Bible Myths: Saints a Myth? - U Decide

  • 124 Replies
  • 17865 Views
*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Bible Myths: Barbaric God?
« Reply #90 on: June 04, 2010, 05:35:43 PM »

Many say the God of the OT is different than the God of the NT, and that the old God ruled wrongly and was mean, but then this nice guy Jesus came along and everything was different.  Many think the God of the OT (or Hebrew scriptures) was a committed barbarian who favored bandits and such terrorists as Israel's King David.  For some Christ, by contrast, was the new and separate revelation of an altogether higher God.

What do you think and why?

I've never heard it stated by anybody that these were two distinct deities.  Certainly the God that Jesus worshiped was the God of the OT.  He wouldn't have been constantly quoting Scripture otherwise.  Given that fact, I can only imagine that any Christians who would hold such a view are guilty of either intellectual dishonesty or outright ignorance.  The Jews, of course, don't believe anything in the NT, so they wouldn't refer to the God depicted there as a separate entity any more than they would refer to, say, Odin as a separate deity.  The Muslims (I'm pretty sure) consider all Abrahamic depictions of God to be the same deity.  I'm certain that that can be said about the Baha'i faith.  Followers of the non-Abrahamic religions would undoubtedly not even consider the question seriously.

That just leaves atheists and agnostics.  It's certainly one of the major criticisms of Christianity that God underwent such a radical change between the Testaments.  It's a bit paradoxical that an all-knowing, all-powerful, Alpha-and-Omega deity would undergo such a massive change in personality.  But obviously they, also, would not refer to the God of the NT and the God of the OT as being distinct beings, because they don't believe that either God is in any way real; they believe it's pure fiction.  So I really can't imagine anybody seriously entertaining the notion that NT God and OT God were different beings.  I'd love to see references to this as a legitimate topic of discussion so I can get a better idea of what people with that opinion might be thinking.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 49569
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Bible Myths: Barbaric God ?
« Reply #91 on: June 05, 2010, 08:50:13 AM »
This thread is the only place I've ever read that "myth".  IMO, babs creates these myths so he can expound on them.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

babsinva

  • 2222
  • aka Mr. Fahrenheit
Re: Bible Myths: Barbaric God ?
« Reply #92 on: June 05, 2010, 12:49:45 PM »
This thread is the only place I've ever read that "myth".  IMO, babs creates these myths so he can expound on them.

It is a myth and - not one that I made up, but I can see how you may feel that way. 

In approximately 100 B.C. a man named Marcion publicly asserted this to be true and these beliefs became known as Marcionism", which continued to attract followers, especially in the Syriac-speaking East far into the fourth century.  Some of these ideas still persist - that God is Barbaric, and that the Old Testament is outdated and should not be used ever since Jesus came, because he showed love.  Some may or may not see God as a separate God from Jesus, but they still believe that a Barbaric God exists because no real good God would order killings and be so cruel if he is so all-powerful and all-knowing.

Marcionism also continued outside the Byzantine Empire to the Greek-speaking Romans of the middles ages, where it would be dominated by Manichaeism.  Mani was a Mandaean and Mandaeanism is related to Marcionism as they both believe in the "Demiurge".

Marcionism today has some similarities between certain Protestant Theological formulae especially those of Calvinism and early Lutheranism.  However, today they are more closely related to Gnostics (not agnostics, but Gnostics as a religion).

So yes these ideas persist.

Certainly the God that Jesus worshiped was the God of the OT.  He wouldn't have been constantly quoting Scripture otherwise.  Given that fact, I can only imagine that any Christians who would hold such a view are guilty of either intellectual dishonesty or outright ignorance. 

I'd love to see references to this as a legitimate topic of discussion so I can get a better idea of what people with that opinion might be thinking.

I can supply some references but not all of them - since the list would be too long.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Demiurge

 
Thank you both for your posts; I do respect that you have your own opinions and views.
Quote from Big Giant Head:  "Considered fictitious or phantom does not quantify its non-existence."

Quote from Soze:  "We cannot escape perception, but we can't assume reality doesn't exist outside of perception."

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 49569
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Bible Myths: Barbaric God ?
« Reply #93 on: June 05, 2010, 04:36:52 PM »
According to the Wikipedia link you posted there aren't "many" who say that the god of the OT is different from the god of the NT.  Marcionism died out in the 5th century with only a few Christians left who only follow the NT and reject the OT.  For these people this isn't a myth, just as your beliefs aren't myth to you. 
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

babsinva

  • 2222
  • aka Mr. Fahrenheit
Re: Bible Myths: Barbaric God ?
« Reply #94 on: June 05, 2010, 06:17:00 PM »
According to the Wikipedia link you posted there aren't "many" who say that the god of the OT is different from the god of the NT.  Marcionism died out in the 5th century with only a few Christians left who only follow the NT and reject the OT.  For these people this isn't a myth, just as your beliefs aren't myth to you. 

Agreed for the most part - but there are cross-overs from Marcionism into religions still surviving today like Calvinism.  In some parts of the world Calvinism only died out as recent as the 1970's, but in other places of the world they still exist, although they are smaller in numbers now.  The Mandaeans (another crossover from Marcionism) still exist in some parts of Iraq.  And Gnosticism has showed some resurgence.

However even though not much of these religions exist or in strong numbers, many people still believe some traits of the OT God as being a tyrant and wrathful, and that perhaps he changed his mind or attitude in the NT when he sent he son.

