religious discrimination

[mererdog]

1 hour ago, mark 45 said:

what about those who do not believe in christ,but believe in god,or spirit?they and many others consider themselves christians(and before someone says it,i already know about"no one gets  to the father except thru me...").

I would think religious freedom means they are free to consider themselves Christians, and Dan is free to consider them not Christians. A key component of religious freedom is to allow others to disagree with us- to let others be wrong, no?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, mererdog said:

I would think religious freedom means they are free to consider themselves Christians, and Dan is free to consider them not Christians. A key component of religious freedom is to allow others to disagree with us- to let others be wrong, no?

Yes.  That is the nature of the market place of ideas.  People are indeed entitled to be mistaken.  Still, to insist that Catholics are not Christians.......  That takes a lot of nerve.  Then again, it is the same attitude that let's Dan say that Judaism has been replaced.  The level of arrogance required to take such positions is staggering.

Of course, using the same faith based reasoning, a Muslim could claim that Islam has replaced all of them.  It says so in the Koran.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[mererdog]

3 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

The level of arrogance required to take such positions is staggering.

It doesn't take arrogance to hold and express an unpopular position. It takes conviction and the courage thereof.

Conviction is often misguided. Perhaps his conviction that Catholicism is not Christian is misguided. Perhaps your conviction that it is Christian is misguided.

I don't presume to know the correct way to understand the Bible, or even if there is one. I am not a good arbiter of the correct meaning of the word. If I had an opinion on the subject, I would like to think I could feel safe expressing it here.

Edited November 14, 2016 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 11/11/2016 at 0:28 AM, Dan56 said:

I think your confusing church history with Christianity...

 

You say atrocities flow from scripture, but where in the NT are these things taught? What atrocities were specifically recommended by Christ, Paul, or Peter? Scriptural interpretation does matter, especially when a denomination, sect, or individuals are promoting things that aren't scriptural.

 

 

Dan, since you asked.  Mathew 18: 6. Unbelievers should be drowned.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 11/11/2016 at 0:28 AM, Dan56 said:

I think your confusing church history with Christianity...

 

You say atrocities flow from scripture, but where in the NT are these things taught? What atrocities were specifically recommended by Christ, Paul, or Peter? Scriptural interpretation does matter, especially when a denomination, sect, or individuals are promoting things that aren't scriptural.

 

 

Dan, since you asked.  Mathew 18: 6. Unbelievers should be drowned.

[mererdog]

14 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Dan, since you asked.  Mathew 18: 6. Unbelievers should be drowned.

That is an interpretation. There are other interpretations of the passage. What makes your interpretation more trustworthy than another?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

6 hours ago, mererdog said:

That is an interpretation. There are other interpretations of the passage. What makes your interpretation more trustworthy than another?

Dan wanted an example of atrocities flowing from Christian Scripture. I found him one.  It is not my interpretation.  Neither are they my Scriptures.  It is, as you say, an interpretation.  After 2,000 years of mayhem, we can see where some of it came from.

[cuchulain]

what makes the interpretation LESS trustworthy than another?  If there are two options, and both seem viable, then the book is not being clear, is it?  No...that couldn't be it...it's infallible.  Now the next line of the debate from the Christian side:  The book IS infallible, the person interpreting it isn't.  My response?  For the book to be infallible, it must not be misinterpretable.  If it can be misinterpreted then it isn't doing it's job 100%(infallible).  Some more spin...a little twist on some piece of the bible is referenced...it's called into question with another piece, probably someone uses something old testament, to which we argue a different old testament quote that contradicts it, and the Christian response becomes: that's the old testament...to which point we are back at the beginning, since that's circular reasoning mixed in with biased reasoning(cherry picking).  Maybe someone claims that only PARTS of the old testament are still in effect...but then, how to define which parts?  ughhh....

Barbarities within the bible? How about God killing 41 innocent kids because one kid in that village(who was also killed) called someone bald?  But no...The argument then becomes nothing God does can be immoral and we just aren't capable of understanding it.  So...ultimately my response is this:  If we aren't capable of understanding it, then why continue trying to get us to understand it?

[mererdog]

4 hours ago, cuchulain said:

If it can be misinterpreted then it isn't doing it's job 100%(infallible).  

That would follow only if the Bible's job is to be interpreted correctly by everyone. Can you prove that to be the case?

Edited November 15, 2016 by mererdog

[mererdog]

4 hours ago, cuchulain said:

what makes the interpretation LESS trustworthy than another? 

That would be shifting the burden of proof. Jonathan made a claim. The validity of the claim rests on an interpretation. Proving his claim therefore requires proving the interpretation. If you are going to accuse someone of inciting a riot, you should be prepared to show that you fully understand what they said- that you did not miss the irony, the joke did not go over your head, and you had everything in its proper context.

[Dan56]

On 11/13/2016 at 11:43 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Dan, since you asked.  Mathew 18: 6. Unbelievers should be drowned.

