1. 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!

Featured Is Defense of the Gospel a Legitimate Activity?

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by thomas t, Feb 23, 2021.

  1. thomas t

    thomas t non-denominational Christian

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Messages:
    1,684
    Ratings:
    +446
    Religion:
    Christian
    except that I didn't.
    Best example:
    Some atheists say God is pro abortion because 50+ percent of all pregnancy end up in miscarriage.
    However, an abortion made by humans is not the same:
    God assures an afterlife of the fetus... and created humans.
    So my rule for all persons:
    once you ensure an afterlife, and once you're able to create (human) life, create not procreate.... then you are entitled to kill.

    Yes, they were allowed to keep the virgins. BTW virgins (not toddlers) can work in the fields and bring something to eat and share in the work. I'm convinced they couldn't afford to be foster parents... and they sometimes could afford taking in virgins that work.

    Edited to add last sentence.
     
    #121 thomas t, Feb 25, 2021
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2021
  2. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    39,540
    Ratings:
    +23,324
    Religion:
    Atheist
    You need to get your arguments right. Atheists will say that the God of the Bible is proabortion because he allows a husband to force his wife to get one if she cheated on him.

    If you fail in your "best example" then you do not have much of a case.
     
  3. Shadow Wolf

    Shadow Wolf Rival's Wife

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    72,161
    Ratings:
    +28,102
    Religion:
    God is in the Rain
    I said I don't know how I would react, but that I hope it's not something I would later regret. And acting in anger is very good at doing that.
    And it doesn't make it right. As I mentioned, we are still seeing this endless cycle of murder and revenge in the Middle East to this very day.
    And this is, for what reason?
    You assumed how I would react in such a situation. It's just as possible I fall into a very deep depression I don't come out of.
    It doesn't address the point I made.
    Except Paul doesn't allow for that either.
    That is before god, and it does not undo the fact Paul said he will not suffer a woman to teach, be in authority over a man, or even speak in church. That is not equality. It is not equal. Apologetics are required for stretching, twisting, bending, and redefining things to claim they are. But they aren't. No where in the Bible are men and women equal.
     
  4. thomas t

    thomas t non-denominational Christian

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Messages:
    1,684
    Ratings:
    +446
    Religion:
    Christian
    the anger is totally fine.
    No, bashing children is not right in and of itself.
    But being angry after having suffered violence is totally fine and I don't understand why you keep harping on this so much.

    because anger is natural:
    when someone beats you, you aren't angry?

    no, I asked that question. I asked a question.
    I was asking something.
    I addressed your point that you blamed Paul to be against marriage regardless of the situation.
    Yet Paul referred to a situation of misery.
    That's my point here.

    according to you.

    No, I am not stretching, twisting and bending and redefining things.
    When women want equality and cannot speak up... they can be church elders, prophets, whatever they want until they reach equality.
     
  5. Shadow Wolf

    Shadow Wolf Rival's Wife

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    72,161
    Ratings:
    +28,102
    Religion:
    God is in the Rain
    Because it is a great wickedness, but the Bible says the one who does it will be happy.
    I do believe I cited where Paul did say that.
    You are twisting things. Paul states numerous women are beneath men, that women are not to be above men, they are not to lead or teach men, but you keep trying to twist this into Paul teaching equality because he said all are equal before god. But clearly women are not equal before men according to Paul.
     
  6. thomas t

    thomas t non-denominational Christian

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Messages:
    1,684
    Ratings:
    +446
    Religion:
    Christian
    shall.
    It's a wish. This is at least my opinion.
    Actually, the original version does not carry any verb. It just says blessed.
    Psalm 137:9 Interlinear: O the happiness of him who doth seize, And hath dashed thy sucklings on the rock!


    no, Paul does not rule out female eldership, as I see it.


    Of course men can say at church: "we want that woman to be our church elder!"
    Even if you were to be right and men are before women at church, they can delegate their power to the woman, if they feel like it.
    To the point at which the equality is reached again as in Galatians.
    No, I am not twisting anything.
    Paul made a statement concerning equality at church, Galatians 3:28. This does not mean that Paul made a statement about women being equal in society, though.
    Of course Paul accepted female leaders, see Acts 16, her name was Lydia.
     
  7. Shadow Wolf

    Shadow Wolf Rival's Wife

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    72,161
    Ratings:
    +28,102
    Religion:
    God is in the Rain
    How can you possibly can it doesn't say that when you provided the exact thing that says it?
    Ruling out leadership, talking in churches, and authority over men does basically rule that out. It can't be done without violating those things Paul established as rules. He said he will not tolerate or suffer such a thing. Those are his own words.
    28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
    That says nothing about the Church. That doesn't change or erase how said things are otherwise.
    What of her?
    11 Therefore, sailing from Troas, we ran a straight course to Samothrace, and the next day came to Neapolis, 12 and from there to Philippi, which is the c]">[c]foremost city of that part of Macedonia, a colony. And we were staying in that city for some days. 13 And on the Sabbath day we went out of the city to the riverside, where prayer was customarily made; and we sat down and spoke to the women who met there. 14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.
     
