Slashdot Mirror

Wow, I can't quite tell from the post, the internet does have a habit of strangling emotion, but it appears you generally want to know the answer.

That being the case, you're in luck. You can tell whether someone knows what they're talking about, by whether or not what they say lines up with what the Bible teaches.

I know that sounds a bit circular when they come to you with a Bible in their hands and say for instance: "See it says, 'Wives submit to your husbands', so Women have to do everything their Man says." Turns out the person who pedantically holds to that is ignoring the next verse which says Husbands should sacrifice their lives for their wives.

So I guess the point I'm trying to get to is, you have to read the Bible to know if what they're trying to sell you is a bill of goods or not. You have to practice this skill, like any other skill, to be good at it. And honestly its not always easy. Though it was one of the cool things about the Reformation. The reformers said that we didn't need a person to interpret the Bible for us, that God was actually capable of making His meaning clear to us if we seriously asked for it.

Maybe another way to answer this question is to listen to what they're saying and try to see if whatever they're preaching is lifting up God/Jesus or themselves? If it's the former, they're probably Biblically correct. If we assume that God was the true author behind the Bible, then wouldn't He focus on Himself and His glory, not ours? So if someone comes to you and says "God loves you and wants you to be rich" you can bet that the speaker doesn't know his/her Bible well. Because the majority of the Bible tells the story of God's concern for His glory which is magnified by the grace (undeserved favor) he gives to people that try to avoid Him as they pursue their own selfish desires. It speaks only a little about personal wealth, and when it does it usually is warning against the wealth since it fools people into thinking they're safe instead of depending on God.

Wow, I can't quite tell from the post, the internet does have a habit of strangling emotion, but it appears you generally want to know the answer.

That being the case, you're in luck. You can tell whether someone knows what they're talking about, by whether or not what they say lines up with what the Bible teaches.

I know that sounds a bit circular when they come to you with a Bible in their hands and say for instance: "See it says, 'Wives submit to your husbands', so Women have to do everything their Man says." Turns out the person who pedantically holds to that is ignoring the next verse which says Husbands should sacrifice their lives for their wives.

So I guess the point I'm trying to get to is, you have to read the Bible to know if what they're trying to sell you is a bill of goods or not. You have to practice this skill, like any other skill, to be good at it. And honestly its not always easy. Though it was one of the cool things about the Reformation. The reformers said that we didn't need a person to interpret the Bible for us, that God was actually capable of making His meaning clear to us if we seriously asked for it.

Maybe another way to answer this question is to listen to what they're saying and try to see if whatever they're preaching is lifting up God/Jesus or themselves? If it's the former, they're probably Biblically correct. If we assume that God was the true author behind the Bible, then wouldn't He focus on Himself and His glory, not ours? So if someone comes to you and says "God loves you and wants you to be rich" you can bet that the speaker doesn't know his/her Bible well. Because the majority of the Bible tells the story of God's concern for His glory which is magnified by the grace (undeserved favor) he gives to people that try to avoid Him as they pursue their own selfish desires. It speaks only a little about personal wealth, and when it does it usually is warning against the wealth since it fools people into thinking they're safe instead of depending on God.

Evidently the poster couldn't be bothered to RTFA. The actual article doesn't say the codex has "no mention of the resurrection". It says that, "The Gospel of Mark ends abruptly after Jesus' disciples discover his empty tomb." What this refers to is Mark 16:9-20, which most modern translations note as a later addition or discard entirely. The gospel ends abruptly with the discovery of the empty tomb and skips later appearances of Jesus. The remaining three gospels pretty much have the usual resurrection stories in the usual places.

Maybe there are two seemingly conflicting stories because God is saying something to people who use their brains- "hey, you're not supposed to take the creation stories literally, that's why I got Moses to put two in".

If there is a God as per the Bible, which is more likely - Moses and God are stupid, or the people taking that bit literally are?

You think Moses didn't notice when he was writing that stuff down? Or think that other people would not notice? My bet is Moses wasn't that stupid.

Perhaps God doesn't like smart alecs? Or people who think they're smarter than they actually are?

A lot of the stuff in the Bible might look ok at first read (to the people who can barely read anyway ;) ), stupid at second read (first read to the people who think they can read ;) ), then sometimes not so stupid at X read.

