Lessons In Apologetics, Part 1: Introduction & Agnosticism

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

The correct translation is, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." (Exodus 22:18). The verse clearly refers to people who practice sorcery, not to “poisoners”. 

 

There is only one verse where the word "dome" actually appears in English translations of the Bible, but it is only found in the NASB version, and its a bad translation of Amos 9:6. 

 

A good concordance will give you the definition of the Hebrew word used in verses like these.. So its a simple matter to cross check the correct English translation.

 

 

You've described yourself as Agnostic, so it doesn't take a genius to define that, and I've done it several times now. You've also mentioned Apatheist, which  just describes the general mentality of those who don't care for religion or the existence of a deity.. I've listened, and you've written nothing that deviates from what I've defined, so there's no need for me to 'get a little closer' when I've been spot-on.

 

 

Spotty.  The concepts continue to elude you.  It all filters through your pious lens.  You have the words.  Not the understanding.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 6, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

The original hebrew says sorceress...we were both incorrect on that simple cross check.  It makes my point that it HAS changed.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

16 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

The original hebrew says sorceress...we were both incorrect on that simple cross check.  It makes my point that it HAS changed.

 

 

Along the way, I've read Jewish apologetics where the word was "poisoner".

 

For the countless innocents, who were destroyed by witch hunts -- what mattered was the translation in common usage.  It's a shame that God couldn't be bothered, to take an interest in the translations.  You know.  Trivial tasks.  Beneath Devin concern.  The mediocre stuff, best left to Human translators.  

 

 

Why are we even putting this into past tense?  In modern day Nigeria and Uganda, they are still hunting innocents -- who are being accused of being witches.  Yea, God.  The original Hebrew is for academics to argue over.  The slaughter of innocents continues.  By translation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 6, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

What i wonder is dand head count.  Hes been commanded by god and his translation to suffer not a sorcerer, ie witch to live.  Watch out fellow witch board members.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

What i wonder is dand head count.  Hes been commanded by god and his translation to suffer not a sorcerer, ie witch to live.  Watch out fellow witch board members.

 

 

I expect our Pagan brethren already know the score.  Of course, there's also death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath; death for eating pork or shrimp; death for wearing a garment of diverse fabrics; death for being a non-virgin female on her wedding night; death for being gay -- there are others that I can't think of at the moment.  So many ways to earn the death penalty.  You know.  Because God is Love. 

 

Of course, people are still murdered because they were accused of being witches, whether they are or not.  And the pious seem to have little issue with murdering gay people.  Because, you know.  Christian Love.

 

Or telling Atheists that they have no morals; that they are abominable; that they have no love in them and believe in nothing -- that they have rejected truth -- that they are going to Hell for all eternity -- because, you know -- nonjudgmental.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 7, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

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

The concepts continue to elude you.

 

Nonsense... Your not that deep, you think the existence of God/deity is unknowable (agnosticism) and you don't care (apatheism), which is more of an attitude than a belief..  Not to be redundant, but there's absolutely nothing complicated about it... I've notice that you continue to resist telling me where I'm wrong, because your know I'm right.

 

6 hours ago, cuchulain said:

The original hebrew says sorceress...we were both incorrect on that simple cross check.  It makes my point that it HAS changed.

 

A  female sorcerer is a witch.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

10 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

Nonsense... Your not that deep, you think the existence of God/deity is unknowable (agnosticism) and you don't care (apatheism), which is more of an attitude than a belief..  Not to be redundant, but there's absolutely nothing complicated about it... I've notice that you continue to resist telling me where I'm wrong, because your know I'm right.

 

 

A  female sorcerer is a witch.

 

 

You have such a wonderful consistency.  First, a personal attack.  Then you kindly inform me of the true meaning of Apatheism.

 

When you are ready to pay attention and listen, without putting your spin on everything, we can reopen the topic.

 

I will know that you are ready -- when you drop the "Atheists believe in nothing" line.  Until then, I have no reason to continue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dan56]

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

I will know that you are ready -- when you drop the "Atheists believe in nothing" line.  Until then, I have no reason to continue.

 

"And as I said; "because your know I'm right"

 

(Just to be clear, when I previously wrote; "Atheist believe in nothing", I was referring specifically to deity, gods, etc...)