  8. halbhh

    halbhh The wonder and awe of "all things".

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2019
    Messages:
    1,658
    Ratings:
    +654
    Religion:
    Rescued of Jesus the Christ
    But, as you perhaps are aware, in the common bible, all death of the mortal body is only like a sleep, and then everyone wakes up, in a new situation.

    When we refer to events in a book then of course we bring to bear the entire content of that same book.

    If a doctor successfully resuscitated someone, we would not blame the doctor for their death, when they are in fact alive.

    You could though accurate say instead: e.g. -- Shadow Wolf says, " 'God' according to the bible is the one who undoes or reverses death." (example only)

    That would be accurate in citing things in the text of the common bible. If you want to refer to a different god, then of course you have to keep the distinction that you have a different one.
     
    #128 halbhh, Feb 25, 2021
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2021
    • Like Like x 1
  9. halbhh

    halbhh The wonder and awe of "all things".

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2019
    Messages:
    1,658
    Ratings:
    +654
    Religion:
    Rescued of Jesus the Christ
    I'd not equate the fate of this life here in the mortal body with a different type of life of very different basis later in an immortal body.

    It would even less accurate than claiming Cleveland, Ohio and Paris, France are identical.
     
  10. Shadow Wolf

    Shadow Wolf Rival's Wife

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    72,161
    Ratings:
    +28,102
    Religion:
    God is in the Rain
    Why would I say that when I see no reason to believe the god of the Bible exists?
     
  11. halbhh

    halbhh The wonder and awe of "all things".

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2019
    Messages:
    1,658
    Ratings:
    +654
    Religion:
    Rescued of Jesus the Christ
    That's your real premise. The real assumption.

    With that premise, it's not possible to then make characterizing claims about the God of the bible that are clearly opposite to what that very same text says, and be correct. It'd be like turning in an essay on a book in an English class with errors about the content of the book, to make an analogy.
     
  12. Shadow Wolf

    Shadow Wolf Rival's Wife

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    72,161
    Ratings:
    +28,102
    Religion:
    God is in the Rain
    My no longer seeing a reason to believe in the god of the Bible has no bearing on my understanding of the Bible. I still have the same understandings of the interpretations when I was "filled with the holy ghost."
    And, again, belief or not is irrelevant when it comes to criticizing it.
     
  13. halbhh

    halbhh The wonder and awe of "all things".

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2019
    Messages:
    1,658
    Ratings:
    +654
    Religion:
    Rescued of Jesus the Christ
    If you reflect on it at some length, or another day, it might become visible that your beliefs will affect how you interpret things.
     
  14. Shadow Wolf

    Shadow Wolf Rival's Wife

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    72,161
    Ratings:
    +28,102
    Religion:
    God is in the Rain
    You apparently missed when I said I still know the interpretations and understandings from when I was a believer.
     
  15. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    9,569
    Ratings:
    +7,416
    Religion:
    Atheist
    You did in the post I was responding to.
     
  16. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    7,894
    Ratings:
    +4,757
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    More precisely, Paul, and the authors of Matthew, Luke and John, says that Jesus is descended from David, and the author of Mark says Jesus is not a descendant of David.
    I'm not aware of any biblical genealogy or any 1st century Jewish practice that creates geneologies, by reference to descent from the female side. Are you?
    If you can produce an example of a Jewish genealogy of that era that traces descent through the female side, I'll consider your argument. Meanwhile I know of zero support for it, and thus no basis to accept it.
    Ordinary in the sense of being like other Jews, that is, not having pre-existed with God in heaven and having created the material universe, not being born of a virgin by divine insemination, and not otherwise having a specific title "son of God".
    As I keep pointing out, the five major authors say three different things here. And Mark's Jesus is not thought special by his mother or his family, nor by his Jewish colleagues in any sense the author of Mark thinks is worth mentioning, and has to be washed clean of his sins before the heavens open and he becomes the son of God by adoption.
    We're talking about the mother of Mark's Jesus, not the mother of Matthew's Jesus or Luke's Jesus. (And Paul's and John's Jesuses have no specific parents attributed ─ all we know is that they were Jews, and had a Jewish father and mother, since Jesus, to them, is of the line of David.
    It's interesting that in all four gospels (Paul is silent on the point) Jesus never mentions his family or his mother except in vituperative terms, the sole exception being John's crucifixion scene (Mark 3:31-35, Mark 6:4-5, Matthew 10:35-37, Luke 11:27. John 2:3, contrast John 19:26).
    It can't be true if they can't say what it is, And they admit they can't ─ the definition of a "mystery in the strict sense" (not to be confused with a simple "mystery") is that it "cannot be known by unaided by human reason apart from revelation nor cogently demonstrated by reason once it has been revealed" ─ their words, not mine, (Here I'm quoting the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. The net's Catholic Encyclopedia, under the headings "mystery" and "Trinity" says the same thing, but in more muffled words.)
    They mean someone made it up, and the stories are fictions, not factual reports. Matthew wears his motives on his sleeve ─ he wants his Jesus to conform to what he thinks are "messianic prophecies" in the Tanakh. For example he decides that the mother of Jesus must be a virgin because the Septuagint translates Hebrew 'almah' in Isaiah 7:14 as 'parthenos' ie 'virgin' whereas the Hebrew word simply means 'young woman'. The fact that Isaiah 7:14 is not and can't be about Jesus is something our author apparently thinks is irrelevant.

