07 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI'd like to hear answers to his questions. He has good points.
Why answer something you won't understand? In your mind, the Codices were complete lunacy. The only way you will ever see them differently requires study of the times in which they were written. You will need to gain an understanding of the sociological underpinings of the regions surrounding the Jews, history, so on and so forth.
That type of study cannot be undertaken in this type of forum.
Do you expect every human being to become an expert on ancient societies before they can become Christians? These laws are certainly intuitively abhorrent. Or should Christians who aren't willing to study vast amounts of ancient sociology just be encouraged to stop thinking?
07 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe analogy I use here is that of a father attempting to rehabilitate a son who's a drug addict. Stopping cold would cause more harm than good, so a gradual program of "weaning" and substitutes has to be followed.
You've asked both these questions before, and I can do little more than provide pretty much the same answers as before. It's unlikely you're going to find them satisfactory this time around, but anyhow:
1. I think the Levitical laws were meant to be a "bridge" between the old pre-Israel laws the Israelites were used to (in Mesopotamia and Egypt) an ...[text shortened]... d only gives the other ordinances when the people send back Moses for more instructions.
In this analogy, the father wouldn't hide the fact that he's weaning his son off drugs, would he?
07 Apr 06
Originally posted by bbarrYou don't think Hitler was a genius?
It is irrelevant whether one's influence is fleeting or lasting; there is simply no reason to think either that 1) S's being influential is evidence of S's being genius or 2) S's being genius is sufficient for S's claim that P to lend justificatory support for P. Any number of relatively dim wits have had a lasting effect on the world. Any number of brilli ...[text shortened]...
The rest of your post is irrelevant to the the issue at contention here.
07 Apr 06
Originally posted by bbarrIt is irrelevant whether one's influence is fleeting or lasting
It is irrelevant whether one's influence is fleeting or lasting; there is simply no reason to think either that 1) S's being influential is evidence of S's being genius or 2) S's being genius is sufficient for S's claim that P to lend justificatory support for P. Any number of relatively dim wits have had a lasting effect on the world. Any number of brilli ...[text shortened]...
The rest of your post is irrelevant to the the issue at contention here.
Who can argue with that logic?
Hitler wasn't a genius of any sort
Really? To what would you attribute his success?
one considered by his contemporaries to be worthy of the honorific 'rabbi' (as is claimed throughout the NT).
Apparently you didn't pick up on the sarcasm of the various Pharisees and Saducees who so 'honored' Jesus with such a title. Their visits to Him were nothing more than attempts at catching Him in falsity, whereby they would then be able to discredit Him completely. The seething is near palatable, hardly honorific.
07 Apr 06
Originally posted by telerionQuite the contrary. No1 has again shown his propensity for raising what seems to be a valid argument, which reality exposes as otherwise. He wishes to contort and twist the language to mean something unintended, argue from that standpoint and conclude the lunacy (idiocy/contradictory nature/ad nauseum) of God.
Freak, you are dodging again.
As the passage does not support his take, he has further solidified his reputation as one who takes unsupported potshots, and quite frankly, he really doesn't care: his goal was simply to add noise to the confusion. Mission accomplished.
07 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo, you can't argue with that logic. Unless you have good empirical evidence that lasting influence warrants ascriptions of genius.
[b]It is irrelevant whether one's influence is fleeting or lasting
Who can argue with that logic?
Hitler wasn't a genius of any sort
Really? To what would you attribute his success?
one considered by his contemporaries to be worthy of the honorific 'rabbi' (as is claimed throughout the NT).
Apparently you didn't pick up on the ...[text shortened]... n be able to discredit Him completely. The seething is near palatable, hardly honorific.[/b]
There are any number of factors that lead to Hitler's "success". Read a book on the topic.
The Pharisees aren't the only folk in the NT that referred to Jesus as 'rabbi', and that's irrelevant to the point of the example anyway (as was mentioned above).
07 Apr 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThis is an excellent question. It's amusing how often a xian apologist claims that you can't understand some (apparently contradicatory) scriptures unless you've have studied the whole Bible in context and then read up on what the "experts" say, but when you they convert people, it's never about research and thinking. It's all about emotion and "Just believe, and Jesus will come into your heart."
Do you expect every human being to become an expert on ancient societies before they can become Christians?
Looks like hypocrisy to me, but then why should we be surprised?
07 Apr 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI'd like to hear answers to his questions. He has good points.
I'd like to hear answers to his questions. He has good points.
Do you expect every human being to become an expert on ancient societies before they can become Christians? These laws are certainly intuitively abhorrent. Or should Christians who aren't willing to study vast amounts of ancient sociology just be encouraged to stop thinking?
Every so often, No1 does bring up good points. Here he has not done the same. He attempted to make a passage say something unintended, and use the same as evidence against a reasonable faith. He has been answered in full, at least by me.
Do you expect every human being to become an expert on ancient societies before they can become Christians?
The issue in salvation is Jesus Christ; namely, what say you of Jesus Christ? Depending upon one's level of comfort relative to what confers Jesus Christ with the authority to make such claims, it is not absolutely necessary for one to know anything of the ancient world prior to faith in His saving work on the cross.
These laws are certainly intuitively abhorrent.
Apparently, you suffer the same condition as does No1: lack of reading comprehension.
Or should Christians who aren't willing to study vast amounts of ancient sociology just be encouraged to stop thinking?
Thinking about what, exactly? The world did not spring up completely developed with its history tacked on like a donkey's tail this morning. It stands to reason that anyone wanting to know about something from history should study history in its context, not this morning's.
07 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThere's no engaging someone who simply makes outlandish statements and thinks they are the absolute, infallible truth. Let me coin a phrase for your theology "Holding Your Breath Till You Turn Blueism". (HYBTYTB)
Again, no offense, but your arguments are boring. Akin to something you'd expect from a junior high school student who figured they'd 'get to the bottom of all this.'
You'll have to do better than this if you expect to engage me.