By the way, according to Genesis there was a tree of life in the Garden of Eden, there was no prohibition from eating fruit from that tree (and thus living forever) but they chose not to. Instead they ate fruit from the prohibited tree instead - the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Was that terrible of God? Don't forget though - God also had a plan to save us. Some bits of the plan don't make sense to me, and some bits make a lot of sense and so I'll keep reading.

Can you imagine being imperfect and living forever? In my imagination that could be the worst thing that could happen to someone. Forever is a very very long time. Longer than the lifespan of a universe. Longer than ten lifespans of a universe. Want to live forever? You better be made perfect by God first. You can't be made perfect by yourself or some other imperfect being.

People who want to laugh at the Bible, or take all of it literally rather than use their brains to figure out what the big picture might be like, should go read the Song of Songs literally:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=26&chapter=4&version=31&context=chapter

I recommend starting with John and continuing through Acts and Romans. Just those 3 books (which will take about 2-3 hours to read), will give you a very good understanding of the core of Christian belief.

"E.g., the Jews shouldn't eat pork, that was another thing they gave up at Paul's insistence"...

You mean Peter?
Oh wait, sorry -- I don't mean to detract from the Paul bashing -- of course we blame him.

And Bush. Bush and Paul's fault.

Yeah.

Meanings of words change over time. English has changed a LOT since the days of Chaucer.

As it is I think modern translations like NIV make a good effort of translating the Hebrew etc to "Modern English", when the meaning is uncertain most NIV Bibles do note it, and often also provide possible translations/interpretations.

Furthermore, whether it's in NIV or KJV the meaning of many verses in the Bible appear to be easily translated.

For example: John 13:34-35

http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B43C013.htm

NIV:
34 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

KJV:
34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

Alternative link:
NIV: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2013:34-35&version=31
KJV: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2013:34-35&version=9

I can't read Greek but as far as I can tell, looking at those verses and other verses the "popular standard" English translations do not diverge significantly in meaning. Perhaps in some translations the emphasis is different.

Of course there are some "translations" that tend to add a lot more words (and even sentences) that very likely aren't in the original - like The Message and The Amplified Bible, but I regard those as rather dubious.

Most Christians thus have no qualms about relying on the "popular standard" translations (NIV, KJV, ASV).

If you want a religion where followers are supposed to only read their holy book in the original language, check out Islam. Most muslims don't really know what the Koran/Quran says - they think it is beyond them. So they rely on some imam to tell them (who often isn't that good at Arabic or knowledgeable about the Koran and the context of various verses).

That to me is a far worse scenario.

Translations appear to be discouraged in many Islamic countries. Maybe they are afraid of muslims finding out more about their own religion?

After all, Yusman Roy, a muslim preacher in Indonesia was jailed after he led his fellow muslims in prayer/worship in both Indonesian and Arabic instead of only Arabic. Yusman Roy thought that his fellow Indonesians should understand what they were saying in their prayers/worship to God.

So I wonder if the following page is blocked in some muslim countries:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/001.qmt.html

Letting people read good translations of what they are supposed to believe is a good thing.

Meanings of words change over time. English has changed a LOT since the days of Chaucer.

As it is I think modern translations like NIV make a good effort of translating the Hebrew etc to "Modern English", when the meaning is uncertain most NIV Bibles do note it, and often also provide possible translations/interpretations.

Furthermore, whether it's in NIV or KJV the meaning of many verses in the Bible appear to be easily translated.

For example: John 13:34-35

http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B43C013.htm

NIV:
34 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

KJV:
34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

Alternative link:
NIV: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2013:34-35&version=31
KJV: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2013:34-35&version=9

I can't read Greek but as far as I can tell, looking at those verses and other verses the "popular standard" English translations do not diverge significantly in meaning. Perhaps in some translations the emphasis is different.

Of course there are some "translations" that tend to add a lot more words (and even sentences) that very likely aren't in the original - like The Message and The Amplified Bible, but I regard those as rather dubious.

Most Christians thus have no qualms about relying on the "popular standard" translations (NIV, KJV, ASV).

If you want a religion where followers are supposed to only read their holy book in the original language, check out Islam. Most muslims don't really know what the Koran/Quran says - they think it is beyond them. So they rely on some imam to tell them (who often isn't that good at Arabic or knowledgeable about the Koran and the context of various verses).

That to me is a far worse scenario.

Translations appear to be discouraged in many Islamic countries. Maybe they are afraid of muslims finding out more about their own religion?