My previous question was; "You say atrocities flow from scripture, but where in the NT are these things taught? What atrocities were specifically recommended by Christ, Paul, or Peter?". The verse you cited was not inspiring believers to commit any atrocities. It was referring to God's judgement; "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matthew 18:6). Clearly, Jesus was not telling his disciples to drown unbelievers, but was referring to a harsh punishment that would fall against those who attacked his followers (God's own vengeance).  

8 hours ago, cuchulain said:

  My response?  For the book to be infallible, it must not be misinterpretable.  If it can be misinterpreted then it isn't doing it's job 100%(infallible).

A book can be infallible, but the reader is fallible.. If a book is misinterpreted, then the reader isn't doing his job. If someone tells you a truth, but you fail to understand him, it doesn't mean the person relaying the truth is wrong.  What you seem to be saying is that if you don't comprehend or misinterpret a book, that the book can't be infallible? If a message is infallible, our inability to grasp it doesn't make it fallible, but rather presumes that we are fallible. That's why the bible tells us to study and learn; "Study to shew thyself approved unto God... rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15)  

8 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Barbarities within the bible? How about God killing 41 innocent kids because one kid in that village(who was also killed) called someone bald?  But no...The argument then becomes nothing God does can be immoral and we just aren't capable of understanding it.  So...ultimately my response is this:  If we aren't capable of understanding it, then why continue trying to get us to understand it?

Properly translated, those were young men who were mocking a prophet. "And he went up from thence unto Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, there came forth young lads out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou baldhead; go up, thou baldhead. And he looked behind him and saw them, and cursed them in the name of Jehovah. And there came forth two she-bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two lads of them" (2 Kings 2:23-24). Its important to note that these forty-two hoodlums who taunted Elisha were likely mauled by the bears, and not necessarily killed.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Dan56

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

16 hours ago, cuchulain said:

what makes the interpretation LESS trustworthy than another?  If there are two options, and both seem viable, then the book is not being clear, is it?  No...that couldn't be it...it's infallible.  Now the next line of the debate from the Christian side:  The book IS infallible, the person interpreting it isn't.  My response?  For the book to be infallible, it must not be misinterpretable.  If it can be misinterpreted then it isn't doing it's job 100%(infallible).  Some more spin...a little twist on some piece of the bible is referenced...it's called into question with another piece, probably someone uses something old testament, to which we argue a different old testament quote that contradicts it, and the Christian response becomes: that's the old testament...to which point we are back at the beginning, since that's circular reasoning mixed in with biased reasoning(cherry picking).  Maybe someone claims that only PARTS of the old testament are still in effect...but then, how to define which parts?  ughhh....

Barbarities within the bible? How about God killing 41 innocent kids because one kid in that village(who was also killed) called someone bald?  But no...The argument then becomes nothing God does can be immoral and we just aren't capable of understanding it.  So...ultimately my response is this:  If we aren't capable of understanding it, then why continue trying to get us to understand it?

Yes.  That is how a true believer plays the game.  It amounts to Scripture wars.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

9 hours ago, Dan56 said:

My previous question was; "You say atrocities flow from scripture, but where in the NT are these things taught? What atrocities were specifically recommended by Christ, Paul, or Peter?". The verse you cited was not inspiring believers to commit any atrocities. It was referring to God's judgement; "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matthew 18:6). Clearly, Jesus was not telling his disciples to drown unbelievers, but was referring to a harsh punishment that would fall against those who attacked his followers (God's own vengeance).  

A book can be infallible, but the reader is fallible.. If a book is misinterpreted, then the reader isn't doing his job. If someone tells you a truth, but you fail to understand him, it doesn't mean the person relaying the truth is wrong.  What you seem to be saying is that if you don't comprehend or misinterpret a book, that the book can't be infallible? If a message is infallible, our inability to grasp it doesn't make it fallible, but rather presumes that we are fallible. That's why the bible tells us to study and learn; "Study to shew thyself approved unto God... rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15)  

Properly translated, those were young men who were mocking a prophet. "And he went up from thence unto Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, there came forth young lads out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou baldhead; go up, thou baldhead. And he looked behind him and saw them, and cursed them in the name of Jehovah. And there came forth two she-bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two lads of them" (2 Kings 2:23-24). Its important to note that these forty-two hoodlums who taunted Elisha were likely mauled by the bears, and not necessarily killed.

When the Bible tells it's believers that an Atheist deserves to be drowned -- then those believers go out and kill Atheists -- there is a clear causal relationship.  It does not matter to the murder victim if the killing is by drowning, hanging, shooting, stabbing, stoning, etc.  Once the Atheist s declared worthy of execution, there is always a true believer who is willing to oblige.  After all.  God said so.  The same God who is the greatest killer in all of history.  Or his Son, who is the same God in a different form.  Another argument that means nothing to those who have been killed.

The issue here is whether or not atrocities flow from the Bible.  Of course they do.  I do not need to debate the precise nuance of every blood soaked passage.  These are the Scriptures that have inspired mayhem for 2,000 years.  I don't need to debate every passage, because it is not the non-believer who reads and then kills.