Now does anyone here still believe that; does anyone think He was barbaric?  Interested to see what FES has to say.
Quote from Big Giant Head:  "Considered fictitious or phantom does not quantify its non-existence."

Quote from Soze:  "We cannot escape perception, but we can't assume reality doesn't exist outside of perception."

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Bible Myths: Barbaric God ?
« Reply #95 on: June 05, 2010, 06:51:36 PM »
According to the Wikipedia link you posted there aren't "many" who say that the god of the OT is different from the god of the NT.  Marcionism died out in the 5th century with only a few Christians left who only follow the NT and reject the OT.  For these people this isn't a myth, just as your beliefs aren't myth to you.  

Agreed for the most part - but there are cross-overs from Marcionism into religions still surviving today like Calvinism.  In some parts of the world Calvinism only died out as recent as the 1970's, but in other places of the world they still exist, although they are smaller in numbers now.  The Mandaeans (another crossover from Marcionism) still exist in some parts of Iraq.  And Gnosticism has showed some resurgence.

1) I've never seen it presented as a central tenet of Calvinism that the God of the OT and the God of the NT are different beings, in any way, shape, or form.  Again, maybe you could point me in the right direction.
2) According to what I read about Mandaeism, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the Bible; according to its wikipedia page it has its own corpus of scriptures and borrowed from a wide variety of religions, Christianity being only one.  In fact, also according to their wikipedia page, they view Jesus as a false prophet.
3) Gnosticism appears to be a legitimate case of a real group of people who actually consider the God of the OT and the God of the NT to be different beings.  I criticize its being mentioned only on the basis that saying there are still Gnostics left in the world is like saying there are still Flat Earthers left in the world; that is, there are very, very few (it's practically a dead discipline) and they're not taken the least seriously by anyone but themselves and each other.  And I'm not sure you can support that there are still Gnostics left who consider the two Gods to not be the same being.  According to what I've found the movement itself had a great deal conflicting or opposing viewpoints within its members.  Not unlike Christianity itself, I suppose.

This would appear to be why neither Space Cowgirl nor myself have ever heard of anyone having this view; Gnosticism is a fringe movement that (according to one of your own sources) is actually condemned as a system of thought in the New Testament itself; as I've already pointed out it's not a view that's in any way supported by the Bible (and in fact seems to contradict the Bible).  I guess that's why you refer to it as a myth, though.

All these "Bible myths" are fun.  When are we going to get to the myth of the 72 virgins, or of Jesus' ministry among the Native Americans?  There's so much ground to cover, as there are so many distinct systems of thought that have grown out of the Judeo-Christian canon, I fear you might find you have bitten off a bit more than you can chew.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Bible Myths: Barbaric God ?
« Reply #96 on: June 05, 2010, 08:01:59 PM »
Agreed for the most part - but there are cross-overs from Marcionism into religions still surviving today like Calvinism.  In some parts of the world Calvinism only died out as recent as the 1970's, but in other places of the world they still exist, although they are smaller in numbers now.

This is not true in the least bit. Not only do Calvinists believe wholeheartedly in God's eternal nature, but I would go so far as to say that the majority of practicing protestants, myself included, lean strongly towards the central principles Calvinism (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints).
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

Re: Bible Myths: Barbaric God ?
« Reply #97 on: June 05, 2010, 08:04:26 PM »
All these "Bible myths" are fun.  When are we going to get to the myth of the 72 virgins, or of Jesus' ministry among the Native Americans?

Just throwing this out there, but neither of those ideas are supported by scripture.
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Bible Myths: Barbaric God ?
« Reply #98 on: June 05, 2010, 08:10:36 PM »
All these "Bible myths" are fun.  When are we going to get to the myth of the 72 virgins, or of Jesus' ministry among the Native Americans?

Just throwing this out there, but neither of those ideas are supported by scripture.

Sure they are.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

babsinva

  • 2222
  • aka Mr. Fahrenheit
Re: Bible Myths: Barbaric God ?
« Reply #99 on: June 05, 2010, 08:11:18 PM »
According to the Wikipedia link you posted there aren't "many" who say that the god of the OT is different from the god of the NT.  Marcionism died out in the 5th century with only a few Christians left who only follow the NT and reject the OT.  For these people this isn't a myth, just as your beliefs aren't myth to you.  

Agreed for the most part - but there are cross-overs from Marcionism into religions still surviving today like Calvinism.  In some parts of the world Calvinism only died out as recent as the 1970's, but in other places of the world they still exist, although they are smaller in numbers now.  The Mandaeans (another crossover from Marcionism) still exist in some parts of Iraq.  And Gnosticism has showed some resurgence.

1) I've never seen it presented as a central tenet of Calvinism that the God of the OT and the God of the NT are different beings, in any way, shape, or form.  Again, maybe you could point me in the right direction.
2) According to what I read about Mandaeism, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the Bible; according to its wikipedia page it has its own corpus of scriptures and borrowed from a wide variety of religions, Christianity being only one.  In fact, also according to their wikipedia page, they view Jesus as a false prophet.
3) Gnosticism appears to be a legitimate case of a real group of people who actually consider the God of the OT and the God of the NT to be different beings.  I criticize its being mentioned only on the basis that saying there are still Gnostics left in the world is like saying there are still Flat Earthers left in the world; that is, there are very, very few (it's practically a dead discipline) and they're not taken the least seriously by anyone but themselves and each other.  And I'm not sure you can support that there are still Gnostics left who consider the two Gods to not be the same being.  According to what I've found the movement itself had a great deal conflicting or opposing viewpoints within its members.  Not unlike Christianity itself, I suppose.