After all, Yusman Roy, a muslim preacher in Indonesia was jailed after he led his fellow muslims in prayer/worship in both Indonesian and Arabic instead of only Arabic. Yusman Roy thought that his fellow Indonesians should understand what they were saying in their prayers/worship to God.

So I wonder if the following page is blocked in some muslim countries:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/001.qmt.html

Letting people read good translations of what they are supposed to believe is a good thing.

Sorry, Sparky, but you're confusing Christianity with Judism. Christians' sins have been paid for; that's why I'm not going to hell for coveting my neighbor's wife, or my other neighbor's ass. God but her ass is fine!

But if you want to stone me for it, I'll bring the Zig Zags and the Bic.

-Steve

You left off one of my favorites: Having God call in a bear to maul children making fun of baldness.

I've always wondered how biblical scholars would explain that (I haven't asked yet).

The phrase "around the wold" is mentioned a couple of times in the bible. I am not sure where people get the world is flat at. "The four corners of the world" doesn't make me think that the world is flat. One example: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2040:22;&version=31; I can't find the one where someone was talking about "traveling around the world", it is in there though

To put it bluntly, the "goddidit" meme is pure laziness.

Kinda like claiming that Noah was instructed to put "two" of every "species" in an ark (got a source for either? didn't think so), Lot "leaving his daughter out to be raped" as "morality" (got a source for either? didn't think so) or trying to save the "angel Gabriel" (got a source for that? didn't think so).

I'm not attacking your intelligence, only your laziness in attacking a book you haven't bothered to actually read. You appear to not realize how ignorant you are when it comes to what the Bible actually says (I mean "ignorant" in its true sense - "lacking knowledge or information" - not as a slam; I'm sure when it comes to science you've invested more time in knowing the basics before debating the interesting issues).

Just because some anti-Christian writes something on a hate site doesn't cause the Bible to actually say it. You should attack using the source, not talking points someone else wrote for you.

Here's what the source - er, Bible - actually says:

• Genesis 7:2-3 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
• Genesis 19:1,9,29 "The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening...", [Lot said], "Look, I have two daughters...", "'Get out of our way,' they replied. And they said, 'This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them.' and "So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, he remembered Abraham, and he brought Lot out of the catastrophe."

Now, your criticisms of the Bible may certainly be worth arguing - I enjoy debating questions such as these with my atheist friends. Even though Christianity is accepted on faith, there's nothing in the Bible I'm unwilling to discuss or defend. Such debates are great exercises for me to discover that what I was certain the Bible said isn't actually there. Thus, I empathize greatly with your ignorance. :-)

But be honest for a moment - if you came to one of my science classes and made so many basic errors in the first paragraph of your first test essay question, do you really think you'd pass?

To put it bluntly, the "goddidit" meme is pure laziness.

Kinda like claiming that Noah was instructed to put "two" of every "species" in an ark (got a source for either? didn't think so), Lot "leaving his daughter out to be raped" as "morality" (got a source for either? didn't think so) or trying to save the "angel Gabriel" (got a source for that? didn't think so).

I'm not attacking your intelligence, only your laziness in attacking a book you haven't bothered to actually read. You appear to not realize how ignorant you are when it comes to what the Bible actually says (I mean "ignorant" in its true sense - "lacking knowledge or information" - not as a slam; I'm sure when it comes to science you've invested more time in knowing the basics before debating the interesting issues).

Just because some anti-Christian writes something on a hate site doesn't cause the Bible to actually say it. You should attack using the source, not talking points someone else wrote for you.

Here's what the source - er, Bible - actually says:

• Genesis 7:2-3 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
• Genesis 19:1,9,29 "The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening...", [Lot said], "Look, I have two daughters...", "'Get out of our way,' they replied. And they said, 'This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them.' and "So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, he remembered Abraham, and he brought Lot out of the catastrophe."

Now, your criticisms of the Bible may certainly be worth arguing - I enjoy debating questions such as these with my atheist friends. Even though Christianity is accepted on faith, there's nothing in the Bible I'm unwilling to discuss or defend. Such debates are great exercises for me to discover that what I was certain the Bible said isn't actually there. Thus, I empathize greatly with your ignorance. :-)

But be honest for a moment - if you came to one of my science classes and made so many basic errors in the first paragraph of your first test essay question, do you really think you'd pass?

