I Could Put a Bullet In.....

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Someone doubting whether Christ is Christ would obviously not be a Christian. Isn’t that painfully obvious? A God of genocide? How about you get real specific.[/quote]

My question is, why does it matter that Christ is a Messiah?

It does not take away or add anything to what he has to say?

And since most “moderate” Christians cherry pick like mad anyway, why not cherry pick when it comes to his divinity?

It would be more of a philosophy then and less of a religion, but those people could well call themselves Cristians too.

That would scare the hell out of some people…

82

[quote]orion wrote:

Well there were the Amakelites and the Aradites and the Amorites and the Bashanites and the Hittites and the Girgashites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites…
[/quote]

Dude, honestly, I don’t mind discussions but what is your specific point? I would have to dig through my memory’s decades worth of bible studies to hit off each tribe you just mentioned. I do know the Amorites were known as giants and one king mentioned by Moses had a bed 13 feet long…so he was like the Shaq of the Bible.

83

[quote]orion wrote:

My question is, why does it matter that Christ is a Messiah?[/quote]

It matters as far as faith. If you choose to not even believe that Jesus was the son of God, then you would not be a Christian. That is the defining point of the entire faith. The Bible isn’t just about the past but also includes prophecy about the future. Jesus’ presence here is a large factor in where we are headed and where we have been. If you can’t accept that, is there really a point in going further? I would be wasting my time to go into more depth as far as that is concerned if your reason for asking was to actually say that Jesus is not needed. This isn’t just a philosophy. This is a religion. The two may compliment each other, but they don’t go hand in hand.

84

[quote]orion wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
A bit off topic, but I just wanted to point out that such “doctors” actually exist today. They call themselves psychologists. Their practices can be equated to the witch hunts of earlier times.

Hey there is an empirical wing of psychology, they are called behaviourists.
[/quote]

There are several ‘wings’ of psychology that rely exclusively on empirical data. Testing a therapeutic method in a falisifiable way is scientific, after all. At any rate, there are lots of things about the mind that can be measured, and there are lots of people doing that.

I don’t understand NP’s snide comment about “witch hunts.” I didn’t realize that psychologists burned people alive at the stake. Perhaps I’ve been reading the wrong newspapers…

85

[quote]Professor X wrote:
orion wrote:
…

Dude, honestly, I don’t mind discussions but what is your specific point? I would have to dig through my memory’s decades worth of bible studies to hit off each tribe you just mentioned. I do know the Amorites were known as giants and one king mentioned by Moses had a bed 13 feet long…so he was like the Shaq of the Bible.[/quote]

I said God of genocide…

You said ???

I said :

Well there were the Amakelites and the Aradites and the Amorites and the Bashanites and the Hittites and the Girgashites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites…

Hope this helps!

86

[quote]orion wrote:
Well there were the Amakelites and the Aradites and the Amorites and the Bashanites and the Hittites and the Girgashites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites…
[/quote]

I have recently finished reading Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel, so most of these stories are fresh in my mind.

Sometimes all of these tribes are referred to just as Canaanites. God used Israel to deliver His justice on these depraved and wicked people.

These were people who burned their children alive as sacrifices to their gods and practiced bestiality and every other sexual sin you can think of. They were also warlike and hostile.

Here are some more details about some of the individual battles:

Amalekites - This group raided settlements and would sneak up and attack from behind without warning. God granted the Israelites victory during an Amakelite attack.

Aradites - You must be referring to the Canaanite city of Arad? The king of Arad heard where the Israelites were traveling and then ambushed them on their journey and took prisoners. So the Lord allowed the Israelites to attack and gain victory over them.

Ammorites - The Israelites simply asked if they could pass through their land. The Ammorites refused and then mounted an attack against the Israelites. God granted the Israelites victory over them.

Bashanites - Yet another group of people who attacked the Israelites. Once again, God granted the Israelites victory.

Today we are living in a dispensation of grace, where God is withholding His general judgment in order for the Gospel to be preached to every nation on earth, so that His elect can be saved and added to his kingdom. Don’t think for one minute that God’s wrath against sin has somehow changed or that these types of penalties for sins are now out of God’s character. Judgment will arrive once this present dispensation is over. This is precisely why the Westborough Baptist clan is so wrong.

87

[quote]JPBear wrote:
orion wrote:
Well there were the Amakelites and the Aradites and the Amorites and the Bashanites and the Hittites and the Girgashites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites…

I have recently finished reading Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel, so most of these stories are fresh in my mind.

