences in our lives? Terms like "good" and "bad", "right" or "wrong" are absolute terms borne out of our relative world...nothing more. And yes...unfortunately...I think beliefs cloud ones ability to objectively perceive the world around them because they lock you into a prescribed way of thinking that doesn't allow for growth or new ways of thinking. Finally...these ideas I've expressed have been arrived at over time. They have been adapted, altered, revised, changed and updated...and they will continue to be so as new ideas and information surface... The concept is perhaps best expressed in this quote by the late Carl Sagan... "In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion." Anyhoo...my apologies...my intention wasn't to hijack this thread...thanks for accommodating me... Edited January 12, 2008 by swansong519
FleshNBones Posted January 12, 2008 Posted January 12, 2008 I like science. I only have a problem when people pervert it for their own political gain. A person can't use science any more than a calculator to guide his life. "In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion."Omit the requirement for evidence and you are left with a perverted political animal. Stephen Hawking is shy about the politics behind closed doors. Now that we've heard all of that, may we return to the original topic by the original poster?
Lovelybird Posted January 13, 2008 Posted January 13, 2008 (edited) Drug addiction... If I am an addict and someone I care about, through witnessing my addiction decides to become a drug counsellor that goes on to help 100s of people get off or stay off drugs...was my addiction a "bad" thing? Who are we to presume to think that we know all the possible reasons for the occurrences in our lives? ... your question is very interesting. There are two major hiden elements in your hypothesis. 1. Personal responsibility 2. God intervention (or universe intervention if you want to). seems you mix them up We don't know all the possible reasons for the occurrences in our lives, but we trust in God has good reasons. God can turn or use a negative situation to do good. but there is still personal responsibilities, and openness let God to change yourself. you don't assume that MAYBE my addiction will help others, maybe my affair is good to others in the very first place 1. personal responsibility: such as affair, adulterer enter into an affair because of selfishness. Does he cause harm to others? YES Does he cause harm to himself? Yes 2. God can use this negative situation to change things, maybe their marriage, maybe his wife, maybe adulterer himself. but still it needs the adulterer's will for change, and a major change from selfishness to selflessness, and humbleness to let God. If he keep his selfishness, then probably he did a favour to his wife, maybe his wife will find a better one, but maybe she choose to live in hell. all possibilities can happen The most important thing here is that it is destructive to think that maybe my mistakes will help others, let's make mistakes and break moral laws, let's kill, maybe this will help others. in fact, this kind of thinking is trying to play god. the best maybe is we do our duty of obeying God's laws, and let God And another example you mentioned, if a person help others, is it good or bad? I think this case will explain a little: a mother spoil her child and encourage his laziness by helping him for everything, a gf spoil her bf and encourage his bad beheviour by helping him. these are bad. what kind of help is good? maybe help this person to become closer to God, become more godly, become more spiritual, encourage him to become better person, help to meet their urgent need.... anyway, if you don't know, you can always ask for guidance from God can we return to topic now? I am interested in the contradictions you ask and the answers as well. maybe you don't have any anymore Edited January 13, 2008 by Lovelybird
burning 4 revenge Posted January 13, 2008 Posted January 13, 2008 Boleyn Actually, I kind of feel sorry for her. But no wonder why Elizabeth was such a little bitch You should have seen the essay I wrote on the Tudors. My teacher loved it. I think we were the only two Catholics in the school Did you use the phrase "bitch" in it? I think you could bring a passionate new perspective thats heretofore been missing in Elizabethan scholarship
burning 4 revenge Posted January 13, 2008 Posted January 13, 2008 Did you use the phrase "bitch" in it? I think you could bring a passionate new perspective thats heretofore been missing in Elizabethan scholarship Other suggested vocabulary Heretic Lesbian Spinster Shrew Harpy Damnation Eternal Agony
burning 4 revenge Posted January 13, 2008 Posted January 13, 2008 (edited) Other suggested vocabulary Heretic Lesbian Spinster Shrew Harpy Damnation Eternal Agony Counterfeit black mass Fratricide Lucky storm Spiritual holocaust maybe more forthcoming...... Edited January 13, 2008 by burning 4 revenge
Author Moose Posted January 14, 2008 Author Posted January 14, 2008 Couldn't we dismiss the ten commandments as not relevant to us if we accepted the above argument?The Ten Commandments are from God Himself. These are what should be considered, (in my mind), absolute law/morals. The rules and regualtions, some (500 or more) were set up for the Jews at that point in time condusive to their present situation. Think of it this way, it wouldn't make sense if there were a present law in today's day and age that you can't orbit the Earth's atmosphere for more than 30 days at a time, simply because we aren't piloting star ships yet. Same with these past, "laws". The situations don't exist anymore simply because we don't have the means to fulfill them. (most are against today's laws anyway) Another thing to consider is how impossible it would be for anyone on this planet to obey every letter of the law. For instance, if you're a believer, you're told to follow the law of the land in which you're presently occupying. The speed limit on the Interstate I take into the office is 70 mph. I always set my cruise at 70 mph. Does that mean I'm obeying the law? Not according to my BIL's radar gun, it clocks me at 72 mph. However, if you read Galations 5 you'll understand that I'm covered by the blood of Christ as long as I'm walking under the Spirit. Did I miss anything else.....?