This would appear to be why neither Space Cowgirl nor myself have ever heard of anyone having this view; Gnosticism is a fringe movement that (according to one of your own sources) is actually condemned as a system of thought in the New Testament itself; as I've already pointed out it's not a view that's in any way supported by the Bible (and in fact seems to contradict the Bible).  I guess that's why you refer to it as a myth, though.

All these "Bible myths" are fun.  When are we going to get to the myth of the 72 virgins, or of Jesus' ministry among the Native Americans?  

That last statement is funny my man.

To address your other statements, perhaps it was me that was unclear, and I will try better.

A)  I did not say all these religions are of Christian faith.

B)  I did not say they all have the same central tenet or they all believe in the exact same thing.  That is why Anglican and Episcopalian are different from Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodox churches are different than Western Orthodox churches and so on.  If everyone had the exact same belief you would not have so many different religions forming in order to break away from one another.

C)  I said some of the stuff crosses over - not all of it.  Some believe that the God of the OT is different than the God of the NT (2 Gods - 1 being good, and 1 being bad), and yet some believe that the God of the OT was cruel, but somehow changed his mind and has now become a loving God in the NT.  And still others believe the first God was a Demiurge.  And some others say let's not teach the OT at all, but only the loving teachings of Jesus, for the OT is outdated and just shows tyranny.  Others proceeded to re-write their own book to reflect only the parts they want to keep, or some scratched or scrapped the whole thing and made up stuff.  Anyway you look at it - it shows that some religions with SOME commonality do not like the OT God.

Roundy even you said this ...>>
It's certainly one of the major criticisms of Christianity that God underwent such a radical change between the Testaments.  It's a bit paradoxical that an all-knowing, all-powerful, Alpha-and-Omega deity would undergo such a massive change in personality.

So aside from the religions I previously mentioned, you have agreed in some fashion that it still persists in Christianity today.  And that's what I was getting at.  It does still persist, and people don't understand the all-powerful God's actions in the OT - he being seen as barbaric.

And you said this ... >>
Quote
Gnosticism is a fringe movement that (according to one of your own sources) is actually condemned as a system of thought in the New Testament itself; as I've already pointed out it's not a view that's in any way supported by the Bible (and in fact seems to contradict the Bible).

Yes agreed.  I never said I believed in Gnosticism, and what you said was right.  In fact poster/member Pete tried to tell me once that Gnosticism never existed as a religion, and yet they had 52 texts in all.   - see this link >>
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/heretics.html

Some may not call their work a Holy Bible, but may call it a Bible or a Holy Book.  Either way this is how myths get started.  See how the bible myths fit into this topic?
Quote from Big Giant Head:  "Considered fictitious or phantom does not quantify its non-existence."

Quote from Soze:  "We cannot escape perception, but we can't assume reality doesn't exist outside of perception."

Re: Bible Myths: Barbaric God ?
« Reply #100 on: June 05, 2010, 08:31:17 PM »
All these "Bible myths" are fun.  When are we going to get to the myth of the 72 virgins, or of Jesus' ministry among the Native Americans?

Just throwing this out there, but neither of those ideas are supported by scripture.

Sure they are.

Where?
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

*

babsinva

  • 2222
  • aka Mr. Fahrenheit
Re: Bible Myths: Barbaric God ?
« Reply #101 on: June 05, 2010, 08:35:32 PM »
@Canadark I was not directing this at you on purpose to insult - please read before you jump to being offended.

Agreed for the most part - but there are cross-overs from Marcionism into religions still surviving today like Calvinism.  In some parts of the world Calvinism only died out as recent as the 1970's, but in other places of the world they still exist, although they are smaller in numbers now.

This is not true in the least bit. Not only do Calvinists believe wholeheartedly in God's eternal nature, but I would go so far as to say that the majority of practicing protestants, myself included, lean strongly towards the central principles Calvinism (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints).

This is not limited to your Calvinistic beliefs for there have been many spin-offs of Calvinism some that are:

Neo-Calvinism
Neo-Orthodoxy
Hyper-Calvinism
Four Point Calvinism (aka Moderate Calvinism)
Etc.

So I was not speaking about your particular branch of Calvinism.  Also I said some Protestant religions NOT all of them, AND when I mentioned Lutherans, I said early Lutherans, not that I think Lutherans do that today.

All these "Bible myths" are fun.  When are we going to get to the myth of the 72 virgins, or of Jesus' ministry among the Native Americans?

Just throwing this out there, but neither of those ideas are supported by scripture.

Sure they are.

There are however scriptures on the 12 virgins with oil lamps, and also since Native Americans worship false gods - then yes the bible can be used to show their gods (plural) as being unworthy and false.

@Roundy - I answered your previous post - this thread.

« Last Edit: June 05, 2010, 08:47:43 PM by babsinva »
Quote from Big Giant Head:  "Considered fictitious or phantom does not quantify its non-existence."

Quote from Soze:  "We cannot escape perception, but we can't assume reality doesn't exist outside of perception."

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Bible Myths: Barbaric God ?
« Reply #102 on: June 05, 2010, 10:53:56 PM »
A)  I did not say all these religions are of Christian faith.

Yet you refer to these as Bible myths.

That last statement is funny my man.

Why?  They are as legitimately Bible myths as your "two Gods in the Bible" myth:

Some may not call their work a Holy Bible, but may call it a Bible or a Holy Book.  Either way this is how myths get started.  See how the bible myths fit into this topic?

