Fundies and child abuse
John Manning
Fundies and child abuse
Lynn Harris has a bone-chilling article up at Salon about yet another
incident of fundamentalist Christians taking their beliefs to an extreme
and getting someone hurt or killed, usually and inevitably someone in a
vulnerable position. In this case, the story is that of 7-year-old
Lydia Schatz, whose parents beat her to death using a tool---a quarter
inch plumbing supply line---recommended by the wildly popular authors
Michael and Debi Pearl, who have an entire series about �child training�
for evangelical Christians.
Like James Dobson of Focus on Family, the Pearls are big on spanking
kids, and not just small pats on the butt. In both cases, the idea is
to beat the kid into submission.
Dobson wrote about his preferred technique like so:
The spanking should be of sufficient magnitude to cause the child to
cry genuinely. After the emotional ventilation, the child will often
want to crumple to the breast of his parent, and he should be welcomed
with open, warm, loving arms.
The Pearls take a similar stance:
Light, swatting spankings, done in anger without courtroom dignity
will make children mad because they sense that they have been bullied
by an antagonists. A proper spanking leaves children without breath to
complain.
Naturally, some children will complain until they�re beaten to death, a
situation the Pearls apparently didn�t account for. Now they�re
scrambling to avoid any moral responsibility for the death of this
little girl, the severe beating of two other children. (The ones who
got it the hardest were adopted children from Liberia.)
Lynn describes the debate going on inside the evangelical community
about the Pearls, and what is considered �too far�. It�s all very
interesting, and I suggest you read her article.
But I�m going to argue that the continued debating over the line between
forcing someone to submit and overt abuse that goes on in this world
completely misses the point.
When you define entire classes of people, whether children or women, as
existing to submit and suggest that willfulness is an evil brought upon
your family by the devil, then abuse is inevitable. The idea itself is
abusive and dehumanizing. Everything else that follows from it is
simply logical.
I�m struck, when reading right wing Christian child-rearing advice, on
how much the advice resembles the tactics that wife beaters use against
their victims.
See chart representing how men beat their wives:
http://www.heart-2-heart.ca/women/2010-abuse_cycle.jpg
With grown women, of course, phase 3 gets a little complicated, but
phase 3 is explicit stated by these spanking proponents---once you�ve
broken down your victim, everything is hugs and tears. The Pearls
highlight stage 4 as the goal of their techniques, it appears.
�The focus when their teachings are promoted isn�t on the spanking,
but on the �tying heartstrings� and enjoying your kids,� says
Alexandra Bush. �It is easy to filter out the harsher teachings, the
extremism, when surrounded by word pictures of peaceful, loving, fun
families.
The Pearls seem to tell parents that they just have to �win� once and
make sure their children know who is in charge, and then they will
never have to spank again. That�s how parents get sucked in�promises
of a fun, peaceful home, minimal confrontation, doing the �right
thing� for their children.
Basically, the BS detectors are turned off by the pretty promises that
are made.�
Well, yeah. Everyone enjoys phase 4, but then the person beaten into
submission starts to act like a human being again, seeking to control
their own life and express their individuality, and things get tense
again, and then there�s a beating.
Abuse exists because abusers desire complete control over their victims.
I fail to see how Christian child rearing manuals that replace terms
like �rearing� or �nurturing� with their preferred term �training� can
be considered anything but abuse.
The very idea that another human being should be trained, that their
will should be completely subject to yours, is abuse by definition.
The Pearls aren�t exactly wrong when they argue that you can only
completely control a person by beating them until �crying turns to a
true, wounded, submissive whimper�. The problem is the premise,
accepted even by many of their critics, that children should be so
thoroughly controlled. (And that wives should be obedient.)
Not to say that this issue isn�t confusing, even for liberal or secular
parents. Kids don�t know how to behave, and they need their parents to
guide them.
I�m the last person who thinks that a child should never be controlled,
particularly when your 4-year-old that you�ve brought to a fancy Italian
restaurant keeps running into my table and splashing wine and sending
the bottle tipping into precarious positions that cause me to completely
drop the pleasant adult conversation I�m having to rescue myself, my
companion and your 4-year-old from having wine spilled all over us.
I have zero issue with picking the child up, putting them in their seat
and telling them they either stop running around or privileges will
immediately start to disappear, or whatever other non-abusive form of
discipline is the thing now. In fact, I beg you to do it.
Sometimes the little ones, be they pets or people, in our care need to
have decisions made for them, as well. But that�s a far different cry
from the fundamentalist Christian view, where children exist to glorify
you and your belief system, and their beings are subject to that.
I imagine that parents who give their children the right to be
individuals and whose goal is to move their children towards being able
to make more and more of their own decisions end up being frustrated a
lot less than fundamentalist parents, who are encouraged to see every
bit of non-submissive behavior as the devil�s work. And who see every
attraction to pop culture as a threat, whereas most parents tend to feel
neutral about large swaths of that.
I�m just blown away by how much the wife beater�s M.O. is actually
taught as the moral pathway when it comes to child rearing in the
fundamentalist culture.
Wife beaters use various tactics to separate their victims from outside
influences that might keep their victims from submitting completely to
their control; fundies are openly concerned with outside influences and
create entire industries to shield their children from them, as well as
embrace home schooling.
Wife beaters are paranoid, seeing threats to their control even when
they aren�t there, and escalating the amount of time they spend
monitoring their victims. Again, this is treated as the best way to
raise your children in fundie circles, which is another reason home
schooling is such a big deal.
And of course, the cycle of abuse is glorified as the right way to get
children to submit in fundie circles. Which is why I�m never surprised
when something like this murder happens.
Amanda Marcotte:
http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/fundies_and_child_abuse/
Michael
> Fundies and child abuse
This fucktard is going to get us all killed ....
Xan Du
> Fundies and child abuse
<snip>
> Wife beaters use various tactics to separate their victims from outside
> influences that might keep their victims from submitting completely to
> their control; fundies are openly concerned with outside influences and
> create entire industries to shield their children from them, as well as
> embrace home schooling.
>
> Wife beaters are paranoid, seeing threats to their control even when
> they aren’t there, and escalating the amount of time they spend
> monitoring their victims. Again, this is treated as the best way to
> raise your children in fundie circles, which is another reason home
> schooling is such a big deal.
>
> And of course, the cycle of abuse is glorified as the right way to get
> children to submit in fundie circles. Which is why I’m never surprised
> when something like this murder happens.
>
> Amanda Marcotte:http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/fundies_and_child_abuse/
Interesting and heart-rending story, John. I did some rooting around
and found some interesting studies that explored correlations between
religious belief and domestic violence and/or child abuse.
The first citation doesn't specifically address child abuse or
Christian Fundamentalism, but does conclude that there is a strong
inverse correlation between church attendance and domestic violence.
The second citation makes the same general conclusions as the first,
but also specifically discusses child abuse and makes comparisons
between Catholics and Protestants.
The third citation below comes from what looks like a very tiny
journal that claims to be "peer reviewed". It seems less credible to
me, and the authors did not really draw any strong conclusions
claiming problems in the data sets they analyzed. However it did
contain some interesting discussions about LDS-style Christian
fundamentalism. Data in their study showed that Utah has the second-
highest rate of domestic violence (referred to as DV in the snippets I
provided) in the United States, with Alaska having the highest rate,
but they concluded that Mormonism was NOT sufficient to explain the
very strong correlation between domestic violence in the Western
region of the United States taken as a whole.
Happy reading,
Xan
-----------------------------
http://vaw.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/13/11/1094 (pdf document)
Consistent with previous research, our analyses reveal differences in
levels of
domestic violence by ethnicity. Compared with non-Hispanic Whites and
Latinos,
African Americans in particular have higher levels of domestic
violence and are
more likely both to perpetrate and be victimized by this sort of
violence than are
non-Hispanic Whites and Latinos. Our findings also suggest that
religious involvement,
specifically church attendance, protects against domestic violence and
that this
protective effect is stronger for African American men and women and
for Latino
men—groups that, for a wide variety of reasons, are at high risk for
this type of violence.
Although the protective effect of religious involvement is evident for
both men
and women in all three ethnic groups discussed here, the magnitude of
the effect for
African Americans leads us to ask why, with regard to domestic
violence, religious
involvement appears to “matter” more for this population.
The effect of religious attendance on reducing the probability of
domestic violence
is most likely both direct and indirect. As suggested by previous
research,
involvement in a religious organization may reduce factors known to be
correlated
with domestic violence, such as problem drinking, social isolation,
and depression.
Because it has been suggested that the salutary effects of religious
participation are
greater for African Americans than for other groups, we may be tempted
to rely on
this finding to explain the differential effects revealed here.