taiko Posted January 14, 2008 Posted January 14, 2008 The Ten Commandments are from God Himself. These are what should be considered, (in my mind), absolute law/morals. The rules and regualtions, some (500 or more) were set up for the Jews at that point in time condusive to their present situation. Did I miss anything else.....? Okay, half of the Kingdom disagrees with Protestant, Jewish and Muslim thought on the order of the 10 Commandments and the inclusion of prohibiting graven images. Because of their size and political influence the Roman Catholic Church is Christianity to many people's minds. Contradiction? Misinterpretation? How do we catogorize this?
Author Moose Posted January 15, 2008 Author Posted January 15, 2008 Okay, half of the Kingdom disagrees with Protestant, Jewish and Muslim thought on the order of the 10 Commandments and the inclusion of prohibiting graven images. Because of their size and political influence the Roman Catholic Church is Christianity to many people's minds. Contradiction? Misinterpretation? How do we catogorize this?I'm not quite sure I understand your question. Can you point me to the Scripture in question? Thanks
disgracian Posted January 16, 2008 Posted January 16, 2008 Moose, why do you keep ignoring my question? http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1487424&postcount=36 You haven't explained the contradictions in the gospel accounts of which (non-angelic) person reached the tomb first, and the discrepencies in other events surrounding the discovery. Cheers, D.
Lovelybird Posted January 16, 2008 Posted January 16, 2008 (edited) Ooh, just one more. This one is on the God is love vs. the vengeful, pro-war, spiteful God. The Vengeful Lord: Exodus 15:3 (King James Version) 3The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name. Numbers 25:4 (King James Version) 4And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel. Numbers 32:14 (King James Version) 14And, behold, ye are risen up in your fathers' stead, an increase of sinful men, to augment yet the fierce anger of the LORD toward Israel. Isaiah 42:13 (King James Version) 13The LORD shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies. And the loving god: 1 John 4:16 (King James Version) 16And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. 1 John 4:8 (King James Version) 8He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. 2 Corinthians 13:14 (King James Version) 14The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. Romans 15:33 (King James Version) 33Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen. To sinners who don't ever think of repentance for their sin and do whatever they want, God is wrath To righteousness who repent to God and obey God, God is love When a sinner's dark secret sin become exposed when he came into light, and perished because of their sins, can you blame the light is too bright? Light is light, whoever want to embrace will be forgiven and will not be rejected; but whoever reject light, they reject themselves Edited January 16, 2008 by Lovelybird
taiko Posted January 16, 2008 Posted January 16, 2008 I'm not quite sure I understand your question. Can you point me to the Scripture in question? Thanks Its not a specific scripture which I reference but rather the !0 Comandments themselves as the basic law. Since the book chapter and numbering of verses was done by the Catholic Church anyway. From either Exodus or Deuteronomy the official Catholic/Lutheran translations of the Holy Bible read slighty different from most Protestant, Jewish and even how Muslims who see Moses as a Prophet of God read the 10 basic laws. Most glaring Catholics hold to Thou shall not kill. Jews and most Protestants hold that is a mistranslation and it is do not murder. While the Islamic position would be no unlawful killing. Which leads to arguements over capital punishment for example. Another the Catholic translations omit the graven images phrase after adminishing all to worship only God.