>No! Not bears. They're godless killing machines.

Alternatively, they're God's killing machines.

The more you know...

I wonder how they came up with the name Firefox? To me it brings to mind the story of Samson in Judges

In the complete absence of moral discrimination, anything is permissible. Are you looking to the laws of the land to define what is morally permissible and what is not? If so, your "morality" over the last 100 years would have changed drastically! Do you look to your own insight and experience to define what is morally permissible? How frequently has that changed as you've aged and had various experiences? How much more will it change in the coming years? Do you have a fundamental disagreement with the following Christian beliefs?:

• "don't hate"

• "tell the truth"

• "help those that are less fortunate than you"

• "love those who hurt you"

Are any of the neigh sayers out there going to dispute that these are not only positive virtues in a civilized society but also something that we are lacking more and more of in the United States and the world? Would you not agree that sexuality can and has and will be used in destructive immoral ways? Do you disagree that relationships, young lives, and even entire societies have all been destroyed because of a lack of sexual morality?

The BSA and other organizations that are based on Judeo-Christian principles recognize that these values go a long way in teaching young people to become capable, responsible members of society. Good for them! And they do so with the best interests of the their scouts in heart and mind.

If you completely reject any religious belief system as "mythical", "hateful", or "unprovable", then I'd like you to take a minute to consider your actions in life. Why do you occasionally help out a neighbor with his weekend project? Why do you give money to your local animal shelter? Why do you attempt to not cheat on your spouse? Why do you bother to be honest when working the checkout counter where you work? Why are you trying to make a greener Earth for tomorrow? Where did you get the idea that these are good things to do and worth the investment of your precious and limited time?

If you truly do not believe in an after-life that reflects the consequences of your actions in this one, then CHANGE your actions! Why do you just want to be a "good person"? What's the point? You're still dead in the end. Your "good" actions are a complete waste of time and it is *you* that are being duped.

And consider for a moment that what you know of Christianity or organized religion is probably heavily tainted by your own experiences with hypocritical "followers" and/or the stories you've heard from others. Our worship leader starts every service greeting us as sinners; "Good morning sinners!" It's a simple reminder that we're all struggling to adhere to a moral code as best we can.

Having a bad experience with religion or Christianity

In the complete absence of moral discrimination, anything is permissible. Are you looking to the laws of the land to define what is morally permissible and what is not? If so, your "morality" over the last 100 years would have changed drastically! Do you look to your own insight and experience to define what is morally permissible? How frequently has that changed as you've aged and had various experiences? How much more will it change in the coming years? Do you have a fundamental disagreement with the following Christian beliefs?:

• "don't hate"

• "tell the truth"

• "help those that are less fortunate than you"

• "love those who hurt you"

Are any of the neigh sayers out there going to dispute that these are not only positive virtues in a civilized society but also something that we are lacking more and more of in the United States and the world? Would you not agree that sexuality can and has and will be used in destructive immoral ways? Do you disagree that relationships, young lives, and even entire societies have all been destroyed because of a lack of sexual morality?

The BSA and other organizations that are based on Judeo-Christian principles recognize that these values go a long way in teaching young people to become capable, responsible members of society. Good for them! And they do so with the best interests of the their scouts in heart and mind.

If you completely reject any religious belief system as "mythical", "hateful", or "unprovable", then I'd like you to take a minute to consider your actions in life. Why do you occasionally help out a neighbor with his weekend project? Why do you give money to your local animal shelter? Why do you attempt to not cheat on your spouse? Why do you bother to be honest when working the checkout counter where you work? Why are you trying to make a greener Earth for tomorrow? Where did you get the idea that these are good things to do and worth the investment of your precious and limited time?

If you truly do not believe in an after-life that reflects the consequences of your actions in this one, then CHANGE your actions! Why do you just want to be a "good person"? What's the point? You're still dead in the end. Your "good" actions are a complete waste of time and it is *you* that are being duped.

And consider for a moment that what you know of Christianity or organized religion is probably heavily tainted by your own experiences with hypocritical "followers" and/or the stories you've heard from others. Our worship leader starts every service greeting us as sinners; "Good morning sinners!" It's a simple reminder that we're all struggling to adhere to a moral code as best we can.