    He invents the unhistoric 'Taxation Census' story to get Jesus to be born in Bethlehem to "fulfill" Micah 5:2.

    He invents the unhistoric 'Massacre of the Innocents' story to get Jesus into Egypt to "fulfill" Hosea 11.1.

    In Matthew 21:2-5 he absurdly seats Jesus across a foal and a donkey to ride into Jerusalem "to fulfill prophecy" in Zechariah 9.9.

    And so on.
     
    #136 blü 2, Feb 26, 2021
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2021
  17. thomas t

    thomas t non-denominational Christian

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Messages:
    1,684
    Ratings:
    +446
    Religion:
    Christian
    however, it constantly happens.
    Lately I ran into a video saying that God supported abortion (sic!).
    Because, according to the author of the vid, he allows a husband to force his wife to get one if she cheated on him.
    How bizarre is that, please?
    God allowing forced abortion?
    They cite Numbers 5:21. *
    It says that, after a certain procedure, her "hip will fall".*
    a falling hip... that's an abortion?
    Normally a womb, if anything, must fail - fail not fall - in case of abortion.
    Even men have hips (I had to look that up), so how can that mean abortion. If my hip falls (what ever this means), do I also have one?

    ----------------------------------
    So I'd like to ask @ ALL atheists that voted no in the poll, am I allowed to get this point straight?

    Or am I not?



    * the word for what I call hip is often referred to as thigh, in English translations.
    But here again, even a man has a thigh. So how can this mean abortion.
    The word used for "to fall" in Numbers 5:21 is Strong's Hebrew: 5307. נָפַל (naphal) -- to fall, lie
    and it really means to fall in nearly all other occurances.
     
  18. thomas t

    thomas t non-denominational Christian

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Messages:
    1,684
    Ratings:
    +446
    Religion:
    Christian
    in my understanding it conveys a wish. "O happiness...", I read that as "oh happiness be with".
    It's a wish out of anger for having been treated worse probably, that's ok.

    So let's assume you are right and men are the rulers in church.
    If they are the rulers they easily have the power to delegate their power to the woman.
    Paul does not suffer a women to do certain things.
    He is not my authority, though.
    Paul was a great evangelist and Bile author, of course.
    But when it says "I do not suffer a woman to"... than that's what he says. I mean that's what he says. Paul. Not God. That's the way he handles the issue in the churches he founded.
    Ok. If no woman complains, it's perfect.

    But if they complain, which might happen in these times, then the men have all authority to delegate power to women, too.
    If zthey have the power they are free to delegate it, too.
    In Germany, the people has the power.
    And yet it delegates it to the government.
    But the government is not the people.
    The represents it.

    That's the way it might work in the churches, too, so that finally there is equality as indicated by Galatians 3:28.
    But you say:
    it is the verse about equality of gender.
    Look, the "there" in the verse indicates "in the churches". This is at least my interpretation.
    Lydia decided who gets baptised.
    If this isn't leadership, I don't know what leadership is.
     
  19. thomas t

    thomas t non-denominational Christian

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Messages:
    1,684
    Ratings:
    +446
    Religion:
    Christian
    no, even if we believe you that Jesus denies to be the son of David, this does not necessarily mean that he also denies being from his seed.
    You're equating seed and son here.
    It's your interpretation that produces contradictions. Nothing less, nothing more.

    asking questions does not suffice. The onus is on you to prove there is a contradiction when you claim one.
    If the Bible creates a genelogy that has Mary in it.. then it is a Biblical geneaolgy of course.

    the onus is on you here, though.
    Not accepting a scenario is not the same as actively showing it to be wrong.
    No gospel does rule that out, in my opinion.

    The passage that you presented was about Jesus being or not being the son of David -
    regardless of the answer... a powerful God can incarnate.
    When five authors say different things, this does not show your point that different means contradictory.
    No gospel author said Jesus needed baptism for himself. He wanted to give a sign, in my opinion.
    I disagree here.

    According to you they made it up.
    That does not make it so.
    Matthew had motives. That does not make his gospel wrong. He did not invent anything, as I see it.
    For instance, he can ride a foal and, afterwards, on a donkey or whatever he wants to ride.
     
    #139 thomas t, Feb 26, 2021
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2021
  20. SalixIncendium

    SalixIncendium Advaita Vedantin
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2016
    Messages:
    12,694
    Ratings:
    +19,210
    Religion:
    Sanatana Dharma
    Sure you're allowed to get the point straight. But in your dissertation here, you haven't yet begun to get it straight. The only thing you demonstrated is that both men and women have hips and thighs.

    So what does the verse actually mean? Are you able to explain this to us?

    Here's the KJV translation so everyone is on the same page. If you would like to select another translation, feel free.

    Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell;
    For context, I'll include verse 20 as well.

    But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband:
     
Loading...