Just like the Gnostics, the Mormons have a "Bible", as do the Muslims; and also just like the Gnostics both their "Bibles" are intrinsically connected to the Christian Bible, building on ideas that originated there.

I said some of the stuff crosses over - not all of it.  Some believe that the God of the OT is different than the God of the NT (2 Gods - 1 being good, and 1 being bad), and yet some believe that the God of the OT was cruel, but somehow changed his mind and has now become a loving God in the NT.  And still others believe the first God was a Demiurge.  And some others say let's not teach the OT at all, but only the loving teachings of Jesus, for the OT is outdated and just shows tyranny.  Others proceeded to re-write their own book to reflect only the parts they want to keep, or some scratched or scrapped the whole thing and made up stuff.  Anyway you look at it - it shows that some religions with SOME commonality do not like the OT God.

Unquestionably.  This is why I said you need to broaden your scope; there's so much to consider, if you're looking at every religion that share aspects in common with Christianity.  But then we're not talking about myths specifically concerned with the Christian Bible, we're really talking about comparative religion.  In my opinion discussions of comparative religion lose meaning if they're not presented from a neutral standpoint; with your narrow and subjective opinions constantly showing through on the subject, and your unwavering stance on your opinions, it's more like you're proselytizing than having a real discussion on the subject.  Perhaps that's why I find reading your posts (particularly your often arrogant responses to people who present a conflicting perspective) so infuriating.  If you're a troll, congratulations.  If you're for real, you just have too narrow a view on the subject to be taken seriously.

You seem to not even see that the beliefs of others are equally worthy of respect as your own views, and should be taken on their own merit, which I frankly think you sometimes just don't understand.  For some reason you have it in your head that your personal interpretation of Scripture is the "right" interpretation and don't seem willing to bend.  I agree with Benocrates; I just don't think you're well-versed enough in the subjects you're choosing to cover to really have an informed position.  The fact is that there's a lot that's ambiguous and open to interpretation in the Bible, but you present your own interpretation as fact.  You're preaching.

Quote
Roundy even you said this ...>>
It's certainly one of the major criticisms of Christianity that God underwent such a radical change between the Testaments.  It's a bit paradoxical that an all-knowing, all-powerful, Alpha-and-Omega deity would undergo such a massive change in personality.

So aside from the religions I previously mentioned, you have agreed in some fashion that it still persists in Christianity today.

I don't see how you get that from that statement.

All these "Bible myths" are fun.  When are we going to get to the myth of the 72 virgins, or of Jesus' ministry among the Native Americans?

Just throwing this out there, but neither of those ideas are supported by scripture.

Sure they are.

Where?

In the Koran and the Book of Mormon.  See my response to Babs above.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

babsinva

  • 2222
  • aka Mr. Fahrenheit
Re: Bible Myths: Barbaric God ?
« Reply #103 on: June 06, 2010, 09:35:37 AM »
A)  I did not say all these religions are of Christian faith.
Yet you refer to these as Bible myths.

Just showing how myths from other religions, whether Christian or not, creep into Christianity and become part of their belief system.

That last statement is funny my man.
Why?  They are as legitimately Bible myths as your "two Gods in the Bible" myth:

I said this in relation to another comment of yours, and I wasn't making fun OF you, I thought what you said was funny, and you had a sense of humor.  Calm down.

you need to broaden your scope; there's so much to consider, if you're looking at every religion that share aspects in common with Christianity.  But then we're not talking about myths specifically concerned with the Christian Bible, we're really talking about comparative religion.

Here you tell me to broaden my scope, but you also said Iím not talking myths specifically concerned with the Christian Bible.  Again as said before, I was just showing that sometimes things cross-over INTO Christianity.  In was not the purpose of the whole thread to discuss non-Christian faiths totally, but to show how they have made an impact on Christianity.  Of course I know itís a Christian thread.

Roundy even you said this ...>>
It's certainly one of the major criticisms of Christianity that God underwent such a radical change between the Testaments.  It's a bit paradoxical that an all-knowing, all-powerful, Alpha-and-Omega deity would undergo such a massive change in personality.
So aside from the religions I previously mentioned, you have agreed in some fashion that it still persists in Christianity today.
I don't see how you get that from that statement.
It sounds like you were agreeing that some do see God as Barbaric Ė so yes because you said that Ė I thought it was relevant.


You seem to not even see that the beliefs of others are equally worthy of respect

#1)  I have actually agreed with Canadark on 3 separate occassions.
#2)  I have conceded to Mykael before.
#3)  I have said to others ... I can see how you would see it that way (nicely)
#4)  I have also said, yes perhaps, but consider this ...
#5)  I have said to others - hopefully that helps.
#6)  I have started off with the subject of Barbaric God with a short paragraph and then asked what do YOU think?
#7)  Then when you asked for more info or for me to cite references I provided that, so yes there was an exchange of ideas.
#8)  And because someone like Canadark may not agree with me like on the topic of stoning - does not mean that I would not consider his viewpoint; it's just that it is in 6 places of the bible, and so if I point that out, because he missed it, then no one should take offense.  And no that was NOT just my viewpoint as you say or my interpretation - it was plainly written that there was stoning.
#9)  If an atheist or agnostic asks a Christian something and when they donít like the answer they want to argue, but then say I am arguing, then why ask if you donít believe anyhow?  If one says, what is the bibleís standpoint on this?  And then a Christian answers, then you can disagree sure, but donít say a Christian doesnít know what they are talking about, because it doesnít agree with your beliefs.
#10)  As far as your mentioning proselytizing, I am not doing anything different than 17 November or Canadark.