Having a bad experience with religion or Christianity

In the complete absence of moral discrimination, anything is permissible. Are you looking to the laws of the land to define what is morally permissible and what is not? If so, your "morality" over the last 100 years would have changed drastically! Do you look to your own insight and experience to define what is morally permissible? How frequently has that changed as you've aged and had various experiences? How much more will it change in the coming years? Do you have a fundamental disagreement with the following Christian beliefs?:

• "don't hate"

• "tell the truth"

• "help those that are less fortunate than you"

• "love those who hurt you"

Are any of the neigh sayers out there going to dispute that these are not only positive virtues in a civilized society but also something that we are lacking more and more of in the United States and the world? Would you not agree that sexuality can and has and will be used in destructive immoral ways? Do you disagree that relationships, young lives, and even entire societies have all been destroyed because of a lack of sexual morality?

The BSA and other organizations that are based on Judeo-Christian principles recognize that these values go a long way in teaching young people to become capable, responsible members of society. Good for them! And they do so with the best interests of the their scouts in heart and mind.

If you completely reject any religious belief system as "mythical", "hateful", or "unprovable", then I'd like you to take a minute to consider your actions in life. Why do you occasionally help out a neighbor with his weekend project? Why do you give money to your local animal shelter? Why do you attempt to not cheat on your spouse? Why do you bother to be honest when working the checkout counter where you work? Why are you trying to make a greener Earth for tomorrow? Where did you get the idea that these are good things to do and worth the investment of your precious and limited time?

If you truly do not believe in an after-life that reflects the consequences of your actions in this one, then CHANGE your actions! Why do you just want to be a "good person"? What's the point? You're still dead in the end. Your "good" actions are a complete waste of time and it is *you* that are being duped.

And consider for a moment that what you know of Christianity or organized religion is probably heavily tainted by your own experiences with hypocritical "followers" and/or the stories you've heard from others. Our worship leader starts every service greeting us as sinners; "Good morning sinners!" It's a simple reminder that we're all struggling to adhere to a moral code as best we can.

Having a bad experience with religion or Christianity

In the complete absence of moral discrimination, anything is permissible. Are you looking to the laws of the land to define what is morally permissible and what is not? If so, your "morality" over the last 100 years would have changed drastically! Do you look to your own insight and experience to define what is morally permissible? How frequently has that changed as you've aged and had various experiences? How much more will it change in the coming years? Do you have a fundamental disagreement with the following Christian beliefs?:

• "don't hate"

• "tell the truth"

• "help those that are less fortunate than you"

• "love those who hurt you"

Are any of the neigh sayers out there going to dispute that these are not only positive virtues in a civilized society but also something that we are lacking more and more of in the United States and the world? Would you not agree that sexuality can and has and will be used in destructive immoral ways? Do you disagree that relationships, young lives, and even entire societies have all been destroyed because of a lack of sexual morality?

The BSA and other organizations that are based on Judeo-Christian principles recognize that these values go a long way in teaching young people to become capable, responsible members of society. Good for them! And they do so with the best interests of the their scouts in heart and mind.

If you completely reject any religious belief system as "mythical", "hateful", or "unprovable", then I'd like you to take a minute to consider your actions in life. Why do you occasionally help out a neighbor with his weekend project? Why do you give money to your local animal shelter? Why do you attempt to not cheat on your spouse? Why do you bother to be honest when working the checkout counter where you work? Why are you trying to make a greener Earth for tomorrow? Where did you get the idea that these are good things to do and worth the investment of your precious and limited time?

If you truly do not believe in an after-life that reflects the consequences of your actions in this one, then CHANGE your actions! Why do you just want to be a "good person"? What's the point? You're still dead in the end. Your "good" actions are a complete waste of time and it is *you* that are being duped.

And consider for a moment that what you know of Christianity or organized religion is probably heavily tainted by your own experiences with hypocritical "followers" and/or the stories you've heard from others. Our worship leader starts every service greeting us as sinners; "Good morning sinners!" It's a simple reminder that we're all struggling to adhere to a moral code as best we can.

Having a bad experience with religion or Christianity

There's no doctrine stating that God controls every single thing in the universe and there never will be.

The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. -- Hebrews 1:3

To recap: the universe wasn't there one moment, then was there the next.
I remember reading that before.

Sustained the universe - not to mention that asking whether the being who created you and rules over the universe has done anything for you might be considered a tad self-centered, arrogant, and presumptuous. (And yes, of course I realize you don't believe this...)