However, previous
research has also shown that the effects of religious involvement
cannot be reduced
to the sum of these indirect effects. It is worth noting here that
attendance at religious
services per se may not actually be the key aspect of religious
involvement that is
affecting patterns of domestic violence but merely an indicator of
such. In analyses
such as the ones presented here, attendance may serve as a proxy for
prayerfulness,
positive religious coping styles, self-discipline, or other such
factors. Therefore, a
key priority of future research in this area should be the development
and testing of
broader theoretical arguments about
-----------------------------
There is qualitative and empirical literature about the relationship
of religion to corporal punishment and physical abuse. Greven's book,
Spare the Child: The Religious Roots of Punishment and the
Psychological Impact of Physical Abuse5 is the most extensive piece of
qualitative literature. Greven relates many historical accounts of
physical punishment and abuse from white Protestants, especially those
from evangelical, fundamentalist and Pentecostal backgrounds who have
advocated corporal punishment. The source for these beliefs and
practices is the Bible, particularly from Proverbs in the Old
Testament. For example, people often rely on the following quotes: He
that spareth the rod hateth his son; but he that loveth him chasteneth
him betimes (Proverbs 13:24). and Foolishness is bound in the heart of
a child, but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him
(Proverbs 22:15).
...
As previously noted, various Biblical passages have been used by
conservative religious leaders to condone corporal punishment, and
there is a large body of empirical evidence that Christian
conservatism is positively related to belief in corporal punishment (r
= 0.205).3 Gershoff et al11 found in a study of 3-year-olds in Texas
that conservative Protestants had stronger beliefs in corporal
punishment than did mainline Protestants, Catholics, and others. One
other 1995 study found Catholics less likely to spank their children
than Protestants and those with other religious affiliations.12 Direct
measures of conservatism, such as Biblical literalism, seem to be a
more important predictor than membership in a conservative religious
group. Interestingly, Jackson et al13 found that parents who endorsed
physical discipline, though more conservative in religious beliefs,
were less likely to self-report religion as very important to them.
The empirical literature regarding religion and physical child abuse
is limited. Two studies, one in Quaker families and one in Mormon (The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) families, did not show an
association between religion and physical abuse.
...
Children living in families where there is domestic violence clearly
suffer ill effects.17 There is not much empirical evidence regarding
the association of religion and domestic violence. Several studies
have shown that Quakers,14 Mormons,15 and conservative Protestants do
not have higher rates of domestic violence than comparison groups.18
However, dissimilarity between husbands' and wives' religious beliefs
may be linked to domestic violence. In one study, men who were
religiously more conservative than their wives were 2.5 times more
likely to be perpetrators of domestic violence than those whose wives'
religious views were similar.19
In summary, based on empirical data, Catholics spank and physically
abuse children less frequently than Protestants, though it is unclear
the extent to which this may be accounted for by conservative/
fundamentalist Protestants. There is evidence that conservative/
fundamentalist Protestants spank and physically abuse children more
than other Christian groups. There is little to no evidence to support
the association of physical violence with other religious groups,
degree of religiosity, or time spent on spiritual practice.
...
Conservative/fundamentalist Protestants spank and physically abuse
their children more than other Christian groups. However, some studies
indicate that religiosity and church attendance are protective against
various forms of family violence.
-----------------------------
http://www.ideajournal.com/articles.php?id=47
Abstract
Using data from the 2000 Religious Congregations and Membership Study
(RCMS), one-day domestic violence service counts, and demographic data
from the US Census, the current study investigates the relationship of
fundamentalism to domestic violence at the macro-level. Although the
data proved too erratic to provide accurate regression and correlation
data at the national level, a positive relationship was noted at the
regional level. Other variables investigated include total religious
adherents, total non-adherents, total Catholic adherents, and total
Protestant adherents. Although the national pattern once again proved
too erratic for use, regional significance was noted for total
adherents, Protestant adherents, and religious non-adherents.
Correlation coefficients and statistical significance in the two
regions (West and Midwest) showing significant correlation on total
adherence, fundamentalism, Protestant adherence, and non-adherence
(inverse relationship) were compared with macro-level correlational
data on known non-religious correlates of domestic violence. It was
determined that, overall, the religious correlates of domestic
violence displayed coefficients equal or higher than coefficients for
known non-religious factors in the two regions studied. Suggestions
for further study are provided.
...
Discussion
...
Correlations of these variables and DV noted as significant in this
study were moderate to highly significant. Correlations with domestic
violence are worthy of further study, perhaps using a regional
paradigm first and moving toward a case study paradigm. Other
important areas of research are the accuracy of reporting and the
peculiarity of distribution(s). As far as the conclusions drawn from
this investigation, additional areas of research become apparent.
Why, for example, is a significant correlation noted involving DV and
Protestantism but not Catholicism—a condition true in at least 40
percent of the US population? Why is the relationship of
fundamentalism to DV so strong in the West? Mormonism is not a
sufficient explanation. Why would non-adherents, at least in one
region be more likely to abuse than religious adherents? Can some of
the components of religion, such as those mentioned above, be isolated
for further investigation?
I leave the reader with these questions, because they serve as
important reminders of what we can (and cannot) conclude from this
study. We may safely conclude that a relationship between
fundamentalism, Protestant adherence, religious adherence in general,
and religious non-adherence are significantly related to domestic
violence (the last variable inversely) in 20-40% of the population.
We may safely conclude that the traditional non-religious risk factors
for domestic violence do not, for the most part, correlate with any
greater significance than the religious factors, and not as well
overall in the regions examined (when assessed using data at a macro-
level). This is significant and may provide direction for further
study. Finally, it is useful to bear in mind this caveat: The
conclusions drawn from a macro-level study carry certain limitations
(as do micro-level investigations), and the data utilized in drawing
conclusions are only as reliable as the reporting methods and
sources.
-----------------------------
Ike E 2/23/2010
"John Manning" <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
news:UMSdnQP6IYK1FRTW...@giganews.com...
>
>
> Fundies and child abuse
>
>
> Lynn Harris has a bone-chilling article up at Salon about yet another
> incident of fundamentalist Christians taking their beliefs to an extreme
> and getting someone hurt or killed, usually and inevitably someone in a
> vulnerable position. In this case, the story is that of 7-year-old Lydia
> Schatz, whose parents beat her to death using a tool---a quarter inch
> plumbing supply line---recommended by the wildly popular authors Michael
> evangelical Christians.
Yes, too far is just as bad as too little.
Not enough...
Pr 22:15 Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of
correction shall drive it far from him.
Too much...
Col 3:21 Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be
discouraged.
This is the reason that Jesus went home, and took the night to think about
it, and made a scourge of short cords (so there would be no accidental
strikes) before returning to drive the wicked out of the Temple--He didn't
want to be too severe, but He wanted to get His point across effectively.
So what?
You think that SECULARISTS aren't doing the same, AND WORSE?
THEY ARE.
Hypocritical idiot.
Ike
Dr. Smartass, Troll Veterinarian
news:hmd00h$l8a$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> "John Manning" <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
> news:UMSdnQP6IYK1FRTW...@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>> Fundies and child abuse
>>
>>
>> Lynn Harris has a bone-chilling article up at Salon about yet another
>> incident of fundamentalist Christians taking their beliefs to an
>> extreme and getting someone hurt or killed, usually and inevitably
>> someone in a vulnerable position. In this case, the story is that of
>> 7-year-old Lydia Schatz, whose parents beat her to death using a
>> tool---a quarter inch plumbing supply line---recommended by the
>> wildly popular authors Michael and Debi Pearl, who have an entire
>> series about �child training� for evangelical Christians.
<snip>
> You think that SECULARISTS aren't doing the same, AND WORSE?
>
> THEY ARE.
Wrong. You uptight kid-beating right-wing religious assholes set the
standard for such behavior--then you try to blame US for your own
failings.
Child-molesting priests? Not their fault--it's them gawddamn sec-yooo-
lar-ists!
Child gets beaten to death by her parents? They was ATHIESTS!!!!!11!1!
It's shitbirds like you who are the problem. Stop pointing fingers, you
guilty piece of crap.
--
Doc Smartass | BAAWA Knight of Troll Medication | aa # 1939
Book reviews: http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/
Kook Clearinghouse! http://kookclearinghouse.blogspot.com/
Pray for Goppers the way they pray for Obama! Psalm 109!
Xan Du
<gek...@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote:
> "Ike E 2/23/2010" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote innews:hmd00h$l8a$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> > "John Manning" <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
> >news:UMSdnQP6IYK1FRTW...@giganews.com...
>
> >> Fundies and child abuse
>
> >> Lynn Harris has a bone-chilling article up at Salon about yet another
> >> incident of fundamentalist Christians taking their beliefs to an
> >> extreme and getting someone hurt or killed, usually and inevitably
> >> someone in a vulnerable position. In this case, the story is that of
> >> 7-year-old Lydia Schatz, whose parents beat her to death using a
> >> tool---a quarter inch plumbing supply line---recommended by the
> >> wildly popular authors Michael and Debi Pearl, who have an entire
> >> series about child training for evangelical Christians.