Quote from Big Giant Head:  "Considered fictitious or phantom does not quantify its non-existence."

Quote from Soze:  "We cannot escape perception, but we can't assume reality doesn't exist outside of perception."

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 49569
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Bible Myths: Barbaric God ?
« Reply #104 on: June 06, 2010, 10:26:55 AM »
You think that someone saying God was barbaric and cruel in the OT and then all sweetness and light in the NT proves that people believe they were different beings, when that just isn't the case.  What we're actually saying is that the nature (the behavior) of your god changed drastically, not that there are two separate gods.  It is true that there are a scant few out there who do believe there are separate gods in the Christian bible, but they are extremely few and far between these days.  I don't really see how you can deny that the nature of God changed from the OT to the NT.  In the OT he was smiting people on a regular basis, in the NT it was peace and love.

Also, of course we are going to argue with you when we don't agree.  That is the nature of a discussion board.  No one here is going to take your word for it, just because you state your opinions as facts. You created your own dogma. Plus, you seem to be ignoring the fact that many of us were raised as Christians, so our exposure to the bible began at an early age, just as yours did. 
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

Re: Bible Myths: Barbaric God ?
« Reply #105 on: June 06, 2010, 10:42:12 AM »
It seems as though we are at a pretty big misunderstanding here. I think that Roundy and I both thought that Babs was just talking about Christianity, which is why it was really confusing when Roundy brought up the thing about 72 virgins and Jesus ministering to the Native Americans.

And I don't agree with the whole thing about Jesus and the Father being different gods.
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 49569
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Bible Myths: Barbaric God ?
« Reply #106 on: June 06, 2010, 10:45:56 AM »
Well, that isn't what babs is saying either.  He's saying many people believe that there are two different gods in the bible.  The god of the OT and the god of the NT. Some of those people think the god of the OT was actually the devil.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

babsinva

  • 2222
  • aka Mr. Fahrenheit
Re: Bible Myths: Barbaric God ?
« Reply #107 on: June 06, 2010, 10:51:05 AM »
You think that someone saying God was barbaric and cruel in the OT and then all sweetness and light in the NT proves that people believe they were different beings, when that just isn't the case.  What we're actually saying is that the nature (the behavior) of your god changed drastically, not that there are two separate gods.  It is true that there are a scant few out there who do believe there are separate gods in the Christian bible, but they are extremely few and far between these days.  I don't really see how you can deny that the nature of God changed from the OT to the NT.  In the OT he was smiting people on a regular basis, in the NT it was peace and love.

I hear what you are saying girl.  It's true different religions believe different things as it pertains to God.  What I was trying to say which I think Sophia Coppola said it best - was "Lost in Translation".  Sorry a movie title - Couldn't help myself.

Quote from: babsinva on June 05, 2010, 08:11:18 PM I said some of the stuff crosses over - not all of it.  Some believe that the God of the OT is different than the God of the NT (2 Gods - 1 being good, and 1 being bad), and yet some believe that the God of the OT was cruel, but somehow changed his mind and has now become a loving God in the NT.  And still others believe the first God was a Demiurge.  And some others say let's not teach the OT at all, but only the loving teachings of Jesus, for the OT is outdated and just shows tyranny.  Others proceeded to re-write their own book to reflect only the parts they want to keep, or some scratched or scrapped the whole thing and made up stuff.  Anyway you look at it - it shows that some religions with SOME commonality do not like the OT God.

AND THIS ONE ...
Quote
Again as said before, I was just showing that sometimes things cross-over INTO Christianity.  In was not the purpose of the whole thread to discuss non-Christian faiths totally, but to show how they have made an impact on Christianity.
Sorry don't have time to do the quotes right, but you know what I meant.

I guess what I really want to get at ... is this >>
"What we're actually saying is that the nature (the behavior) of your god changed drastically"  - (That's your quote)

And yes this ^^ is what I wanted to hear about from you guys - from a Christian standpoint.  However if someone else wants to bring in another religion's beliefs that HAVE impacted Christians and became myths, then that's Ok to take that turnback to the previous subject - your call.  ....   So continue on.

Quote from Big Giant Head:  "Considered fictitious or phantom does not quantify its non-existence."

Quote from Soze:  "We cannot escape perception, but we can't assume reality doesn't exist outside of perception."

Re: Bible Myths: Barbaric God ?
« Reply #108 on: June 06, 2010, 10:53:48 AM »
Well, that isn't what babs is saying either.  He's saying many people believe that there are two different gods in the bible.  The god of the OT and the god of the NT. Some of those people think the god of the OT was actually the devil.

Sorry I thought you were referring to what he said in the "Ask a Christian Anything" thread.
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

*

babsinva

  • 2222
  • aka Mr. Fahrenheit
Re: Bible Myths: Stoning as Barbaric?
« Reply #109 on: June 09, 2010, 11:32:16 PM »

Marcus understands the topic Ė he posted this question, although it was in another thread, and this is exactly was I was going for.  Hopefully now the idea of the thread is clear.



Mattew 15:11 Jesus states, after an altercation with some pharisees regarding hygene, that whatever goes into a man's mouth does not defile him, only what comes out (words).  He appears in this chapter to call the pharisees hypocrites for not honoring another of the old laws, namely stoning disobedient children, which given what he states in verse 11 he seems to condone that act (since disobedient children would count as something coming out of the mouth, not going in).