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

54 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

"And as I said; "because your know I'm right"

 

(Just to be clear, when I previously wrote; "Atheist believe in nothing", I was referring specifically to deity, gods, etc...)       

 

 

 

 

 

1.  Are you five?  Grow up.

 

 

2.  Still reworking history.

 

Edited January 7, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

10 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Nonsense... Your not that deep, you think the existence of God/deity is unknowable (agnosticism) and you don't care (apatheism), which is more of an attitude than a belief..  Not to be redundant, but there's absolutely nothing complicated about it... I've notice that you continue to resist telling me where I'm wrong, because your know I'm right.

 

 

A  female sorcerer is a witch.

You remember recently in another thread where I used the word "Dome" and you specifically pointed out that word didn't appear in the bible?  Now you call ME for nitpicking words?  That's what you call hypocrisy.  

 

In any case, how many witches have you killed as your god and bible command, Dan?

[Dan56]

12 hours ago, cuchulain said:

You remember recently in another thread where I used the word "Dome" and you specifically pointed out that word didn't appear in the bible?  Now you call ME for nitpicking words?  That's what you call hypocrisy.  

 

In any case, how many witches have you killed as your god and bible command, Dan?

 

That's correct, "dome" only appears in one bible version ( NASB ), that's because its a bad translation of Amos 9:6. 

 

I wasn't nitpicking, but just saying that “poisoners” was a bad English translation of Exodus 22:18; "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".. A female sorceress is a witch, not a poisoner..

 

That law was only applicable to the Hebrews, God did not want witches/sorcery to pollute His people, but it was not an order to kill all witches, just those dwelling among them.... So my God has not commanded me to kill anyone.

[cuchulain]

On 1/7/2019 at 8:56 PM, Dan56 said:

 

That's correct, "dome" only appears in one bible version ( NASB ), that's because its a bad translation of Amos 9:6. 

 

I wasn't nitpicking, but just saying that “poisoners” was a bad English translation of Exodus 22:18; "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".. A female sorceress is a witch, not a poisoner..

 

That law was only applicable to the Hebrews, God did not want witches/sorcery to pollute His people, but it was not an order to kill all witches, just those dwelling among them.... So my God has not commanded me to kill anyone.

Do you know what the firmament is Dan?  Or do you choose to define it differently so the bible looks less like it was written by superstitious middle easterners with no understanding of space?  God didnt know that it wasnt a firm, fixed structure?

[Dan56]

11 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Do you know what the firmament is Dan?  Or do you choose to define it differently so the bible looks less like it was written by superstitious middle easterners with no understanding of space?  God didnt know that it wasnt a firm, fixed structure?

 

Firmamentfrom the Vulgate firmamentum, which is used as the translation of the Hebrew raki'a . This word means simply "expansion." It denotes the space or expanse like an arch appearing immediately above us. They who rendered raki'a by firmamentum regarded it as a solid body. The language of Scripture is not scientific but popular, and hence we read of the sun rising and setting, and also here the use of this particular word. It is plain that it was used to denote solidity as well as expansion. It formed a division between the waters above and the waters below ( Genesis 1:7 ). The raki'a supported the upper reservoir (Psalm 148:4). It was the support also of the heavenly bodies ( Genesis 1:14 ), and is spoken of as having "windows" and "doors" ( Genesis 7:11 ; Isaiah 24:18 ; Malachi 3:10 ) through which the rain and snow might descend.

 

As a wise man recently wrote; "Sometimes context can alter meaning, sometimes the age the word was used in must be considered... "

 

Edited January 10, 2019 by Dan56

[cuchulain]

On 1/9/2019 at 8:49 PM, Dan56 said:

 

Firmamentfrom the Vulgate firmamentum, which is used as the translation of the Hebrew raki'a . This word means simply "expansion." It denotes the space or expanse like an arch appearing immediately above us. They who rendered raki'a by firmamentum regarded it as a solid body. The language of Scripture is not scientific but popular, and hence we read of the sun rising and setting, and also here the use of this particular word. It is plain that it was used to denote solidity as well as expansion. It formed a division between the waters above and the waters below ( Genesis 1:7 ). The raki'a supported the upper reservoir (Psalm 148:4). It was the support also of the heavenly bodies ( Genesis 1:14 ), and is spoken of as having "windows" and "doors" ( Genesis 7:11 ; Isaiah 24:18 ; Malachi 3:10 ) through which the rain and snow might descend.