>
> <snip>
>
> > You think that SECULARISTS aren't doing the same, AND WORSE?
>
> > THEY ARE.
>
> Wrong. You uptight kid-beating right-wing religious assholes set the
> standard for such behavior--then you try to blame US for your own
> failings.
>
> Child-molesting priests? Not their fault--it's them gawddamn sec-yooo-
> lar-ists!
>
> Child gets beaten to death by her parents? They was ATHIESTS!!!!!11!1!
>
> It's shitbirds like you who are the problem. Stop pointing fingers, you
> guilty piece of crap.
Alright, I'll try again by posting shorter excerpts from two of the
links I shared earlier:
"There is qualitative and empirical literature about the relationship
of religion to corporal punishment and physical abuse. Greven's book,
Spare the Child: The Religious Roots of Punishment and the
Psychological Impact of Physical Abuse5 is the most extensive piece of
qualitative literature. Greven relates many historical accounts of
physical punishment and abuse from white Protestants, especially those
from evangelical, fundamentalist and Pentecostal backgrounds who have
advocated corporal punishment. The source for these beliefs and
practices is the Bible, particularly from Proverbs in the Old
Testament. For example, people often rely on the following quotes: He
that spareth the rod hateth his son; but he that loveth him chasteneth
him betimes (Proverbs 13:24). and Foolishness is bound in the heart of
a child, but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him
(Proverbs 22:15)."
http://vaw.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/13/11/1094 (PDF)
broader theoretical arguments about the potential role(s) of multiple
dimensions of
religion and spirituality in this area."
In summary:
1) Higher levels of religious participate tend to reduce the incidence
of both child abuse by their parents *and* spousal abuse.
2) The generalization in (1) is *not* seen in religions that place an
emphasis on corporal punishment, for example fundamentalist Christians
and Pentecostals that specifically advocate severe physical discipline
based on Proverbs 13:24 and 22:15.
3) Lower levels of religious participation, either due to lack of
belief (atheism/agnosticism) or believers who attend church relatively
less regularly than other believers tend to abuse children and spouses
more often.
4) Religion alone is not always a good predictor of behavior, factors
such as unemployment, parents' prior exposure to abuse from their own
parents or parents who witnessed their own parents abusing each other
need to be considered.
5) Religious factors (or lack thereof) in domestic violence and child
abuse remain understudied and poorly understood.
-Xan
Day Brown
the field studies of Gorilla, Orangutan, Chimpanzee, and Bonobo. What we
repeatedly see is that the alpha males are responsible for almost all
the violence.
Primate work since they published darted, got the DNA, and reveal that
alphaism is handed down on the Y chromosome. They further find that the
its the daughters of alphas who abuse and abandon young, and its the
betas, both male and female, who adopt the neglected.
The video shows its the alphas who go toe to toe to defend the tribe.
They also try to control breeding with the females, who've been seen
sneaking off to mate with betas.
Long term analysis reveals that if there are too few alphas they get
taken out, then all the females get taken by the winners. But if there
are too few betas, then the survival rate of the young drops off, and
when the current generation of alphas becomes old, they get killed and
the females taken.
Video shows how betas routinely place themselves between the alphas and
the more vulnerable; they are the same size and can take the blows from
impulsive aggression. In the tribal setting, we see the elders pick up
on alpha aggession and use their authority to stop it. And in ordinary
circumstances, an alpha will prefer to hit on a beta.
But if no beta is available, and there is no elder there, why then the
wife and kids will do. Some hominid gene pools live in ecosystems where
tribal warfare is a constant risk. Jared Diamond, Collapse, notes that
when the whiteman arrived, 25% of the New Guinea Highland men died in
battle. Steven Pinker, "The Blank Slate", and LeBlanc "Constant Battles"
report the tropical hunter graveyards have 20 times the rate of trauma
seen on the skeletons as that of yeoman farmers.
"The Age of Stonehenge" by Burgess reveals a cycle going back 5000 years
in the UK of yeoman farmers being attacked and exploited by upland alpha
hunter/herders, but after too many of the beta farmers are killed off,
the food supply shrinks and famine crashes the population. As resources
get short, the warrior tribes turn on each other while the few remaining
farmers make it homesteading hidden away in the forest. A point also
shown by Barford, "The Early Slavs", who he picks up as the Roman empire
collapses.
The relationship with fundies is the cosmology based on an alpha male
tyrant concept of god who justifies any atrocity done in his name, which
contrasts with the suppressed faith in the Great Earth Mother associated
with the yeoman farmers for 10,000 years. The "Virgin Mary" is but one
of the disguised surrogates who never justifies violence.
All this and more is being picked up on by educated young women; there
is cosmological/spiritual revolution going on among them which is not
seen because these 'wiccans' or whatever, dont build churches or any
other monumental architecture to advertise their presence.
After all, the warrior elites setup alpha male tyrant gods to pander to
their instincts like Allah, Jesus, and Jehovah, so as women take over
control we'd expect them to again worship the Great Earth Mother. And
that will eliminate both fundies and child abuse.
Day Brown
> 5) Religious factors (or lack thereof) in domestic violence and child
> abuse remain understudied and poorly understood.
BUT: He who is not in control of himself cannot teach it to a child.
Marcus Aurelius: "The boy who learns to control slaves, does not learn
to control himself." Why Commodus didnt get the message is an
interesting question.
Besides this, the beta male boy needs to be treated differently than the
alpha. Alphaism is related to higher levels of testosterone & adrenalin
and lower levels of seratonin & dopamine. Primate studies reveal that if
you beat the shit out of an alpha, his hormone levels change,
testosterone levels decline and impulsive aggression with it.
Today, when you go to register a boy at one of the Ozark hill towns in
Northern Arkansas, they give you a form to fill out if you do not want
the pine paddle hung prominently on the back wall of the office used for
attitude adjustments. But it turns out, no bully would let a parent wimp
him out like that.
However, when there is a disturbance in class, the teacher does not get
personally involved, but calls the office, from which whatever manpower
as may be needed comes to intervene and take the kid to the office where
the principle, who is not emotionally upset by events, administers the
paddle. The result? ZERO rates of violence in these small town schools.
Last fall, one school that had taken down the paddle announced it was
going back up. School performance had declined. But get out an atlas,
and look up the small hill towns north of I-40 like Atkins, Bee Branch,
Clinton, Deer, Eureka Springs, Flippin, Greer's Ferry, Heber Springs,
Jasper... then look at the school report:
http://normessasweb.uark.edu/schoolperformance/School/School.php
Zero rates of violence. Dropout rates in the single digits, graduation
rates of 90%, attendance at 95% with over 95% of the kids tested. They
dont avoid testing kids with ADD, ADHD, Autism, ICD, or whatever, cause
they dont have enuf, if any, to bother excluding.
Nevertheless, the classes AVERAGE 1/2 year ahead of the national scores,
and do so with the second lowest teacher pay in the nation.
Last year, Jasper graduated 100% of its class, and Deer did so the year
before. What is going on here is, of course, much more complicated than
just the appropriate method of applying corporal punishment. The pop is
99.9% white, mostly family farm kids. Most of these towns dont even have
fast food outlets, and you never see junk like that in the schools. Look
at the class photos in the entrance halls, and notice less than 10% of
the kids are obese.
And when a farm kid gets home, they're more likely to have a pitchfork
in hand than a video game remote. These are larger families too; if any
abuse went on, some other kid'd see and everyone would know. In the
nuclear family home with only one or two kids, secrets are easy to keep.
Word gets around in small towns and villages too. I know of a case where
a wife was beaten. A hottie was sent to the door; when the dude came out
in the yard with her, a buncha hefty farm wives ganged up on his ass and
beat the living shit out of him. He aint been seen since. They dont wait
for courts to decide what to do.
Xan Du
> XanDu wrote:
> > 5) Religious factors (or lack thereof) in domestic violence and child
> > abuse remain understudied and poorly understood.
>
> Agreed. Is Stoicism a religion?
Depends on one's definition of religion. The studies I cited focused
mainly on Christian adherents in the United States, so when I used
"religion" in my posts I was not considering other uses of the term,
q.v. "science is a religion too," etc.
> They did recommend corporal punishment.
> BUT: He who is not in control of himself cannot teach it to a child.
In the two or so hours I spent Googling I did not turn up any studies
that attempted to correlate rates of child abuse and various forms of
non-theistic belief systems. But I also didn't look, my search terms
were "christian fundamentalism child abuse" and similar.
> Marcus Aurelius: "The boy who learns to control slaves, does not learn
> to control himself." Why Commodus didnt get the message is an
> interesting question.
Most such datasets *will* contain outliers.