My question to Christians, do you agree with Jesus here that disobedient children should be stoned?  Just FYI, stoning historically was to the death, so in other words, he is condoning killing disobedient children in my mind.

I know I have brought up these verses before pointing out that Jesus was condoning that act, however I never really got a response regarding what Jesus appears to be condoning here.

The problem here is that you are interpreting this verse to mean that Jesus condoned the stoning of sinners which we all know he did not (on a side note the verse actually states "Anyone who curses"; this has nothing to do with a child disobeying his parents). He was using the verse against the Pharisees in order to to illustrate a flaw with their interpretation of the Mosaic Law. Pharisees said that somebody could withhold giving honour to their parents if they wanted to give that honour to God instead, something that Jesus was calling them out on.

So in other words, no, he does not condone stoning children, he doesn't condone stoning people who curse their parents either. To interpret the verse like that is to miss the point of what Jesus is trying to do here.

That's close, but consider this >>
Since the Mosaic Law was still in effect during Jesus' time (until his death in 33 A.D.) the law was still supposed to be obeyed, however the Pharisees and scribes were not obeying the Mosaic Law or even trying to, for they stood on tradition of men of former times.  Key word is "tradition".  It was the tradition of some to wash their hands and part of their arms - UP to the elbow, which is why the Pharisees asked why Jesus' disciples overstep the tradition and eat with defiled hands.  It was not that they had not washed at all, it's just that the Pharisees thought Jesus' disciples were not clean or properly washed for eating, and that defiled them, yet His people were not defiled and did not stand on tradition.  These Pharisees did not do this simply for hygiene purposes, but for ceremonial purposes.  They were so quick to attack Jesus and his disciples, and wrongly so, but the Pharisees would not obey the commandments and for that they were wrong, and Jesus pointed that out.  (See Mark 7:1-8)  The first 5 verses talk about washing up to the elbow and 4 -5 other traditions that the Pharisees had.  Verse 6 states Isaiah aptly prophesied about you hypocrites, honoring me with your lips, but your hearts are far removed from me.  In verse 7 Jesus says it is in vain that they keep worshipping me because they teach as doctrines commands of men.  Culminating in verse 8 with, letting go the commandment of God, you hold fast to the tradition of men.

Then in Matthew 15:1-20, it starts by backing up the account in Mark, but goes into further detail.  Verse 11 states "Not what enters into his mouth defiles a man; but it is what proceeds out of his mouth that defiles a man."  Then Jesus' disciples asked for clarification, for which Jesus replied in verse 17 and 18.  "Are you not aware that everything entering into the mouth passes along into the intestines and is discharged into the sewer?  However, the things proceeding out of the mouth come out of the heart and those things defile a man." 

B-T-W in verse 4, Jesus does state that God has said that one who reviles (some bibles say curse) his father or mother was to end up in death.  This too was something the Pharisees did not practice, as commanded, but they pretended they were following the laws, but all the while criticizing Jesus and his followers.  That is why Jesus had called them hypocrites, and pointed out them not following verse 4, with His response in verse 5 & 6 stating they do not follow it, but ignore it.  Striking or reviling a parent was considered a serious crime under the Mosaic Law; see Exodus 21:15, 17.  And yes people were stoned under the Mosaic Law commanded to HIS nation of Israel.  Also see De 13:10; 21:22 & 23.

Both of you were somewhat right.  But keep in mind - this is not just in my bible - it's in yours.

Jesus explained that what comes out of the mouth defiles a man because it comes from the heart.  I take this as meaning that any particular mosaic law that involves this type of defilement should be upheld, but those laws that involves merely things going into the mouth should not.  That is why I came to the conclusion he was condoning the act of stoning children that curseth their parents.

Yes Marcus stoning was condoned under this situation, and there were other ways of dealing with people as well, who broke the Mosaic Law.  Not all things were by stoning.


Quote from Big Giant Head:  "Considered fictitious or phantom does not quantify its non-existence."

Quote from Soze:  "We cannot escape perception, but we can't assume reality doesn't exist outside of perception."

*

babsinva

  • 2222
  • aka Mr. Fahrenheit
Re: Bible Myths: Barbaric Wars of God
« Reply #110 on: June 12, 2010, 09:56:07 PM »

Not speaking of acts (seen as barbaric) like stoning, (previously covered), and not punishments carried out under the judicial system of the Old Mosaic Law - but actual Wars of God.  I'm talking about the wars waged on aggressors and rulers. 

Did God do this alone, or did he ask his people the nation of Israel (Jews) to carry it out?  And why would he do this?  Would this be seen as Barbaric then or today?

Quote from Big Giant Head:  "Considered fictitious or phantom does not quantify its non-existence."

Quote from Soze:  "We cannot escape perception, but we can't assume reality doesn't exist outside of perception."

*

babsinva

  • 2222
  • aka Mr. Fahrenheit
Re: Bible Myths: Patron Saint of Skaters?
« Reply #111 on: June 17, 2010, 09:01:27 PM »

Most everyone knows I am religious, but that does not mean I fall for everything some Christian religions teach.

For example, the saints, or communion of saints.  You know some Christian faiths go overboard with naming just about everybody as a saint.