 

As a wise man recently wrote; "Sometimes context can alter meaning, sometimes the age the word was used in must be considered... "

 

And sometimes the word is used erroneously. 

[Key]

On 1/7/2019 at 5:56 PM, Dan56 said:

 

That's correct, "dome" only appears in one bible version ( NASB ), that's because its a bad translation of Amos 9:6. 

 

I wasn't nitpicking, but just saying that “poisoners” was a bad English translation of Exodus 22:18; "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".. A female sorceress is a witch, not a poisoner..

 

That law was only applicable to the Hebrews, God did not want witches/sorcery to pollute His people, but it was not an order to kill all witches, just those dwelling among them.... So my God has not commanded me to kill anyone.

As I've had a similar discussion in another thread, there are some Christians who point this out as pertaining to the Old Testament. But there are others who argue that the laws of Old may still pertain to Christians, as well, citing His own words of, "I have not come to abolish the laws, rather to fulfill them", which may mean their faith must follow God's commandments just as the Hebrews must. Thoughts?

[Dan56]

11 hours ago, Key said:

As I've had a similar discussion in another thread, there are some Christians who point this out as pertaining to the Old Testament. But there are others who argue that the laws of Old may still pertain to Christians, as well, citing His own words of, "I have not come to abolish the laws, rather to fulfill them", which may mean their faith must follow God's commandments just as the Hebrews must. Thoughts?

 

I believe the laws Christ fulfilled are no longer in effect.. All the ceremonial, sacrificial, holy days, priesthood, and  temple duties, were all statutes and ordinances put in  place to govern the people. But when Christ became our chief priest, daily sacrifice,  etc, all those rules were no longer applicable because they were satisfied in Christ. But the basic moral laws covered in the 10 commandments remain valid under the new covenant. Jesus summed-up the first 5 under the greatest commandment, and the other 5 in the second greatest commandment (Matthew 22: 37-39). Then he said; "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. " 

Edited January 12, 2019 by Dan56

[RevBogovac]

On 1/4/2019 at 3:36 AM, Songster said:

If you're saying you don't possess a soul, I'll take your word for it...

Your book say you don't. My book says I do.

You believe your book. I'll believe mine.....

 

 

Oh no no no... Not a book: my beliefs are based on scientific, provable empirically repeatable experimentation...

 

But to see you and Dan jump through hoops to make "sense" of a book is just plain boring (and a waste of precious time)  by now.

 

I agree with Jonathan and cuchulain (and nature['s laws] for that matter)...

[RevBogovac]

6 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I believe the laws Christ fulfilled are no longer in effect.. All the ceremonial, sacrificial, holy days, priesthood, and  temple duties, were all statutes and ordinances put in  place to govern the people. But when Christ became our chief priest, daily sacrifice,  etc, all those rules were no longer applicable because they were satisfied in Christ. But the basic moral laws covered in the 10 commandments remain valid under the new covenant. Jesus summed-up the first 5 under the greatest commandment, and the other 5 in the second greatest commandment (Matthew 22: 37-39). Then he said; "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. " 

 

Thank you so much!!! I already was at odds, as I consider myself a Christian and I needed advice in some matters in the Bible, which I would also like to know how to follow those rules? Because everything that has to be followed in the Bible is obviously beyond dispute.

 

1. Leviticus 25:44 says that I may possess slaves, both male and female, but only if they are purchased from neighboring countries. Does this only apply to Germany and Belgium (as I'm from the Netherlands)? A friend says that England is excluded, because the North Sea is between, but I would really like to own a Brit!

 

2. I want to sell one of my daughters as slaves, as permitted by Exodus 21: 7. According to Leviticus 27: 4, a woman is worth thirty grams of silver, but under twenty years she is worth only ten grams of silver. If my daughter is already full-grown, but not yet twenty, what is a reasonable price in this current economy?