In fact, the third study I provided in my original post in this thread
threw out Alaska and Utah in their macro analysis of the US due to the
erratic nature of the data from those two states:
----------------------
http://www.ideajournal.com/articles.php?id=47
Osborne and Overbay (2004) discuss the problem of outliers at length
and recommend removing them from the data set. They recommend an
acceptable cutoff point of 3 standard deviations. However, due to the
erratic nature of the data (using Anderson-Darling Normality
statistics), this investigation employed a "cut point" of 2.75
standard deviations. Looking at all variables, it was decided to
remove Utah and Alaska from further data analysis. Removing Utah and
Alaska from the data set did, in general, improve the normality
situation to varying degrees.
----------------------
At first I read this statement as a sort of dryly academic way of
saying, "look, there's some whacky shit going down in Utah we don't
understand, so and we're just not going to deal with it because it's
screwing up the rest of our study." But then later down:
----------------------
Reflection on regional analyses
The effect for fundamentalism as a correlate or predictor of domestic
violence on the West appears both strong and definite. However, this
raises an issue addressed earlier. The West has a relatively large
Mormon population. Could that be the cause of the observed
relationship? Mormons make up about 31 percent of fundamentalist
adherents in the West.
To repeat the question: Is it possible that the effect is mainly due
to the presence of LDS adherents as opposed to fundamentalism in
general, of which LDS adherents make up only a part? To test this
notion, a second Spearman Rank Order Test was conducted using the
percent of adherents of the LDS faith in each state. Is the “Mormon
Factor” sufficient in and of itself to explain the high correlation
and positive results on the bivariate regression and the Rank Order
Test for %PF and DVR in the West? Returning again to the Rank Order
Test, it seems it is not (rho = 0.36, two-sided p-value = 0.39). It
appears to be total fundamentalism in the West, as opposed Mormonism
alone that proved correlative/predictive.
----------------------
Seems a reasonable conclusion given the nature of the data they were
using, but it leaves me wanting. Again, the general feeling I get
from having poked around online for two hours is that this is
something that is under-studied at the moment.
> Besides this, the beta male boy needs to be treated differently than the
> alpha. Alphaism is related to higher levels of testosterone & adrenalin
> and lower levels of seratonin & dopamine. Primate studies reveal that if
> you beat the shit out of an alpha, his hormone levels change,
> testosterone levels decline and impulsive aggression with it.
>
> Today, when you go to register a boy at one of the Ozark hill towns in
> Northern Arkansas, they give you a form to fill out if you do not want
> the pine paddle hung prominently on the back wall of the office used for
> attitude adjustments. But it turns out, no bully would let a parent wimp
> him out like that.
<chuckle>
Well, I'd note that one to three swats with a pine paddle is far from
beating the shit out of someone.
> However, when there is a disturbance in class, the teacher does not get
> personally involved, but calls the office, from which whatever manpower
> as may be needed comes to intervene and take the kid to the office where
> the principle, who is not emotionally upset by events, administers the
> paddle. The result? ZERO rates of violence in these small town schools.
In 4th through 6th grades I attended two different elementary schools
just outside the inner city in Cincinnati, OH. At the time,
Cincinnati Public Schools had a paddling policy in effect. I don't
know if there was opt-out form or not, but if there was my parents did
not sign it and I got the "swat" several times over the course of
those three years. Only three I remember: once for not doing my
homework, once for failing to return a library book, and once for
fighting.
Most of the other kids got the paddle for in-class disruptions --
either verbal acting out or pre-fight agressive behavior like cussin'
and pushin'. In contrast to what you describe above, teachers had
paddles in-class and administered discipline themselves, usually just
outside the classroom, but sometimes in-class in front of everyone.
There was little in-school fighting of any serious nature, but of
course once off school grounds things were different. This is all
anecdotal of course ... I have no idea what happened to school
performance in Cincy Public once the corporal punishment policies were
removed, and I'm honestly too lazy to look right now.
> Last fall, one school that had taken down the paddle announced it was
> going back up. School performance had declined. But get out an atlas,
> and look up the small hill towns north of I-40 like Atkins, Bee Branch,
> Clinton, Deer, Eureka Springs, Flippin, Greer's Ferry, Heber Springs,
> Jasper... then look at the school report:
>
> http://normessasweb.uark.edu/schoolperformance/School/School.php
> Zero rates of violence. Dropout rates in the single digits, graduation
> rates of 90%, attendance at 95% with over 95% of the kids tested. They
> dont avoid testing kids with ADD, ADHD, Autism, ICD, or whatever, cause
> they dont have enuf, if any, to bother excluding.
>
> Nevertheless, the classes AVERAGE 1/2 year ahead of the national scores,
> and do so with the second lowest teacher pay in the nation.
>
> Last year, Jasper graduated 100% of its class, and Deer did so the year
> before. What is going on here is, of course, much more complicated than
> just the appropriate method of applying corporal punishment. The pop is
> 99.9% white, mostly family farm kids. Most of these towns dont even have
> fast food outlets, and you never see junk like that in the schools. Look
> at the class photos in the entrance halls, and notice less than 10% of
> the kids are obese.
Just out of sheer political correctness I'm going to have to squawk at
the "99.9% white" claim and call for references. I did go to
elementary school in rural California for one year, similar
demographics, and did not notice a lot of fighting. My other three
years of school were in a more urban setting in Provo/Orem, UT, and
those kids were a bit more aggressive. There were a lot more fights
on Cincinnati Public, usually crossing racial lines but not always. I
have no data though.
> And when a farm kid gets home, they're more likely to have a pitchfork
> in hand than a video game remote. These are larger families too; if any
> abuse went on, some other kid'd see and everyone would know. In the
> nuclear family home with only one or two kids, secrets are easy to keep.
>
> Word gets around in small towns and villages too. I know of a case where
> a wife was beaten. A hottie was sent to the door; when the dude came out
> in the yard with her, a buncha hefty farm wives ganged up on his ass and
> beat the living shit out of him. He aint been seen since. They dont wait
> for courts to decide what to do.
That's a hell of a story and I am laughing, despite the fact that it
should upset my white urban middle class left-leaning view of the
world. But no one has ever accused me of not having a sense of
humor. Thanks for a nice post.
-Xan
Ike E 2/23/2010
"Dr. Dumbass, Troll Extraordinaire" <gek...@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote
in message news:Xns9D2D81BA630F...@216.196.97.130...
> "Ike E 2/23/2010" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:hmd00h$l8a$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>>
>> "John Manning" <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
>> news:UMSdnQP6IYK1FRTW...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> Fundies and child abuse
>>>
>>>
>>> Lynn Harris has a bone-chilling article up at Salon about yet another
>>> incident of fundamentalist Christians taking their beliefs to an
>>> extreme and getting someone hurt or killed, usually and inevitably
>>> someone in a vulnerable position. In this case, the story is that of
>>> 7-year-old Lydia Schatz, whose parents beat her to death using a
>>> tool---a quarter inch plumbing supply line---recommended by the
>>> wildly popular authors Michael and Debi Pearl, who have an entire
>>> series about �child training� for evangelical Christians.
>
> <snip>
>
>> You think that SECULARISTS aren't doing the same, AND WORSE?
>>
>> THEY ARE.
>
> Wrong.
Notice how the fraud REMOVES the citations from the Word that set the
bounderies where the discipline of children is concerned, then goes on
another of his satanic tirades, then says I'M wrong.
The least...
Pr 23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him
with the rod, he shall not die.
The most...
Eph 6:4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them
up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
And this was precisely what Jesus considered before He returned to drive the
"thieves" out of their "dens."
[snippeth]
Ike
Darrell Stec
Ikey, learn to read the Greek. The money changers were not driven out, the
livestock were. Unlike English words in most languages have gender
associated with them
Besides it never happened. The event was copied. John said it happened at
the very beginning of Joshua's one year ministry whereas the other accounts
say it happened at the very end of his three year ministry. It couldn't be
both.
In reality it could not have happened. The Temple Guards and the personal
guards of the money changers would have struck anyone down who presented a
problem.
Besides god ordered the money changers to be in the Courtyard. Sacrificial
offerings could only be bought with Temple money, and most people from
outlying areas did not use that as daily currency.
Your ignorance is astounding.
--
Later,
Darrell
Ike E 2/23/2010
"Darrell Stec" <dar...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:7v1jab...@mid.individual.net...
> Ike E 2/23/2010 wrote:
>
>>
>> "Dr. Dumbass, Troll Extraordinaire" <gek...@astroskivviesboymail.com>
>> wrote in message news:Xns9D2D81BA630F...@216.196.97.130...
>>> "Ike E 2/23/2010" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:hmd00h$l8a$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "John Manning" <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
>>>> news:UMSdnQP6IYK1FRTW...@giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Fundies and child abuse
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Lynn Harris has a bone-chilling article up at Salon about yet another
>>>>> incident of fundamentalist Christians taking their beliefs to an
>>>>> extreme and getting someone hurt or killed, usually and inevitably
>>>>> someone in a vulnerable position. In this case, the story is that of
>>>>> 7-year-old Lydia Schatz, whose parents beat her to death using a
>>>>> tool---a quarter inch plumbing supply line---recommended by the
>>>>> wildly popular authors Michael and Debi Pearl, who have an entire
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> You think that SECULARISTS aren't doing the same, AND WORSE?