Murder is wrong. Get your theology right. The Bible only condemns homicide, not killing in self-defense, in defense of another or in times of war. In fact Jesus said that calamities like war and social problems like poverty would continue to happen as they always have until the time that God returns to take back control of the Earth directly from Satan (and humanity).

Read this if you don't believe me.

"Use something to do something"

No, like this.

No, more like this.

Look at Jesus, he asks you to sell everything you have in order to gain entrance to heaven. You have to hate your family and only love God. (No really, you can even quote the bible on that)

Sorry forgot to include links.

Code of Hammurabi

Exodus 21:23-21:25

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

And that Sermon On The Mount. Every phrase is a cliche in English. What the hell. Couldn't Jesus get a more original scriptwriter?

My bad, I meant to include a link to the bible - you can read it for free on the Internet - This starts you at Matthew

If your entire personality ceases to exist and only an animating spirit/soul sans personality goes to heaven, then most people would view that as the same as death.

Just in the interest of accuracy, Christianity (specifically 1 Corinthians 15 and Revelation 21) does not teach that some "animating spirit/soul sans personality goes to heaven", but rather that a Christian will receive a new "imperishable body" (15:42) amidst a "new heaven and new earth" (21:1).

If your entire personality ceases to exist and only an animating spirit/soul sans personality goes to heaven, then most people would view that as the same as death.

Just in the interest of accuracy, Christianity (specifically 1 Corinthians 15 and Revelation 21) does not teach that some "animating spirit/soul sans personality goes to heaven", but rather that a Christian will receive a new "imperishable body" (15:42) amidst a "new heaven and new earth" (21:1).

Its not just "Darwinists" that force their anti-Jesus dogma on the education system. I had a similar experience in my childhood.

Given a circle with a radius of 10, whats the circumference? Some would say thats its 10 * 2 * "pi"!

But what is this pi? They can't even define it;its completely irrational! Meanwhile they suppress the controversy. When I put down a much more reasonable answer - 60, because the literal Bible tells me the circumference of a circle is 2*r*3, I was marked wrong! The Nazis used these numbers to build their war machine and concentration camps and its being taught to children far to young to understand its deceptiveness. Inquiring minds are led to a literally endless and patternless series of numbers intended to confuse and dull the mind.

Teach the controversy!

Yeah, did that....

and haven't noticed the incitements to violence, then there's little I can say. And it wasn't, by any means, all defensive. A lot of it was, but those were in periods where Israel was the weaker party.

Hmmm, incitments? Really don't know what you are talking about. There are:

• Parts where they were instructed what to do. More often than not, they didn't do it. That is when things didn't go as well (less favor from God) and they became weak. They were stronger when more of the heavy lifting was done by God, and they behaved better. Not real often.
• Parts where what is related is *historical*. An account of what happened. This is perhaps what you refer to. But it is NOT instructional about what they should be doing (a commandment) but rather how things go, particularly when they did not obey These parts should not be taken as "thou shalts". Instead, it is the ongoing soap opera.

  That is where this part comes from.

  How about this bit: A prince wants to marry the daughter of a leading Israelite, and she's agreeable. They've had a bit of premarital sex. Her brothers trick all the males in town into getting circumcised on the same day, and while they're in recovery, the kill them all.*

  And this:

  Or the bit about killing everyone worshiping a golden calf after they think Moses has abandoned them?

• And the last part, prophecy. This is about 1/3 of the Bible. With this mixed in the already confusing mixture above, most folks really don't understand it. They don't know the purpose, the end game so to speak.

No, really everything falls pretty much in those three categories. You can however, look up whatever via a site like Biblegateway without installing anything. Or do it from a Linux box as I am now.

The christian testament *IS* less inciteful. Somehow, however, the christians have traditionally been more violent than the jews.

A jew is a jew by birth or by religion. One by birth is one regardless. A self proclaimed christian is not necessarily a real christian. Just because they say they are, and they believe they are, does not mean it is so. They must follow the teachings of Christ. Most of those who call themselves so, follow the teachings of some church. And that is entirely different.

So, a diversion. Solve this (easy) riddle. How can Israel fight Judah? Who is the Israel of today?

# 2 Kings 14:13 Jehoash king of Israel captured Amaziah king of Judah, the son of Joash, the son of Ahaziah, at Beth Shemesh. Then Jehoash went to Jerusalem and broke down the wall of Jerusalem from the Ephraim Gate to the Corner Gate--a section about six hundred feet long.