Author Moose Posted January 17, 2008 Author Posted January 17, 2008 Moose, why do you keep ignoring my question? http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1487424&postcount=36 You haven't explained the contradictions in the gospel accounts of which (non-angelic) person reached the tomb first, and the discrepencies in other events surrounding the discovery. Cheers, D.My apologies, I've been busy. I've explained my view on the four different accounts to four different audiences. Put 10 people together, and allow them to witness an event, seperate them and then interview 4 random people individually and you'll have four accounts that compliment the actual event. This doesn't mean they contradict each other. I hold to what's available according to all four accounts that the women arrived first, and together. There is nothing written to suugest otherwise. Furthermore, do you know how embarrassing it was for the men to admit the women got there first?? (consider the culture during this time)
disgracian Posted January 17, 2008 Posted January 17, 2008 So it's possible for two or three different people to arrive at the tomb first, it's possible for the women or disciple (whichever account you believe) to witness the angel(s) roll the stone away even though it was already rolled away. You have to acknowledge on some level that this is an extremely weak defense. They don't complement each other, they contradict each other. They describe events that are mutually exclusive, not complementory. With regards to the point about masculine embarrassment, are you suggesting that some of the writers lied about who got there first out of a bruised mysogynist ego, and still be at the same time divinely inspired? So, answer me this Moose: did the women investigate the tomb straight away, or did they go to the disciples first and then return to investigate? There should be an easy answer if the accounts are not contradictory. Cheers, D.
JamesM Posted January 17, 2008 Posted January 17, 2008 Disgracian, interesting questions. These are some typical ones ventured. Personally, I have heard different opinions. But here are some links that may help you...or add further to the discussion. http://www.christian-thinktank.com/ordorise.html http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_tomb.html http://www.rationalchristianity.net/when_women_tomb.html http://www.rationalchristianity.net/angels_tomb.html http://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/rssrdeb.htm This link provides a layout and comparison of all verses side by side. http://www.carm.org/diff/table_resurrection.htm
Author Moose Posted January 17, 2008 Author Posted January 17, 2008 (whichever account you believe)I believe in ALL accounts. There's nothing to suggest that everything mentioned in all four accounts didn't happen.They describe events that are mutually exclusive,That isn't true. Read the Scriptures again.... Matthew's account describes both Marys arriving at the same time, the stone already rolled away, and went into the tomb. Mark's account describes exactly the same thing, only that before they went to the tomb, they bought burial spices and Salome was with them. This doesn't mean that Salome joined them when they went to the tomb itself. Luke's account same thing again.....both Marys, the stone already rolled away. John's account doesn't describe the account as it happened in sequence, and I've covered this with you before. I feel like you're trying to patronize me since this explaination is so clear.....this will be the last I say anything of this particular so called, "contradiction"......
vivrantflo Posted January 18, 2008 Posted January 18, 2008 This link provides a layout and comparison of all verses side by side. http://www.carm.org/diff/table_resurrection.htm AMAZING site here... So much information with Scripture to back it all up.
Author Moose Posted January 19, 2008 Author Posted January 19, 2008 AMAZING site here... So much information with Scripture to back it all up.Yes, it is. Just curious, does anyone think I'm off base with the four gospel explaination(s) concerning whom arrived at the tomb first?
disgracian Posted January 19, 2008 Posted January 19, 2008 I do, because the following question has gone unanswered: Did the women investigate the tomb straight away, or did they go to the disciples first and then return to investigate? Cheers, D.
Rooster_DAR Posted February 3, 2008 Posted February 3, 2008 This thread ended exactly the way I thought it would, no verifiable evidence and a lot of abductive reasoning. Asking any Christian to explain any inconsistencies in the scriptures will never get a good answer, because much of the content is written to where it could be interpreted in more than one way, I think it could be one of the reasons why it's been around so long. Cheers!
Author Moose Posted February 4, 2008 Author Posted February 4, 2008 This thread ended exactly the way I thought it would, no verifiable evidence and a lot of abductive reasoning. Asking any Christian to explain any inconsistencies in the scriptures will never get a good answer, because much of the content is written to where it could be interpreted in more than one way, I think it could be one of the reasons why it's been around so long. Cheers!Again, you're wrong. I haven't had the time, nor do I now to respond. Trust me, I will.....
Recommended Posts