>>>>
>>>> THEY ARE.
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>
>> Notice how the fraud REMOVES the citations from the Word that set the
>> bounderies where the discipline of children is concerned, then goes on
>> another of his satanic tirades, then says I'M wrong.
>>
>> The least...
>>
>> Pr 23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him
>> with the rod, he shall not die.
>>
>> The most...
>>
>> Eph 6:4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring
>> them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
>>
>> And this was precisely what Jesus considered before He returned to drive
>> the "thieves" out of their "dens."
>>
>> [snippeth]
>>
>> Ike
>
>
> Ikey, learn to read the Greek.
Already do.
> The money changers were not driven out, the
> livestock were.
LLLLOOOLLLL
Yeah, ok. You're done.
(What we have here is another JSBS revision of history to try and take away
Jesus' manhood, nevermind that Jesus' actions in the temple that day only
foreshadowed the violence that He will inflict on That Day, which the frauds
don't like--it screws up their "feminized Jesus.")
Ike
Geode
wrote:
> "John Manning" <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
you are a hell of a lot stupid. I had raised a girl and a boy, and
never had the need, not even the temptation to slap one of my kids.
They were both excellent and studious. They never misbehaved, and
both achieved high degrees in foreign universities. The daughter made
a PH. doctor in theoretical physics in Edinburgh, and the boy made a
degree of electronic engineering in Karlsruhe, Germany. English and
German were foreign languages for them as are for me.
So, I never punished them, I never slapped any of them, and I never
had any reason to rebuke them for any bad attitude. By the way, I am
atheist and believe children had to learn to behave in an intelligent
and loving manner.
I believe that children who misbehave are being badly educated. I do
not see any reason why a child well raised should have a naughty
behavior. This story about disciplining kid so harshly are a
testimony of the primitive and savage minds of religious freaks.
Geode
.
Darrell Stec
You are lying. Otherwise you would know what I wrote below is true. I know
you will avoid answering because you do not want to fall into the trap of
demonstrating you just lied when you said you read Greek but I'll give you a
chance to actually back up your assertion. Please translate the following
passage:
he agape esti megale kai agathe kai oi zetoyntes ten agapen eugesousi ten
alethe charan oi aphrones etsi plereis tes adikias kai ou zetousin agatha
pantes autoi legousi pseude kai ta erga panta ponera ei anthropos thelei
legein ta alethe kai poiein ta agatha euriskei pollen charan
>> The money changers were not driven out, the
>> livestock were.
>
> LLLLOOOLLLL
>
> Yeah, ok. You're done.
>
> (What we have here is another JSBS revision of history to try and take
> away Jesus' manhood, nevermind that Jesus' actions in the temple that day
> only foreshadowed the violence that He will inflict on That Day,
Which day? At the very beginning of Joshua's one year ministry as the
author of John relates or at the end of his three year ministry
precipitating his death as the other gospels tell us?
> which the
> frauds don't like--it screws up their "feminized Jesus.")
>
Ike, you are mistaken. Real men don't have to bully and pick fights to
prove their manhood.
> Ike
--
Later,
Darrell
Ike E 2/23/2010
"Geode" <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e764b610-5c27-4ef5...@t20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> you are a hell of a lot stupid.
And you're done.
Ike
Ike E 2/23/2010
No I'm not.
> Otherwise you would know what I wrote below is true.
No, because of it, I know you're full of crap.
> I know
> you will avoid answering because you do not want to fall into the trap of
> demonstrating you just lied when you said you read Greek...
I didn't lie.
> but I'll give you a
> chance to actually back up your assertion. Please translate the following
> passage:
Done...
"Because he was greatly loved, and loved good, they sought his love; but
they could not comprehend his love, and became evil, and they turned the
love of life into the love of themselves. Therefore every evil man wants to
declare his own truth, and create his own truth, and obtain the people's
approval."
Source?
>>> The money changers were not driven out, the
>>> livestock were.
>>
>> LLLLOOOLLLL
>>
>> Yeah, ok. You're done.
>>
>> (What we have here is another JSBS revision of history to try and take
>> away Jesus' manhood, nevermind that Jesus' actions in the temple that day
>> only foreshadowed the violence that He will inflict on That Day,
>
> Which day? At the very beginning of Joshua's one year ministry as the
> author of John relates or at the end of his three year ministry
> precipitating his death as the other gospels tell us?
Neither.
And you got the statements backward: John (who was there) relayed the story
in terms of three years, and the synoptics, working from Mark's compressed
chronology, seemed to relay it in terms of one year, but that was because
Mark didn't HAVE a chronology, but fit his notes from Peter into one year.
Not that it matters, because I'm not referring to days past, but THAT DAY
COMING, i.e. the Day of the Lord yet to come, in which Jesus will come in
judgment on the Earth, a concept which your false teachers despise, and seek
to remove from the Word.
>> which the
>> frauds don't like--it screws up their "feminized Jesus.")
>>
>
> Ike, you are mistaken. Real men don't have to bully and pick fights to
> prove their manhood.
No, I'm not mistaken.
Righteous judgment and punishment is not "bullying:" That's the ethos of the
consequenceless society.
And Jesus neither bullied anyone nor picked the fight, but He DID FIGHT IT.
But wait: You ain't seen nothin' yet, for "the Lord is a Man of war" and
"God is love" are BOTH true statements, despite your Marcionish heresy, and
the next time around Jesus will come in His OTHER aspect (which your false
teachers hate).
That's what I mean by your "feminized Jesus:" Jesus restrained Himself the
first time around, but ONLY for the moment. Now He comes in the OTHER aspect
of Messiah spoken of in the Old Testament, the GOD-KING Messiah, which the
JSBSers hate, because He's coming AFTER THEM.
Ike
Ike E 2/23/2010
"Ike E 2/23/2010" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hmh4fp$tt8$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
[snippeth]
> "Because he was greatly loved, and loved good, they sought his love; but
> they could not comprehend his love, and became evil, and they turned the
> love of life into the love of themselves. Therefore every evil man wants
> to declare his own truth, and create his own truth, and obtain the
> people's approval."
Oh, yeah: I forgot to mention--this is a PERFECT description of the Jesus
Seminarians.
<chuckle>
Ike
Darrell Stec
Yes you are. See below. You totally missed the mark.
>
>> Otherwise you would know what I wrote below is true.
>
> No, because of it, I know you're full of crap.
>
How can you say that when your translation was crap?
>> I know
>> you will avoid answering because you do not want to fall into the trap of
>> demonstrating you just lied when you said you read Greek...
>
> I didn't lie.
>
Yes you did as we shall see below.
>> but I'll give you a
>> chance to actually back up your assertion. Please translate the
>> following passage:
>
> Done...
>
You snipped the original Greek. Here is is again so people who actually
read the language can compare it to what you translated:
he agape esti megale kai agathe kai oi zetoyntes ten agapen eugesousi ten
alethe charan oi aphrones etsi plereis tes adikias kai ou zetousin
agatha
pantes autoi legousi pseude kai ta erga panta ponera ei anthropos thelei
legein ta alethe kai poiein ta agatha euriskei pollen charan
> "Because he was greatly loved, and loved good, they sought his love; but
> they could not comprehend his love, and became evil, and they turned the
> love of life into the love of themselves. Therefore every evil man wants
> to declare his own truth, and create his own truth, and obtain the
> people's approval."
>
Not even close. Which is what I stated about the Temple incident. Joshua
did not whip the money changers but rather the cattle. But then since you
don't seem to be up on Greek, the specific explanation will be lost on you.
In this example you got the meaning of some of the words correctly, but verb
usage wrong especially tense and number, gender usage wrong, and mixed up
the cases such as nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, etc .
> Source?
>
Homework assignment from many, many years ago. The correct reading would
be:
love is great and good and those who seek love will find the true joy the
foolish men are full of wickedness and do not seek good things they all
tell lies and their works are all evil if a man wishes to speak true
things and to do good he finds much joy
You butchered it completely. I purposely made sure I did not use an example
you could cut and paste into Google. That caught you up. Instead you
picked something that had some translation with many of the same words in
it.
Shall we try your Hebrew or Latin next?
Why is it you people try to lie about such things then contradict those who
actually have an education in these things?
>>>> The money changers were not driven out, the
>>>> livestock were.
>>>
>>> LLLLOOOLLLL
>>>
>>> Yeah, ok. You're done.
>>>
>>> (What we have here is another JSBS revision of history to try and take
>>> away Jesus' manhood, nevermind that Jesus' actions in the temple that
>>> day only foreshadowed the violence that He will inflict on That Day,
>>
>> Which day? At the very beginning of Joshua's one year ministry as the
>> author of John relates or at the end of his three year ministry
>> precipitating his death as the other gospels tell us?