In other words, look at what you've done before you start getting mad at others. IIRC that is straight out of the Gospels...

I think you're referring to Matthew 7:3-4:

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

I, a few years ago, after trying to get a broad overview of different disciplines of science, and taking various science courses, have come to pretty much accept the 'old universe' view, because it's not just *one* science, it's evidence from almost all the different disciplines of science which draw a picture which can *only* be explained by an old universe. I mention that, at the start, so that people understand that my response is not a defense of the young universe belief.

But, that said, while people like to make the claim, as the parent does, that when the Bible talks about 7 days, it means 7 eras of vast amounts of time, I think you are missing one basic thing about the text of the Bible. It doesn't just say 7 days; in the account it has. . .

'3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.

  6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day.'

(Quotation from Genesis chapter 1, New International Version, Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society; quote retrieved from http://www.biblegateway.com/ )

Notice the expression "And there was evening, and there was morning - the [first|second] day". I think that gives a very strong indication that while the Hebrew word 'day' might *also* validly be interpreted as 'era', that is not the meaning the author is using, but rather an earth day (why else mention evening and morning?). To interpret it otherwise, I think, is not justified by the language of the text.

I've just come to believe that the Genesis account is not a literal account of creation. I still believe in God, and Christianity, but I accept that you cannot interpret Genesis Ch. 1 & 2 literally. Maybe it's allegory, but it's not historical.

I think a better approach is do unto others as you think they would want done to them

Ah, so as long as I think women really want to be slapped around, dominated, and treated as second class citizens, then you think that's the better approach? No thanks. (Hint: The original was not "Do unto others as you think you'd want done unto you if you were them...")

He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.

Thank you for clarifying.

Unfortunately, Christians are largely gullible in matters of politics. "I'm one of you!" is often enough to win their vote...then they realize too late that Their Man(TM) doesn't walk the talk. Four years later they will fall for it again.

Honestly I think it's because Christian churches don't have enough worldview education. The secularists in society tried to drive religion from the public square (by passing laws against political speech in churches, etc) and in so doing, have created a generation of Christians that are ignorant of how to properly live our their faith in the public arena. You end up with all kinds of distortions, like taking personal mandates to help the poor, etc., and applying them to government. In some ways, the secularists created the very monster they feared!

Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. This clearly implies that there are separate spheres of activity in human life. Civil government should not try to regulate religion, and religion should not try to run the government. Some would say this means there is strict separation, but it is a religious text informing this position. This shows that religious views can (and should) influence political views--you cannot divorce one part of you decision-making ability from the others--but also that you cannot run the civil government as if it were your own household or even as if it were your church. They are distinct, and though the same principles can apply to all spheres, the implementation may be very different!

To anyone (especially Christians) who would like to gain a good foundation of what a comprehensive Christian worldview really looks like, I highly recommend The Truth Project by Dr. Del Tackett. In 12 1-hour lectures, he lays a foundation of how a biblical view informs and influences every facet of life by getting down to the very basics (what is Truth?) and building up from there.

Hmmm there's the example of Jesus casting the money lenders from the temple... I'm trying to rack my fading memories (and google) to think up a specific verse in the bible, and theres not a verse prohibiting nonreligious (as opposed to irreligious) activities... there is a verse describing a church as holy and blameless (well actually showing how women should be in marriage) but I can't really see how that comments upon it.

Churches have a need to attract new members, and this is just one method by which they may do so; whether it works is another thing entirely.

Hmmm there's the example of Jesus casting the money lenders from the temple... I'm trying to rack my fading memories (and google) to think up a specific verse in the bible, and theres not a verse prohibiting nonreligious (as opposed to irreligious) activities... there is a verse describing a church as holy and blameless (well actually showing how women should be in marriage) but I can't really see how that comments upon it.

Churches have a need to attract new members, and this is just one method by which they may do so; whether it works is another thing entirely.

All except for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, but the jury's out on exactly what that means. The explanation I've heard is that the Holy Spirit is God in you, basically, providing your link to God the Father. If you blaspheme against the Father or the Son, the link remains so you can ask for forgiveness. If you blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, the link is lost and you couldn't be forgiven from a more technical point of view than anything else.

Even beyond all that, I've never heard an explanation of how one would go about blaspheming against the Holy Spirit.