Jonathan H. B. Lobl

I'm going to have to think about that. I've thought about it. No.

It still leaves unanswered, the basic question. Why does God need Scribes?

The salvation of billions, does not rest on the color of your house. More important matters, require better evidence of a more substantial nature. It is sad, that the color of your house, has much better evidence than inerrant Scripture.

In the Taoist world, there is considerable disagreement as to whether or not Lao Tzu; the alleged author of the Tao Te Jing, ever existed or not. There is little to no evidence for a historic Lao Tzu; and the name Lao Tzu translates as "Old Master or "Old Sage". It doesn't matter to Taoists, because what is important to them, is the ideas of Taoism. Not the source of those ideas. Would Christians, in a similar way, be satisfied with the ideas of Jesus; without a risen Christ? Some would. At least some of the Unitarian Universalists do take that view. For the majority of Christians, I think this would not be at all acceptable. For the majority of Christians, their faith requires a grounding in a historic Jesus, who became the risen Christ. For those who are satisfied with a Human Jesus, there is philosophy and ideas. The actual source of those ideas, rooted in one historic person, is not a hot issue. The majority of Christians, require theology and faith. Without a historic risen Christ, they have nothing. IMO 1 Corinthians 15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations 1 Corinthians 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

In the case of Socrates and Plato; what mattered was their ideas. Living people are not trying to forge personal relationships with them. Doctrines of personal salvation are not involved. No one is claiming that they were divinity. Rejecting them does not result in Damnation.

History and Scripture are filled with horror and atrocity. I'm hesitant to pick out one example as worst. That is all I meant.

Not really. In my opinion, there's much worse in Scripture. There is also worse throughout history. Sure it's bad. Not the worst.

Of course. The perfect text has become imperfect. Not that there is any reason, to think it was ever perfect -- or true.

Yes. Just so.

That is exactly how I look at Nativity scenes, on Public land. An annoyance by a large group of n'er-do-wells.

Yes, to everything you just said.

The first symbol is an attack. The second symbol is a response to that attack. Still confused?

This much is clear. Since Fundamentalists speak for God -- and act for God -- any limits on their speech or actions are an attack on God. It follows that we must me motivated by opposition to God. That is what Dan keeps telling us. This is why. Of course, that makes for some silly questions. 1, How we can hate the God, that we don't believe in. 2. What kind of weak, pathetic God, needs someone like Dan to defend it, from us.

Maybe God has poor penmanship skills.

Why does God need Human scribes?

You still don't get the concept of reaction. You force your crap into Public Space -- others will balance the scales. One good pelvic thrust deserves another.

Finally. An honest response from you. Fundamentalist Christians force their crap into public spaces -- because they can. That is the extent of your explanation. You have the numbers. You have the power. The rest of us can suck it. Things change. When your group is no longer on top, you may have a fresh perspective on minority rights.

It's an odd thing. God can speak the entire Universe into existence -- but needs Human scribes to publish The Book. Or -- The Books. Why is it, that God can't create anything, that Humans can create? God can create a tree, but not a book? A genetic code -- but not a book? Why, when Human scribes do produce The BOOK, for God, does it fall into decay or burn? Why is the content of that Book, limited to the information and misinformation of that day? It's almost as though God had nothing to do with it. Why are the original versions lost to us? Why are there copy and translation errors? The All Powerful seems to be having a bad day.

Since my meaning was lost on you, I will rephrase. "Well? Why must Christian Fundamentalist bullies, force their stuff onto Public Space?"

I am deeply shocked, that we have to say something so obvious. Religious persecution is morally wrong. It is detestable. Until everybody is free in these matters, nobody is safe. In addition to being morally reprehensible; religious persecution doesn't work. Even a cursory glance at history demonstrates this. Ancient Rome tried to destroy Christianity. Look how that turned out. China is currently persecuting the Falun Gong movement. Consequently, It's spreading around the world like wild fire. Yes, China is sending thousands of it's Muslim population to "reeducation camps." A true boon to terrorist recruitment. Where does this leave us? Religious persecution is both morally wrong and counter productive. It's a shame that people can't learn from history. One final thought. Your friend is a true fool. In time, the hunters become the hunted.

Well? Why must religious bullies, force their stuff onto Public Space? Bullies are seldom loved. Of course, there was push back. Cultural dominance has consequences. One of those consequences is a loss of credibility. Matthew 6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations I'm sure you recognize this passage. It's from the Ten Commandments. This Commandment is the order, not to covet the things that are my neighbour's. In particular, the various properties that belong to my neighbour. his house ------------ property his wife --------------- property his manservant --- property his maidservant -- property his ox ------------------ property his ass ---------------- property nor anything that is thy neighbour's Your "indentured servant" is property -- along with the owner's house, wife, ox and ass. Unless, of course, the ox and ass are also pulling down wages. Just like the "indentured servant". We might also wonder at the wife, being listed as one of the properties. So much for "objective morality".

The regulations for what you call, "Indentured Servitude" come from Exodus 21: 20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.21 21 Not withstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. Striking a "servant" so that he dies is punishable. Unless the servant lingers for a few days before dying. Because this is a property crime. No. Not an indentured servant. A slave.