>
> Neither.
John has Joshua and the Temple incident a few verses down after the Cana
wedding which happened after he called his main disciples. Thirteen
chapters later his ministry is coming to a close with the Passover feast.
The synoptics have the Temple incident just before the Passover feast at the
onset of his demise. They can't both be right. The story is false anyway.
If you read enough of Josephus especially in his depiction of Jerusalem
during the Passover feasts you would know why. It boils down to security.
It also boils down to the fact that moneychangers were required. People
could not use their own money to buy sacrificial offerings, and those could
only be gotten from the Temple feast. A chicken from your backyard would
not do.
>
> And you got the statements backward: John (who was there) relayed the
> story in terms of three years, and the synoptics,
True, I reversed the two.
> working from Mark's
> compressed chronology, seemed to relay it in terms of one year, but that
> was because Mark didn't HAVE a chronology, but fit his notes from Peter
> into one year.
>
Forget the Peter crap. That is just tradition. Nothing in those gospels
say any of the authors talked to Joshua or any of the apostles.
Do you actually think people who can read the bible believe your bullshit?
> Not that it matters, because I'm not referring to days past, but THAT DAY
> COMING, i.e. the Day of the Lord yet to come, in which Jesus will come in
> judgment on the Earth, a concept which your false teachers despise, and
> seek to remove from the Word.
>
>>> which the
>>> frauds don't like--it screws up their "feminized Jesus.")
>>>
>>
>> Ike, you are mistaken. Real men don't have to bully and pick fights to
>> prove their manhood.
>
> No, I'm not mistaken.
>
> Righteous judgment and punishment is not "bullying:"
Of course that is what all the bullies say, "He deserved it" or "He got me
mad."
> That's the ethos of
> the consequenceless society.
>
> And Jesus neither bullied anyone nor picked the fight, but He DID FIGHT
> IT.
>
> But wait: You ain't seen nothin' yet, for "the Lord is a Man of war" and
> "God is love" are BOTH true statements, despite your Marcionish heresy,
> and the next time around Jesus will come in His OTHER aspect (which your
> false teachers hate).
>
> That's what I mean by your "feminized Jesus:" Jesus restrained Himself the
> first time around, but ONLY for the moment. Now He comes in the OTHER
> aspect of Messiah spoken of in the Old Testament, the GOD-KING Messiah,
> which the JSBSers hate, because He's coming AFTER THEM.
>
> Ike
--
Later,
Darrell
Darrell Stec
You do realize that people with mental problems laugh at their own comments,
don't you? And you do so on a continual basis.
It doesn't not fit the Jesus Seminar. I'll bet you don't even know who was
on it or what they wrote. What you wrote above is a made up piece of crap
by a simpleton who pretended to know Greek.
Here is the original (you snipped it on purpose so nobody would back check
you) so that readers can see how poorly you translated those sentences:
he agape esti megale kai agathe kai oi zetoyntes ten agapen eugesousi ten
alethe charan oi aphrones etsi plereis tes adikias kai ou zetousin
agatha
pantes autoi legousi pseude kai ta erga panta ponera ei anthropos thelei
legein ta alethe kai poiein ta agatha euriskei pollen charan
--
Later,
Darrell
Ike E 2/23/2010
Better go check again.
> Which is what I stated about the Temple incident. Joshua
> did not whip the money changers but rather the cattle.
Now try comparing all three versions...
Mr 21:12-13
And Jesus went into the temple of God, AND CAST OUT ALL THEM THAT SOLD
AND BOUGHT IN THE TEMPLE, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and
the seats of them that sold doves, and said unto them, It is written, My
house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of
thieves.
Now you want to come along and change the story based on an errant reading
of John's version, in which John (who wrote LAST) only adds the ADDITIONAL
THOUGHT that Jesus drove out their animals, too...
Mt 11:15-18
And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, AND BEGAN TO
CAST OUT THEM THAT BOUGHT AND SOLD IN THE TEMPLE, and overthrew the tables
of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, and would not
suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.
And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be
called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of
thieves.
And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might
destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at
his doctrine.
Lk 19:45-46
And he went into the temple, AND BEGAN TO CAST OUT THEM THAT SOLD
THEREIN, and them that bought; saying unto them, It is written, My house is
the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Now you want to come along with your "superior" reading [which isn't in ANY
substantial translation] wherein John adds the information that Jesus drove
out the ANIMALS that some were selling to, and completely change the story.
Jn 2:13-16
And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, and
found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the
changers of money sitting.
And when he had made a scourge of small cords, HE DROVE THEM ALL OUT OF
THE TEMPLE, AND the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money,
and overthrew the tables, and said unto them that sold doves, Take these
things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.
2:15 kai poihsav fragellion ek scoiniwn pantav exebalen ek tou ierou ta te
probata kai touv boav...
and [he] made a flaggelion (scourge) from rushes to drive ALL from the area,
AND the sheep, AND the bovines....
The ONLY thing John was doing was ADDING the animals to the story as told by
the previous three Gospel writers, NOT CHANGING THE STORY.
But such is the insidious nature of the Higher Critics--they pit account
AGAINST account looking for some way to change the story, and bastardize the
Word in the process.
Oh, and by the way: This was a living prophecy, as what Jesus did back then
is NOTHING compared with what Jesus will do the "beasts" in the temple at
His SECOND coming (which is what the Jesus Seminarians are REALLY trying to
get around).
> But then since you
> don't seem to be up on Greek, the specific explanation will be lost on
> you.
> In this example you got the meaning of some of the words correctly, but
> verb
> usage wrong especially tense and number, gender usage wrong, and mixed up
> the cases such as nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, etc .
>
>> Source?
>>
>
> Homework assignment from many, many years ago. The correct reading would
> be:
>
> love is great and good and those who seek love will find the true joy
> the
> foolish men are full of wickedness and do not seek good things they all
> tell lies and their works are all evil if a man wishes to speak true
> things and to do good he finds much joy
Don't see this in the text at all.
> You butchered it completely. I purposely made sure I did not use an
> example
> you could cut and paste into Google. That caught you up. Instead you
> picked something that had some translation with many of the same words in
> it.
No, I went through it word-for-word.
Guess your prof was grading on a real easy curve.
> Shall we try your Hebrew or Latin next?
Don't do Hebrew, and Latin is fairly irrelevant.
> Why is it you people try to lie about such things then contradict those
> who
> actually have an education in these things?
Who lied?
First, I wasn't referring to either--I was referring to THAT DAY, i.e. THE
SECOND COMING, when Jesus is REALLY going to "eliminate" the "beasts" from
the temple mount.
Second, since you have no idea how the Gospels came about, your entire
premise is wrong.
Third, this is one of the few stories that ALL THREE Gospels contain, so
your notion of pitting one against the other three is patently ridiculous.
Fourth, and most important, the moneychangers were NOT required: They had
NOTHING to do with the sale of the low quality sacrificial animals--that was
a SEPARATE issue.
It had to do with the temple tax. The Pharisees didn't want the image of
Caesar or the Roman gods used to pay the temple tax. However, there was NO
biblical law against using foreign currency to PAY the tax.
Hence, the moneychangers (who were rip-off artists when it came to
exchanging currencies) were UNnecessary, as the people coming from different
lands could use the currency AT HAND to pay the tax.
In other words, it was just another of those PHARISAICAL rules that the
Pharisees made an issue, NOT the LAW OF GOD.
And once again, they "made the Word of God of no effect by [their]
traditions."
>> And you got the statements backward: John (who was there) relayed the
>> story in terms of three years, and the synoptics,
>
> True, I reversed the two.
>
>> working from Mark's
>> compressed chronology, seemed to relay it in terms of one year, but that
>> was because Mark didn't HAVE a chronology, but fit his notes from Peter
>> into one year.
>>
> Forget the Peter crap. That is just tradition.
No, Mark got his information from Peter, which is why Mark didn't know that
Jesus had delivered His prophetic discourse TWICE on the same day--once to
the Sanhedrin in the IMMEDIATE sense, and once to the Disciples in the LONG
TERM sense (as Jesus always did with His prophecies).
> Nothing in those gospels
> say any of the authors talked to Joshua or any of the apostles.
And yet about half of the canonical version of Matthew is disparate sayings,
like a log, into which is inserted the authors version of elements of Mark's
Gospel.
And then we have the OTHER side-source, PAUL, who was God's fly on the wall
(unknowingly) gathering information from WITHIN closed chambers that would
be essential to know later.
> Do you actually think people who can read the bible believe your bullshit?
I can read it just fine.
I know when three authors write one thing, and you try to pit the fourth
against the three, you're playing a game of satanic sleight-of-hand.