Did you know there is a patron saint of arthritis, and ulcers, and cramps.  Did you know there is even a patron saint of spinsters, the boy scouts, and gout.  Gout?  You gotta be kiddin' me.  But I really think the patron saint of pawnbrokers is a show stopper.  But I'm kinda torn, because I am really fascinated by the patron saint of skaters, some term it ice skaters.  Yeah, I wonder if that one was Nancy Kerrigan's protector against Tonya Harding?  Nevermind.

Here is a list of patron saints by causes and by occupation/profession.
http://www.catholic-saints.info/patron-saints/patron-saints-causes.htm
http://www.catholic-saints.info/patron-saints/patron-saints-professions.htm

Quote from Big Giant Head:  "Considered fictitious or phantom does not quantify its non-existence."

Quote from Soze:  "We cannot escape perception, but we can't assume reality doesn't exist outside of perception."

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 49569
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Bible Myths: Saints a Myth? - U Decide
« Reply #112 on: June 18, 2010, 08:07:25 AM »
What do you think of this explanation of Saints?

http://www.gotquestions.org/saints-Christian.html

Quote
Question: "What are Christian saints according to the Bible?"

Answer: The word saint comes from the Greek word "hagios" which means ?consecrated to God, holy, sacred, pious." It is almost always used in the plural, ?saints.? "?Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he did to Your saints at Jerusalem" (Acts 9:13). "Now as Peter was traveling through all those regions, he came down also to the saints who lived at Lydda" (Acts 9:32). "And this is just what I did in Jerusalem; not only did I lock up many of the saints in prisons ? ?(Acts 26:10). There is only one instance of the singular use and that is "Greet every saint in Christ Jesus?" (Philippians 4:21). In Scripture there are 67 uses of the plural ?saints? compared to only one use of the singular word ?saint.? Even in that one instance, a plurality of saints is in view ??every saint?? (Philippians 4:21).

The idea of the word ?saint? is a group of people set apart for the Lord and His kingdom. There are three references referring to godly character of saints; "that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints ?" (Romans 16:2). "For the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ" (Ephesians 4:12). "But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints" (Ephesians 5:3).

Therefore, Scripturally speaking, the ?saints? are the body of Christ, Christians, the church. All Christians are considered saints. All Christian are saints?and at the same time are called to be saints. 1 Corinthians 1:2 states it clearly, ?To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy?? The words ?sanctified? and ?holy? come from the same Greek root as the word that is commonly translated ?saints.? Christians are saints by virtue of their connection with Jesus Christ. Christians are called to be saints, to increasingly allow their daily life to more closely match their position in Christ. This is the Biblical description and calling of the saints.

How does the Roman Catholic understanding of ?saints? compare with the Biblical teaching? Not very well. In Roman Catholic theology, the saints are in Heaven. In the Bible, the saints are on earth. In Roman Catholic teaching, a person does not become a saint unless he/she is ?beatified? or ?canonized? by the Pope or prominent bishop. In the Bible, everyone who has received Jesus Christ by faith is a saint. In Roman Catholic practice, the saints are revered, prayed to, and in some instances, worshipped. In the Bible, saints are called to revere, worship, and pray to God alone.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

Re: Bible Myths: Saints a Myth? - U Decide
« Reply #113 on: June 18, 2010, 05:13:49 PM »
Perseverance of the Saints FTW.
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

*

babsinva

  • 2222
  • aka Mr. Fahrenheit
Re: Bible Myths: Saints a Myth? - U Decide
« Reply #114 on: June 18, 2010, 10:10:51 PM »
SCG - I am so glad you posted this.

What do you think of this explanation of Saints?

http://www.gotquestions.org/saints-Christian.html

Quote
Question: "What are Christian saints according to the Bible?"

Answer: The word saint comes from the Greek word "hagios" which means ?consecrated to God, holy, sacred, pious." It is almost always used in the plural, ?saints.? "?Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he did to Your saints at Jerusalem" (Acts 9:13). "Now as Peter was traveling through all those regions, he came down also to the saints who lived at Lydda" (Acts 9:32). "And this is just what I did in Jerusalem; not only did I lock up many of the saints in prisons ? ?(Acts 26:10). There is only one instance of the singular use and that is "Greet every saint in Christ Jesus?" (Philippians 4:21). In Scripture there are 67 uses of the plural ?saints? compared to only one use of the singular word ?saint.? Even in that one instance, a plurality of saints is in view ??every saint?? (Philippians 4:21).

The idea of the word ?saint? is a group of people set apart for the Lord and His kingdom. There are three references referring to godly character of saints; "that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints ?" (Romans 16:2). "For the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ" (Ephesians 4:12). "But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints" (Ephesians 5:3).

Therefore, Scripturally speaking, the ?saints? are the body of Christ, Christians, the church. All Christians are considered saints. All Christian are saints?and at the same time are called to be saints. 1 Corinthians 1:2 states it clearly, ?To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy?? The words ?sanctified? and ?holy? come from the same Greek root as the word that is commonly translated ?saints.? Christians are saints by virtue of their connection with Jesus Christ. Christians are called to be saints, to increasingly allow their daily life to more closely match their position in Christ. This is the Biblical description and calling of the saints.


The very bottom paragraph is the one I want to address, because I think it makes some very good points.  I am not saying that I agree with everything there, but it is the most interesting, and is fairly close to what actually is, and/or what actually happens.   >>

Quote
How does the Roman Catholic understanding of ?saints? compare with the Biblical teaching? Not very well. In Roman Catholic theology, the saints are in Heaven. In the Bible, the saints are on earth. In Roman Catholic teaching, a person does not become a saint unless he/she is ?beatified? or ?canonized? by the Pope or prominent bishop. In the Bible, everyone who has received Jesus Christ by faith is a saint. In Roman Catholic practice, the saints are revered, prayed to, and in some instances, worshipped. In the Bible, saints are called to revere, worship, and pray to God alone.