 

3. A friend is faced with the following problem: according to Leviticus 15: 19-24, a man may not have contact with a woman who is unclean in her menstrual period. That is a bit difficult to see. How can a man avoid this? Just asking is not so good nowadays, most women take offense here.

 

4. If I burn a bull on the altar for sacrifice, it creates a fragrance that pleases God, says Leviticus 1: 9. However, I get complaints from the neighborhood when I do this. They do not like the smell. Can I smite them now?

 

5. In my street are several people who keep on working on Sunday, Sabbath. In Exodus 35: 2 it is clear that I must kill them. Am I morally responsible to kill them myself, or may I ask the police to do this for me?

 

6. Pork (Leviticus 11: 7) and oysters and mussels (Leviticus 11:10) are unclean animals and may not be eaten or touched, and whoever touches them is also unclean. In my choir there is a butcher and a fishmonger, can I still touch them when I wear gloves? Oh, and how about touching a football made from pig skin?

 

7. According to Leviticus 21:20 I can not approach God's altar if I have a deviation in my sight. I have to admit that I wear glasses, but with my glasses I do see sharp ... is there any room for negotiation here?

 

8. A priest must marry a virgin, Leviticus 21:13 says. So Catholics already have a problem, how are Protestants approaching this?

 

9. Almost all men and many women in my area have their hair cut, including the hair at their temples. This is explicitly forbidden in Leviticus 19:27. How should they be put to death?

 

10. An uncle of mine has a sinful farm, because he plants two types of crops in one field. With that he violates Leviticus 19:19. His children are also sinful according to the same Bible verse, because they wear clothing made of more than one type of fabric: their coats are made of cotton and polyester.
Even more difficult: his wife, I heard cursing and she blasphemed the name of the Lord. Now it's quite a hassle to get the whole village together to stone her, as Leviticus 24: 10-16 prescribes. Can we not simply burn them at the stake in a private family gathering, as we do with men who lay in with their mother-in-law, as prescribed in Leviticus 20:14?

 

11. My colleagues read the horoscope in the newspaper. According to Leviticus 19:26 you can not engage in divination. How long do I have to consider them unclean?

 

Dear responders, you have studied the Bible much longer and more intensively than I have, so can you please help me with this. Help me to get the wisdom to deal with this ... although I'm still not sure if it is wise to get that wisdom (Proverbs 3: 13-18, blissfully he finds that wisdom) or not (Proverbs 3: 13-18) Ecclesiastes 1:18, much wisdom is much grief).

 

Thank you once again for clearly pointing out that if it is in the Bible, it must be pursued!

 

PS I really would really like to own a Brit ...

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, RevBogovac said:

 

 

Oh no no no... Not a book: my beliefs are based on scientific, provable empirically repeatable experimentation...

 

But to see you and Dan jump through hoops to make "sense" of a book is just plain boring (and a waste of precious time)  by now.

 

I agree with Jonathan and cuchulain (and nature['s laws] for that matter)…

 

 

Thank you.  We have no objective, verifiable facts, about souls.  I did try to apply reason.  What is important, at least to me, is that wanting and not wanting souls, to be real, are equally irrelevant.  Either souls are, or are not.  In like manner, belief changes nothing.  Belief, non-belief and disbelief, are equally irrelevant.

My views on God are similar.  For the same reasons.

 

 

 

Edited January 12, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[RevBogovac]

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

 

 

Thank you.  We have no objective, verifiable facts about souls.  I did try to apply reason.  What is important, at least to me, is that wanting and not wanting souls, to be real, are equally irrelevant.  Either souls are, or are not.  In like manner, belief and non-belief are equally irrelevant.

My views on God are similar.  For the same reasons.

 

 

 

 

You're welcome. You would be surprised how far social and medical sciences have advanced. This is my summary on the matter, but please feel free to (re-)search further (and more accurately): we [life flora & fauna] are made up out of matter and energy. As matter dies, energy does not. Energy (law of nature) can not end, it only can change form. So as we die, our energy changes form. If someone wants to see that as a "soul" so be it. But that soul does not "keep" our person(-al memories and all). That is "stored" in the synapses of our brains. And that is matter... (which dies).