>> Not that it matters, because I'm not referring to days past, but THAT DAY
>> COMING, i.e. the Day of the Lord yet to come, in which Jesus will come in
>> judgment on the Earth, a concept which your false teachers despise, and
>> seek to remove from the Word.
>>
>>>> which the
>>>> frauds don't like--it screws up their "feminized Jesus.")
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ike, you are mistaken. Real men don't have to bully and pick fights to
>>> prove their manhood.
>>
>> No, I'm not mistaken.
>>
>> Righteous judgment and punishment is not "bullying:"
>
>
> Of course that is what all the bullies say, "He deserved it" or "He got me
> mad."
And you better get used to the notion that "the Lord is a Man of War" and
"God is love" are TWO SIDES of THE SAME COIN.
(Yeesh, if we listened to idiots like you, we would all be speaking German
or Russian by now.)
>> That's the ethos of
>> the consequenceless society.
>>
>> And Jesus neither bullied anyone nor picked the fight, but He DID FIGHT
>> IT.
>>
>> But wait: You ain't seen nothin' yet, for "the Lord is a Man of war" and
>> "God is love" are BOTH true statements, despite your Marcionish heresy,
>> and the next time around Jesus will come in His OTHER aspect (which your
>> false teachers hate).
>>
>> That's what I mean by your "feminized Jesus:" Jesus restrained Himself
>> the
>> first time around, but ONLY for the moment. Now He comes in the OTHER
>> aspect of Messiah spoken of in the Old Testament, the GOD-KING Messiah,
>> which the JSBSers hate, because He's coming AFTER THEM.
Notice no comment.
THIS is the most important fallacy of the Jesus Seminar--they can't HANDLE a
God who is completely balanced in Righteousness, Judgment, AND Compassion,
and seek to "feminize" Jesus to Mitigate His demeanor at His SECOND Advent.
And why is that?
THEY are of the "beasts" HE'S COMING AFTER.
Ike
Ike E 2/23/2010
> Ike E 2/23/2010 wrote:
>
>>
>> "Ike E 2/23/2010" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hmh4fp$tt8$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> [snippeth]
>>
>>> "Because he was greatly loved, and loved good, they sought his love; but
>>> they could not comprehend his love, and became evil, and they turned the
>>> love of life into the love of themselves. Therefore every evil man wants
>>> to declare his own truth, and create his own truth, and obtain the
>>> people's approval."
>>
>> Oh, yeah: I forgot to mention--this is a PERFECT description of the Jesus
>> Seminarians.
>>
>> <chuckle>
>>
>> Ike
>
> You do realize that people with mental problems laugh at their own
> comments,
> don't you? And you do so on a continual basis.
I'm not laughing at my comments--I'm laughing you and those like you.
If you ever stopped to engage your brains for a moment, you would realize
how patently absurd your speculations raised to the level of "fact" are.
> It doesn't not fit the Jesus Seminar.
Oh, you have no idea how well it fits the Jesus Seminar.
Take a bunch of eggheads, put an old "queen" in the midst of them, and then
sit around and come up with ways to pick apart Orthodox Christian beliefs,
and all because you simply DON'T LIKE what the Word has to say.
So you have to reduce Jesus to being "just a nice guy," come up with
outlandish theories about key biblical texts (which, by the way, was
prophesied of you), and try to find a way to get around Jesus' eschatology
because it goes against your satanic UNIVERSALISTIC agenda and desire for
FALSE PEACE (which was ALSO prophesied of you).
> I'll bet you don't even know who was
> on it or what they wrote.
LOL
Let's see. They were there. You are here. And yet YOU pretend to be the one
who understands what they were talking about.
> What you wrote above is a made up piece of crap
> by a simpleton who pretended to know Greek.
I know enough to know when someone is trying to pull the wool over my eyes?
I "know" that three texts mentioned nothing about Jesus driving animals from
the temple, and John, WHO WAS FAMILIAR WITH WHAT WAS WRITTEN BEFORE HIM,
ADDS a bit of information that the others didn't note. NOT "replaced," but
"added."
And I KNOW that it is PATENTLY IMPOSSIBLE for John to be citing REFERENCES
(like the canonical Matthew and Paul's letters) that were written BEFORE he
wrote in c. 96 AD IF THEY WEREN'T WRITTEN YET.
And these are the facts that you can't overcome with your silly
suppositions.
<chuckle>
Ike
huge
The silly supposition is that any mythical creatures like gods
are in any way made to exist by the words in the fictional "texts,"
or by any exegesis by some asshole seminarians.
What we have above in the thread is an argument
between the stupid and the sublime.
--
huge: Not on my time you don't.
Ike E 2/23/2010
"huge" <hu...@nomailaddress.com> wrote in message
news:NaednSMvufvUwhHW...@earthlink.com...
"You say."
I say what Jesus said is the only thing that makes ultimate sense of
anything.
Ike
Darrell Stec
I don't have to. The English translation I gave was absolutely correct and
yours was botched and no where near the actual translation. Here let me
repeat the correct translation again, so those of us who actually studied
Greek can follow along. Once again you dishonestly snipped it so readers
could not follow the conversation. Why do you fundies always do that?
The correct translation:
love is great and good and those who seek love will find the true joy the
foolish men are full of wickedness and do not seek good things they all
tell lies and their works are all evil if a man wishes to speak true
things and to do good he finds much joy
The first Greek word is 'he' which is FEMININE, singular nominative case.
It is an article meaning "the" and it modifies the subject 'agape' which is
FEMININE, singular, nominative case and which means "love". Since agape in
this case is a proper noun, a name, it uses the article "the" in front of
it, just like we see when speaking about Joshua, i.e. ho iesous.
The next word to follow is "esti" which is a verb present tense, third
person singular meaning "is". It is not past tense. This is followed by
the adjective for great, the conjunction 'kai' meaning "and" (which you did
get right) and the adjective meaning good. And the rest of the sentence you
equally screwed up You mixed up tenses and gender and case.
Face it. You lied. You cannot read the Greek and tried to fake it.
>
>> Which is what I stated about the Temple incident. Joshua
>> did not whip the money changers but rather the cattle.
>
> Now try comparing all three versions...
>
> Mr 21:12-13
>
You mean Matthew.
> And Jesus went into the temple of God, AND CAST OUT ALL THEM THAT SOLD
> AND BOUGHT IN THE TEMPLE, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers,
> and the seats of them that sold doves, and said unto them, It is written,
> My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of
> thieves.
>
> Now you want to come along and change the story based on an errant reading
> of John's version, in which John (who wrote LAST) only adds the ADDITIONAL
> THOUGHT that Jesus drove out their animals, too...
>
> Mt 11:15-18
>
You mean Mark.
As usual your Greek is abysmal.
kai (AND) poiesas (HAVING MADE) phragellion (WHIP) ek (OUT) schoinion (OF
SMALL CORDS) pantas (ALL) exebalen (HE THREW OUT) ek (OUT) tou (OF THE)
hierou (TEMPLE) ta (THE) te (BOTH) probata (SHEEP) kai (AND) tous (THE)
boas (OXEN) kai (AND) ton (OF THE) kollubiston (MONEY CHANGERS) execheen (HE
POURED OUT) to (THE) kerma (MONEY) kai (AND) tas (THE) trapedzas (TABLES)
anetrepsen (HE TURNED UP) kai (AND) tois (TO THE ONES) tas (THE) peristeras
(DOVES) polousin (SELLING) eipen (HE SAID) arate (LIFT UP) tauta (THESE)
enteuthen (FROM HERE) me (NOT) poieite (MAKE) ton (THE) oikon (HOUSE) tou
(OF THE) patros (FATHER) mou (OF ME) oikon (HOUSE) emporiou (OF MERCHANDISE)
So the word "all: in the above you got wrong. It refers to both the sheep
and the oxen. "All the both sheep and the oxen" is a Greek poetic form. It
does not refer to the moneychangers. The moneychangers are dealt with later.
The whip was used to drive our the livestock. I could go on but he simply
told the moneychangers to leave.
Of course with guards both Temple guards and body guards, some 40,000 strong
according to Josephus during the Passover, this could never be possible.
And the same story is reflected in earlier non biblical stories.
Your problem Ike is that you are trying to fake knowing Greek so the best
you can do is use some sort of online parallel verses without having the
advantage of knowing the language and its underlying grammatical structure.
That is why you get case, tense and modifiers wrong.
> The ONLY thing John was doing was ADDING the animals to the story as told
> by the previous three Gospel writers, NOT CHANGING THE STORY.
>
Are you that moronic that you don't know everyone can check their bibles and
plainly see John has the Temple incident at the beginning of Joshua's
ministry and the Synoptics just before his final demise. The incident could
not have taken place twice.
Furthermore John not only adds a whip but also introduces livestock in
addition to the doves. Some stories both the buyers and sellers are ordered
out. In others just the sellers. But here's the rub for you, the people
changing the money, were not the same people selling the sacrificial animals
(the priests sold them) and the buyers both bought Temple coins with their
local money and also bought the sacrificial animals sold by the priests.