Sometimes all of these tribes are referred to just as Canaanites. God used Israel to deliver His justice on these depraved and wicked people.

These were people who burned their children alive as sacrifices to their gods and practiced bestiality and every other sexual sin you can think of. They were also warlike and hostile.

Here are some more details about some of the individual battles:

Amalekites - This group raided settlements and would sneak up and attack from behind without warning. God granted the Israelites victory during an Amakelite attack.

Aradites - You must be referring to the Canaanite city of Arad? The king of Arad heard where the Israelites were traveling and then ambushed them on their journey and took prisoners. So the Lord allowed the Israelites to attack and gain victory over them.

Ammorites - The Israelites simply asked if they could pass through their land. The Ammorites refused and then mounted an attack against the Israelites. God granted the Israelites victory over them.

Bashanites - Yet another group of people who attacked the Israelites. Once again, God granted the Israelites victory.

Today we are living in a dispensation of grace, where God is withholding His general judgment in order for the Gospel to be preached to every nation on earth, so that His elect can be saved and added to his kingdom. Don’t think for one minute that God’s wrath against sin has somehow changed or that these types of penalties for sins are now out of God’s character. Judgment will arrive once this present dispensation is over. This is precisely why the Westborough Baptist clan is so wrong.
[/quote]

History is written by those who win or at least survive…

I know your God`s charakter…

I wanted to point out that most “Christians” ignore it…

88

[quote]orion wrote:

I know your God`s charakter…

I wanted to point out that most “Christians” ignore it…[/quote]

So there are people who claim to be Christians who seem to have little understanding of their own faith. That would include both the Westborough Baptists on one side and a vast number of liberal Sunday Christians on the other side.

So what? Does that somehow negate the object of the faith? Does that somehow imply that the Bible is not true?

[quote]
History is written by those who win or at least survive… [/quote]

This is a very interesting point. Humans are not naturally humble. In ancient times kings loved to build monuments to themselves and glorify all of their achievements.

The Israelites were never like this. They never presented the idea that their God was so good to them because they were better than the surrounding nations; they always recognized that their favor with God was based solely on his mercy and grace towards them.

If you are to look at the books of the Bible as simply embellished history books, they fail to make any sense.

Why would the kings and leaders of Israel be so willing to point out their own sin?

Why would Moses have included that Israel wandered in the desert for 40 years because of their grumblings against God? Why would he record his own sin against God as the reason he personally would never be allowed to enter the Promised Land?

Why would King David record in his own history books his own sins of adultery and murder and his beloved son’s sins of rape, incest, murder and rebellion against him? Why would he record that God brought a plague on his people because he sinned against God?

Why did King Solomon record his own adultery and idolatry?

Why would the Israelites record their years of captivity and slavery and claim that they deserved these things because of their sins?

The entire Old Testament is the tale of a fallen and rebellious people being sustained and forgiven over and over again by a gracious God.

Look at the New Testament as well. If the disciples of Jesus were just trying to embellish the whole thing, why would they make themselves out to look like the twelve stooges? (I stole that line, but I can’t think of a better way of putting it).

The disciples bickered and had to be rebuked by Jesus, they did not understand his parables, they were jealous of the other groups of followers, they did not want to take the gospel to the Gentiles, they tried to keep the little children away from Jesus, they had no faith, they hid when Jesus was being crucified, they grieved because they did not understand why he was to die, Thomas doubted, Peter denied Jesus to a little servant girl because he was afraid and Paul (who replaced Judas as the twelfth disciple) even murdered Christians before he was converted and latter referred to himself as the world’s chief sinner.

So how do you explain that?

89

[quote]JPBear wrote:
orion wrote:

I know your God`s charakter…

I wanted to point out that most “Christians” ignore it…

So there are people who claim to be Christians who seem to have little understanding of their own faith. That would include both the Westborough Baptists on one side and a vast number of liberal Sunday Christians on the other side.

So what? Does that somehow negate the object of the faith? Does that somehow imply that the Bible is not true?

History is written by those who win or at least survive…

This is a very interesting point. Humans are not naturally humble. In ancient times kings loved to build monuments to themselves and glorify all of their achievements.

The Israelites were never like this. They never presented the idea that their God was so good to them because they were better than the surrounding nations; they always recognized that their favor with God was based solely on his mercy and grace towards them.

If you are to look at the books of the Bible as simply embellished history books, they fail to make any sense.