I hope you don't mind, but I color-coded the separate points I want to make.

First in reference to the blue:
1)  Venerated, beatified, and canonized - yes that's how they usually do it, and by a man, like a Pope.

1a)  Since when does an ordinary man get to decide who becomes a saint and who doesn't?  Why?  Because the pope thinks (and is believed by some) to be a direct link to God?

1b)  Since when does one become a saint by decree of a man or an organization, instead of by God?

1c)  The list from the link I previously supplied had, oh... what ... maybe 100 names or less.  So I would ask one - are there just a mere few considered to have this exceptional holiness?

1d)  And why is it that some are made saints posthumously?  For example, Sir Thomas More, during the time of King Henry VIII was not canonized until 400 years after his death (in 1935).  Why did it take Popes that long to figure out .... oh yeah he should be a saint too?

2)  Catholics and some other Christian religions do the following:  pray to, revere and worship saints - yes that they do.

2a)  My mother would pray to St Christopher, the patron saint of travel.  I asked her ... "who was Christopher?  Was he an apostle?"  She responded no.  I asked, "did he contribute by writing a book of the bible?"  She responded no.  "Ok", I said, "so did someone else write about him?"  She said, she didn't know.  (B-T-W answer is NO).  So I persisted and asked, "well did he do something special to become a saint?"  She said, probably.  (BTW answer is no - Christopher isn't mentioned in the bible as a saint or holy one, and in fact I don't think the name pops up at all in the scriptures as anybody.  (Go figure.)

2b)  She would also:  pray to Mary (The Hail Mary among others); sings hymns to Mary (Ava Maria and Salve Regina among others); have feast days for Mary (Feast of the Immaculate Conception, and Feast of the Assumption among others - 19 feast days in all); and even special flowers that are said to symbolize her virtues and attributes.  Additionally:  the month of Mary is May; Saturdays are also dedicated to Marian Devotions; let's not forget the scapulars; the miraclous medal and so on.  I asked her once, "with all that you celebrate/ venerate Mary for, how is it that you have time to venerate God?  You have more things devoted to her, than anyone else.

2c)  I was Catholic, and I grew up with an altar in our home, complete with statues, rosary beads, crucifixes etc.  My mother would kneel before the altar, and bow her head in front of a statue, and call out a saints' name she wanted to pray to.  Yet she did not think she was worshipping them.  Ah yeah - this is worship, and the bible states that it is - false worship that is.  - Idolatry.

Second in reference to the green (piggybacking on 2c):  
One should pray to God alone and only - no one and no thing else.  Pray to God through Jesus, for he is the one mediator between us and God, but not priests, angels, rosary beads, statues, saints, or those that have passed on.  There are many scriptures to back this up.

So do I know that they do all this wrongly - yes.  Do I define saints the same way as these people - no.  I am not dodging the question, and have answered some of it, but my post is already lengthy, and it is hard to address all of it in one post.  But what a great post by you, SCG.

Perseverance of the Saints FTW.
And yet you still believe?  You were so lovely a few weeks ago, when you accused me of heresy.

« Last Edit: June 18, 2010, 10:15:38 PM by babsinva »
Quote from Big Giant Head:  "Considered fictitious or phantom does not quantify its non-existence."

Quote from Soze:  "We cannot escape perception, but we can't assume reality doesn't exist outside of perception."

*

Wendy

  • 18492
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: Bible Myths: Saints a Myth? - U Decide
« Reply #115 on: June 19, 2010, 04:18:56 AM »
http://www.catholic-saints.info/patron-saints/patron-saints-professions.htm

Lol. There's a patron saint of priests. Do they really need a patron saint? I mean, they're living, breathing conduits to God, ffs.
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.

Re: Bible Myths: Saints a Myth? - U Decide
« Reply #116 on: June 19, 2010, 05:33:05 AM »
I agree with Babs here, and his position is representative of the prevailing view among Protestants. All believers are saints and are part of the Christian priesthood. We are all equally entitled to access to God and to perform Christian rites and ceremonies (such as baptism and communion).
« Last Edit: June 19, 2010, 08:40:42 AM by Canadark »
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

*

Wendy

  • 18492
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: Bible Myths: Saints a Myth? - U Decide
« Reply #117 on: June 19, 2010, 06:01:26 AM »
I agree with Babs here, and his position is representative of the prevailing view among Protestants. All believers are saints and are part of the Christian priesthood. We are all equally entitled to access to God and to perform Christian rites and ceremonies (such as baptism and communion).

fix'd
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.

Re: Bible Myths: Saints a Myth? - U Decide
« Reply #118 on: June 19, 2010, 08:31:01 AM »
revelation 21:8 and Hebrews 13:4 .... best verses in the BIBLE. Oh and John 3:36. The end is always approaching for ALL of us .................

run and go look those up sluggards : )

Re: Bible Myths: Saints a Myth? - U Decide
« Reply #119 on: June 19, 2010, 08:39:23 AM »
I agree with Babs here, and his position is representative of the prevailing view among Protestants. All believers are saints and are part of the Christian priesthood. We are all equally entitled to access to God and to perform Christian rites and ceremonies (such as baptism and communion).

fix'd

t'anks
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.