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

10 hours ago, Dan56 said:

My previous question was; "You say atrocities flow from scripture, but where in the NT are these things taught? What atrocities were specifically recommended by Christ, Paul, or Peter?". The verse you cited was not inspiring believers to commit any atrocities. It was referring to God's judgement; "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matthew 18:6). Clearly, Jesus was not telling his disciples to drown unbelievers, but was referring to a harsh punishment that would fall against those who attacked his followers (God's own vengeance).  

A book can be infallible, but the reader is fallible.. If a book is misinterpreted, then the reader isn't doing his job. If someone tells you a truth, but you fail to understand him, it doesn't mean the person relaying the truth is wrong.  What you seem to be saying is that if you don't comprehend or misinterpret a book, that the book can't be infallible? If a message is infallible, our inability to grasp it doesn't make it fallible, but rather presumes that we are fallible. That's why the bible tells us to study and learn; "Study to shew thyself approved unto God... rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15)  

Properly translated, those were young men who were mocking a prophet. "And he went up from thence unto Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, there came forth young lads out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou baldhead; go up, thou baldhead. And he looked behind him and saw them, and cursed them in the name of Jehovah. And there came forth two she-bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two lads of them" (2 Kings 2:23-24). Its important to note that these forty-two hoodlums who taunted Elisha were likely mauled by the bears, and not necessarily killed.

Seriously?  The version that I read said that they were killed.  "Hoodlums?"  That's an interesting word.  I recall the word be "children."

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

 

2 Kings 2:24

And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

 

From Biblegateway.com

 

I suggest clicking on other translations.  There is much variety of translation in what the bears did to the children.  Tore, tore to pieces, ripped to pieces, mauled, etc.

 

 

Edited November 15, 2016 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

15 hours ago, mererdog said:

That would follow only if the Bible's job is to be interpreted correctly by everyone. Can you prove that to be the case?

It is possible that Scripture was produced by a God, that does not care if Scripture is understood.  Of course, for this to be the case, God would have to be even more of a monster.  There is another possibility.  God intended Scripture to be understood only by a professional priest class.  Still rather a nasty monster.  IMO

Is that where you wanted to go with this?  Beliefs and interpretations have consequences.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[mererdog]

45 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Beliefs and interpretations have consequences.

Of course. So why cite the violent interpretation as if it is the correct one? If someone believes the Bible to be inerrant, why would you tell them the Bible says to drown nonbelievers? What positive consequences are you hoping for?

That asside....

You cite only a portion of possible answers to the question of the Bible's purpose.

One popular belief is that it is only able to be properly understood under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If that belief is accurate, complaining that those who lack the Spirit's guidance fail to understand the Bible is like complaining that you can't breathe underwater.

Another popular belief is that the Bible is part of a greater test, wherein the "wheat is separated from the chaff". Essentially, the belief is that those who don't deserve the truth will not find it. To dispute that belief requires making assertions about what people deserve, and while I have strong opinions on that subject, arguing opinions is a waste of time that leads inevitably to rancor.

And still we are only scratching the surface. I have heard many explanations given for the Bible's purpose, and assume many other possible explanations exist that haven't been thought of yet. If an argument rests on an assumption that the Bible's purpose is any specific thing, that argument is not proven until that assumption is.

Edited November 15, 2016 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, mererdog said:

Of course. So why cite the violent interpretation as if it is the correct one? If someone believes the Bible to be inerrant, why would you tell them the Bible says to drown nonbelievers? What positive consequences are you hoping for?

That asside....

You cite only a portion of possible answers to the question of the Bible's purpose.

One popular belief is that it is only able to be properly understood under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If that belief is accurate, complaining that those who lack the Spirit's guidance fail to understand the Bible is like complaining that you can't breathe underwater.

Another popular belief is that the Bible is part of a greater test, wherein the "wheat is separated from the chaff". Essentially, the belief is that those who don't deserve the truth will not find it. To dispute that belief requires making assertions about what people deserve, and while I have strong opinions on that subject, arguing opinions is a waste of time that leads inevitably to rancor.

And still we are only scratching the surface. I have heard many explanations given for the Bible's purpose, and assume many other possible explanations exist that haven't been thought of yet. If an argument rests on an assumption that the Bible's purpose is any specific thing, that argument is not proven until that assumption is.

Dan wanted me to show him how violence, in the real world, has flowed from Scripture.  My interest in this matter is not theology.  It is 2,000 years of bloody mayhem, that does indeed have its roots in Christian Scripture.

 

[Dan56]

12 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

These are the Scriptures that have inspired mayhem for 2,000 years.  I don't need to debate every passage, because it is not the non-believer who reads and then kills.

Perhaps you missed the 5th commandment "Thou shalt not murder". Those who read are generally inspired to do good, not create mayhem. As I stated before, Jesus never asked anyone to kill; "Love your enemy... Pray for your enemy". Doesn't much sound like someone who was inciting any kind of violence to me!

 

[Pete]

Yet Dan even you seperate murder from a godly killing.

So many people killed were killed by those who felt justified to kill by their faith in a religion. I remember talking about the new years tsunami in india and you felt this was justified because they were not Christians.  I see even the seeds of such evils from the past are in you.