Why would the kings and leaders of Israel be so willing to point out their own sin?

Why would Moses have included that Israel wandered in the desert for 40 years because of their grumblings against God? Why would he record his own sin against God as the reason he personally would never be allowed to enter the Promised Land?

Why would King David record in his own history books his own sins of adultery and murder and his beloved son’s sins of rape, incest, murder and rebellion against him? Why would he record that God brought a plague on his people because he sinned against God?

Why did King Solomon record his own adultery and idolatry?

Why would the Israelites record their years of captivity and slavery and claim that they deserved these things because of their sins?

The entire Old Testament is the tale of a fallen and rebellious people being sustained and forgiven over and over again by a gracious God.

Look at the New Testament as well. If the disciples of Jesus were just trying to embellish the whole thing, why would they make themselves out to look like the twelve stooges? (I stole that line, but I can’t think of a better way of putting it).

The disciples bickered and had to be rebuked by Jesus, they did not understand his parables, they were jealous of the other groups of followers, they did not want to take the gospel to the gentiles, they tried to keep the little children away from Jesus, they had no faith, they hid when Jesus was being crucified, they grieved because they did not understand why he was to die, Thomas doubted, Peter denied Jesus to a little servant girl because he was afraid and Paul (who replaced Judas as the twelfth disciple) even murdered Christians before he was converted and latter referred to himself as the world’s chief sinner.

So how do explain that?[/quote]

Your first question is if it takes anything away from Christianity if some people get it wrong.

Probably not.

What is interesting, looking in from the outside, is that a lot of “moderate” Christians seem to forget the God of the OT, even if Jesus insists that His laws are by no means to be forgotten just because of Jesus` appearance…

You think those Christians cherry pick, so do I…

I see the Bible as a whole because I do not really care, you do because you do really care…

It is fascinating that we see a certain kind of Christian in exactly the same light.

To your second question,I do not explain any of it.

For me that would mean to make sense out of several scriptures between 2000-4500 years old, and to come to some coherent picture of the life, the universe and everything.

I am unable to do that, yet I am mindboggled by everyone that claims he can…

90

Whether there is a God or not(I believe there is), I’m thankful that I live in a country/world that the vast majority of people do believe in a higher power.

I shudder to think what the world would be like if this was not the case.

Dustin

91

[quote]Dustin wrote:
I shudder to think what the world would be like if this was not the case.
Dustin[/quote]

Hey,

Imagine there’s no heaven…
it’s easy if you try.
No hell below us
Above us, only sky.
Imagine all the people
living for today!

Um, yeah.

92

[quote]JPBear wrote:

Why would the kings and leaders of Israel be so willing to point out their own sin?
[/quote]

I’m under the impression, that the books of Old Testament have been edited. It would be strange if they weren’t. The Book of Kings have been credited to Jeremiah.

93

[quote]Dustin wrote:
Whether there is a God or not(I believe there is), I’m thankful that I live in a country/world that the vast majority of people do believe in a higher power.

I shudder to think what the world would be like if this was not the case.

Dustin[/quote]

like large parts of western Europe?

94

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Truth must exist “independent of (our) ability to verify it.” Otherwise, we could not “verify” it.[/quote]

That assertion does not follow from the stated premise. There is no such thing as “truth”. Truth is what is considered to be objective knowledge. All knowledge is subjective. Nothing can be known that cannot be verified empirically. The notion of objective knowledge is not empirical. The limit of knowledge is the singular human mind. There is no “collective conscious” or knowledge that is shared across minds. Because every person has his own, distinct mind, all knowledge is subjective to all people.

My metaphysical position is more radical than that logical positivism. I’m an empirical nominalist, or subjectivist. I completely reject the existence of all universals and follow empiricism to it’s precise, surgical limit. Ethical and moral relativism come with the territory.

Metaphysics form the basis of everything that people think, say, and do throughout their entire lives. For this reason, I do not consider it a stretch to call people who hold metaphysical convictions radically different from my own to be “insane”.

However, this is not a claim that I made on my own. You inferred it from what I wrote and attributed it to me. The reason I did not, and would not, specifically make that claim, is because I take issue with the very notion of “sanity”. Wouldn’t you know it, it’s a metaphysical universal. Since I don’t believe in the existence of universals, it follows that I do not believe in any objective standard of sanity. However, in formulating my reply, I was addressing the term in a different context - that of someone else, rather than my own. The context in which it was addressed, which is the only context for which I grant the term any legitimacy, is the popular notion of the term.

