-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Bible And Science: Bats And Birds
- Thread starter Earthling
- Start date
Earthling
David Henson
I'm not sure what you mean by "other thing," but why not discard it? Because it serves as an example to us and it instructs us in a historical context. By historical context I don't mean in a secular sense, though that is a separate (from the Bible itself) lesson, but rather in a spiritual sense. Put simply it teaches us God's promise to and purpose for mankind, how he historically dealt with them, why, and what the result would be of that. All very significant to us, just not to you. So, you (general application of unbelievers) leave it alone and we (general application of believers) will, ideally, treasure it.
Well, that's an excellent question. Again, the you and we application of my response above is a good place to start. You don't have to bother with it and we will take care of it. Now, if you are curious for some reason about it, that's great, but otherwise you would be wasting your time, don't you think?
If pressed you may answer that the Bible is used to support policy of the state which you may not agree with is, in my mind, unfortunate for you, but irrelevant because that's the nature of the game of democracy. Majority infringes upon minority. So . . . you lost the game due to some religious abuse of a religious text, which itself says it is separate from that game. Namely, the world. The political and social constructs that operate at any given time during a temporary godless paradigm. My advice to you in such a case would be stop *****ing about the Bible and educate yourself on the subject. No commitment, but it could be useful in at least understanding how the text was abused to justify the means.
The real problem with this question is not about guidelines and standards but commitment and accountability. Which takes us back to the you and we application listed above. If you (general application of unbelievers) don't want to you're not going to, and to whom are you accountable to? Your own world view and perspective or God's? If that sounds ridiculous to you then you are probably "barking up the wrong tree."
Why wouldn't you? That's what the law was for. (Galatians 3:19-24; Romans 3:20; Romans 10:4)
I wouldn't put it that way. Their own religion? No. They can do with that what they will, but the Bible, that they, the Jews (Jews being applied in a religious sense rather than from the perspective of ethnic heritage), got wrong, as did eventually the Christians. This is so easy to historically see. Just look at the Pharisee and the Sadducee and their interactions with Jesus. Where is the Messiah? How many hundreds of years of legal Genealogical listings leading up to Jesus that pointed directly to that one person. It couldn't possibly apply to anyone else, and that isn't up for interpretation. The Jewish critics of Jesus the Jew didn't refute that because they couldn't. They were ****ed by religiosity.
It isn't over until it's over. And your interpretation of Ha-Satan being reinvented isn't particularly accurate given Genesis and Job.
Last edited:
Earthling
David Henson
The article in the OP was written by me years ago. We "creationist" have a saying. "Freely we receive so freely we give." Anything I've published on my website may be used by anyone for any purpose, even in full, with no obligation or concern for credit. So, not only have I published the same article in multiple places on the web but others have as well. Anyway I got it for the most part from the Watchtower.
So I get the charge of "plagiarism" often from idiot atheists but so far no contact from Jehovah's lawyers.
In fact, you will be hard pressed to find any original thought by anyone on a two thousand year old text which has been discussed ad infinitum for that long. If you do then you have a problem, i.e. the weird nonsense some of the hippy "Christians" come up with these days.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Ah, so you copy from the Watchtower, and 'freely' give it to others. Cool.
Nice.
True that. In fact, I pretty much see no original thought at all from idiot creationists.
Earthling
David Henson
No, I use their publications from the past as research tools. I put that in my own words and give them no credit because I don't want to appear to be representing them and I wan't to think for myself. I use the same material to refute the Watchtower itself where I disagree with it.
Yeah, well, that's clever and original of you. Like I've never heard that before, "plagiarizer?" Anyway, I put "creationist" in quotation marks for a reason. I certainly wouldn't want to be associated with them in general. Their theology is appalling.
Last edited:
Earthling
David Henson
The source the moderator used was from seven years ago. It was posted, with permission in general, permission being granted as such by myself on various websites I published, including this one which was published in 2003, 15 years ago. (Link)
You can probably find earlier occurrences than that, also published by me, on earlier websites of mine preserved and The discussion forum of The Skeptic's Annotated Bible.
Also, when you do searches like that on many of my postings you can find similar terms that are specific to a topic of discussion. For example, the Bible is all about "the vindication of Jehovah God's name through the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus." The use of such terminology is sometimes unavoidable and may read as much as a 70% plagiarism from sources that would use similar terminology.
Posting an article on a forum like this, or others I have posted on in the past, is somewhat complicated in that they are somewhat responsible for the copyright of their posters. They own it, much like a publishing firm owns the songs written by a recording artist unless those rights have been obtained by said recording artist or in this case, poster prior to that. That's why, back in the days when I posted those articles I posted them first and foremost on my own website then posted them in various forums. It isn't the wisest thing to do in terms of CEO because you are competing with your own material, which is why I no longer do that.
Most of the stuff we write here is owned by RF and so I can't repost it.
It was my own mistake not to cite the original.
Rule 7: Quotations and Citations/References
Plagiarism is illegal. All quotations, whether to posts of other members or to material external to RF, should be properly referenced or cited. When quoting other members, use the forum's quote feature so the person and material you are responding to are easily referenced (see Rules 1 and 3 for additional guidelines regarding quoting other members' posts). When quoting material external to RF, even if it is your own, always provide a citation and limit your quotation to a paragraph or two rather than quoting the entire content (see Rule 4 for additional guidelines).
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
The rebellious Devil character most certainly does not fit in with Job, nor does it really fit into Genesis that well (not unless you assume prior their was a Rebellion, but this is not mentioned at all until Christianity comes about). It is entirely accurate to say Christians reinvented Satan, because the Jewish Satan and Christian Satan are two completely different people.
What sounds ridiculous is every time a Christian harps on about "who do you hold yourself accountable to" and thinking non-believers just won't understand because they aren't interested in believing. Are Christians so morally inferior they have to have their book and god or else they go loco, and at the same time so special only they can understand the Bible?