[quote]orion wrote:
Hey there is an empirical wing of psychology, they are called behaviourists.

Then, Freud did not exactly make that much shit up, he merely noticed that some themes come around again and again and again because they seem to be an important part of what it means being human.

Plus, evolutionary psychology even tries to explain human behaviour on the grounds of a metapsychological theory that seems to work for all other aspects of biology.

Psychology, as a science, is only 100 years old, give it time…
[/quote]

I have no problem with Freud and the other pioneering psychoanalysts. I respect their work, based on what I’ve seen of it (which isn’t much, unfortunately) and am inclined to agree with it more often than not. I have a huge problem with the modern institution of clinical psychiatry. It is not science, but peer-group indoctrination. In effect, a modern Inquisition. And, along with the entire field of conventional medicine, it has become a ward of the state and special interest groups.

95

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
…Since I don’t believe in the existence of universals, it follows that I do not believe in any objective standard of sanity. However, in formulating my reply, I was addressing the term in a different context - that of someone else, rather than my own. The context in which it was addressed, which is the only context for which I grant the term any legitimacy, is the popular notion of the term.
[/quote]

To be precise, you grant every universal lecitimacy in its popular notion. Otherwise there would be no way to discuss about it.

96

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Dustin wrote:
I shudder to think what the world would be like if this was not the case.
Dustin

Hey,

Imagine there’s no heaven…
it’s easy if you try.
No hell below us
Above us, only sky.
Imagine all the people
living for today!

Um, yeah.[/quote]

Never understood the appeal of that song. It sounds like he wants to take up back to some pre-stone age existence.

No possessions? Anarchy?

Doesn’t sound like a good place to live.

97

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Never understood the appeal of that song. [/quote]

You’re just square.

98

[quote]karva wrote:

I’m under the impression, that the books of Old Testament have been edited. It would be strange if they weren’t. The Book of Kings have been credited to Jeremiah.

[/quote]

Yes, I know that Kings is attributed to Jeremiah and that he was working from other texts.

What do you mean “The books of the Old Testament have been edited?”

99

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

That assertion does not follow from the stated premise. There is no such thing as “truth”. Truth is what is considered to be objective knowledge. All knowledge is subjective. Nothing can be known that cannot be verified empirically. The notion of objective knowledge is not empirical. The limit of knowledge is the singular human mind. There is no “collective conscious” or knowledge that is shared across minds. Because every person has his own, distinct mind, all knowledge is subjective to all people.[/quote]

Why are you sharing your own subjective drivel with us then? It is not provable empirically, so what makes you think any of us are interested in hearing it? In fact, why do you even believe it? You seem to be breaking your own rule there.

Well that’s kind of scary, but I’m just curious, how is that working out for you in real life?

100

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
That assertion does not follow from the stated premise. There is no such thing as “truth”.
[/quote]

Unless the verification can change from moment to moment, then there are some rules outside of perception. To believe that all existence is entirely subjective and not mutually sensed is a far more ambitious claim than to propose that there exists a world outside of us which may be known imperfectly. In fact, you might say that your claim is a very metaphysical one.

All human knowledge is subjective only in the sense that it must be known by a mind. The knowledge may be objective, however, which means that it may be corroborated by other minds and by observations. It seems plain enough that there is a world that exists independent of our perception of it. Solipsism is silly.

We can quibble over the reliability of intellect and senses (both can be fooled). It’s hard to approach Truth. We can, in the final analysis, only approach it (some moreso than others). There are plenty of things that can be known non-empirically. Mathematical truths, for example.

How do you know that? Once you start making claims about all knowledge being subjective, you lose the ability to make claims about the human mind. After all, we could all be some “master-mind’s” dream. That’s silly philosophy with a small p, unless you’re Descartes, but that’s what your position reduces you to.

If you followed empiricism to its true limit, you’d realize that empiricism can make very limited claims and, in fact, cannot make any claims whatsoever about whatever reality exists independent of human observational capacity. If there is “stuff” out there that is independent of us, that we sense, then whatever statements we make could be measured against the way that “stuff” really is.

Well, it’s easy to call anyone anything when you make up your own definitions.

Whatever.

Well, good luck in the human world.

How can you agree with it? It’s not very empirical.

Clinical Psychiatrists torture people until they convert to Christianity? Why are we not fighting this?

Obviously hyperbole isn’t denied to an empirical nominalist.