And the OT orders both the priests to sell the animals and required
moneychangers because only Temple coin could be used to buy the pure
sacrificial animals.
By the time these stories were written the Temple had already been
destroyed. There is too much anachronism going on here because the Jewish
rituals were unknown to the gospel writers.
> But such is the insidious nature of the Higher Critics--they pit account
> AGAINST account looking for some way to change the story, and bastardize
> the Word in the process.
>
[clipped bullshit proselytizing]
The point is that if the bible is the work of an omniscient and omnipotent
god then logic would tell you he could make sure only the truth would be
told. He would not allow the event to occur at the beginning of Joshua's
ministry in one account and many years later at the end of Joshua's ministry
in the other. I noticed you conveniently skipped over that point without
comment. And an omnipotent, omniscient god could certainly reveal the truth
to all writers so there would be no conflicts in the story.
>> But then since you
>> don't seem to be up on Greek, the specific explanation will be lost on
>> you.
>> In this example you got the meaning of some of the words correctly, but
>> verb
>> usage wrong especially tense and number, gender usage wrong, and mixed up
>> the cases such as nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, etc .
>>
>>> Source?
>>>
>>
>> Homework assignment from many, many years ago. The correct reading would
>> be:
>>
>> love is great and good and those who seek love will find the true joy
>> the
>> foolish men are full of wickedness and do not seek good things they all
>> tell lies and their works are all evil if a man wishes to speak true
>> things and to do good he finds much joy
>
> Don't see this in the text at all.
>
>> You butchered it completely. I purposely made sure I did not use an
>> example
>> you could cut and paste into Google. That caught you up. Instead you
>> picked something that had some translation with many of the same words in
>> it.
>
> No, I went through it word-for-word.
>
No you did not. Go though it word for word like I did for the John passage.
Or as I did for the first few phrases of the lesson. Break each word into
gender, case, tense et cetera. You cannot do that. If you had you would
not have murdered the translation so badly.
> Guess your prof was grading on a real easy curve.
>
Why did you assume I was the student? I did not state whether I was the
one doing the homework or grading it. Do you honestly think you can blunder
and boast your way out of this. You do not understand ancient Greek PERIOD.
>> Shall we try your Hebrew or Latin next?
>
> Don't do Hebrew, and Latin is fairly irrelevant.
>
Gee, the Christian church certainly didn't think so for over a thousand
years and they also used the Latin to create a retro Hebrew and retro Greek
for such bibles as the KJV an the Douay Rheims. In fact now that we have
found even older Latin manuscripts than the translators of the 15th and 16th
centuries had, there is more material to compare and make a
progression/family chart from. Modern translator still make use of the newly
discovered Latin texts as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi
Library and other codexes and manuscripts.
>> Why is it you people try to lie about such things then contradict those
>> who
>> actually have an education in these things?
>
> Who lied?
>
You did. You pretended to know Greek and we can see that is a lie. You
admitted you don't know Hebrew and you dodged on the Latin question, so it
is safe to assume you don't know it either.
Why do you Sunday School educated Fundies always think you know more than
people who have had a formal (read that college and above) education in
these subjects?
Who cares? He has to come the first time before there can ever be a second
coming.
> Second, since you have no idea how the Gospels came about, your entire
> premise is wrong.
>
What makes you think I don't know how they came about? We don't know what
the originals were, if the concept of originals is even a valid one.
> Third, this is one of the few stories that ALL THREE Gospels contain, so
> your notion of pitting one against the other three is patently ridiculous.
>
How so? One says that the event happened at the beginning and the others at
the end. The both cannot be correct. Therefore at least one of the authors
was not an eyewitness simple because of the process of elimination. How
could a book inspired and revealed by an omniscient, omnipotent god make
that mistake or even allow it to happen.
> Fourth, and most important, the moneychangers were NOT required: They had
> NOTHING to do with the sale of the low quality sacrificial animals--that
> was a SEPARATE issue.
>
I've been saying that all along. The changed money from the local coin to
the only acceptable money that could be used to buy the animals from the
priests.
You might also note that this did not happen in the temple proper, it
happened in the outer Temple called the Temple of the Gentiles. This is
reflected in the use of the word 'hieron'. The inner Temple, the Temple
proper was called 'naos'
You see there is a whole lot more information if you can actually read the
original languages rather than depend upon lousy translations.
> It had to do with the temple tax. The Pharisees didn't want the image of
> Caesar or the Roman gods used to pay the temple tax. However, there was NO
> biblical law against using foreign currency to PAY the tax.
>
> Hence, the moneychangers (who were rip-off artists when it came to
> exchanging currencies) were UNnecessary, as the people coming from
> different lands could use the currency AT HAND to pay the tax.
>
> In other words, it was just another of those PHARISAICAL rules that the
> Pharisees made an issue, NOT the LAW OF GOD.
>
Wrong. The money changer story was included as a thowback to a passage in
Jeremiah conflated with another passage in Malachi to pretend it was
prophetic and for no other reason. It never happened and could never
happen.
The very fact that the Pharisees were presented in bad light, shouts out
that the accounts were written after the Final Diaspora, approximately 70
years after the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem. In those days that
equaled a time span of about four or five generations.
> And once again, they "made the Word of God of no effect by [their]
> traditions."
>
>>> And you got the statements backward: John (who was there) relayed the
>>> story in terms of three years, and the synoptics,
>>
>> True, I reversed the two.
>>
>>> working from Mark's
>>> compressed chronology, seemed to relay it in terms of one year, but that
>>> was because Mark didn't HAVE a chronology, but fit his notes from Peter
>>> into one year.
>>>
>> Forget the Peter crap. That is just tradition.
>
> No, Mark got his information from Peter,
Prove it. How do you know that Peter was not a character in a story? What
evidence outside the bible and subsequent Christian writers some centuries
later exists for Joshua, Peter or any of the apostles. Or for Paul for that
matter. Show us the evidence.
> which is why Mark didn't know
> that Jesus had delivered His prophetic discourse TWICE on the same
> day--once to the Sanhedrin in the IMMEDIATE sense, and once to the
> Disciples in the LONG TERM sense (as Jesus always did with His
> prophecies).
>
>> Nothing in those gospels
>> say any of the authors talked to Joshua or any of the apostles.
>
> And yet about half of the canonical version of Matthew is disparate
> sayings, like a log, into which is inserted the authors version of
> elements of Mark's Gospel.
>
No, Mark was first. Only Sunday School bible teachers believe otherwise.
Matthew copied off Mark. Luke copied off Mark, Matthew and other writers
such as Josephus.
I won't go into the reason why scholars know this. You do not have a basic
foundation in the languages or even culture of the area.
> And then we have the OTHER side-source, PAUL, who was God's fly on the
> wall (unknowingly) gathering information from WITHIN closed chambers that
> would be essential to know later.
>
>> Do you actually think people who can read the bible believe your
>> bullshit?
>
> I can read it just fine.
>
> I know when three authors write one thing, and you try to pit the fourth
> against the three, you're playing a game of satanic sleight-of-hand.
>
An omnipotent god would never allow those vagrant contradictions to exist.
It gets even worse if one talks about the crucifixion and resurrection
stories. The whole process in determining evidence in court relies on
comparing witnesses stories. And we already know witnesses are not
reliable. Forensic evidence always trumps eyewitness testimony. And we
require that of men. Should not a god be held to the same standard of
corroborative evidence?
>>> Not that it matters, because I'm not referring to days past, but THAT
>>> DAY COMING, i.e. the Day of the Lord yet to come, in which Jesus will
>>> come in judgment on the Earth, a concept which your false teachers
>>> despise, and seek to remove from the Word.
>>>
>>>>> which the
>>>>> frauds don't like--it screws up their "feminized Jesus.")
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ike, you are mistaken. Real men don't have to bully and pick fights to
>>>> prove their manhood.
>>>
>>> No, I'm not mistaken.
>>>
>>> Righteous judgment and punishment is not "bullying:"
>>
>>
>> Of course that is what all the bullies say, "He deserved it" or "He got
>> me mad."
>
> And you better get used to the notion that "the Lord is a Man of War" and
> "God is love" are TWO SIDES of THE SAME COIN.
>
> (Yeesh, if we listened to idiots like you, we would all be speaking German
> or Russian by now.)
>
Only in your uneducated, simplistic mind.
>>> That's the ethos of
>>> the consequenceless society.
>>>
>>> And Jesus neither bullied anyone nor picked the fight, but He DID FIGHT
>>> IT.
>>>
>>> But wait: You ain't seen nothin' yet, for "the Lord is a Man of war" and
>>> "God is love" are BOTH true statements, despite your Marcionish heresy,
>>> and the next time around Jesus will come in His OTHER aspect (which your
>>> false teachers hate).
>>>
>>> That's what I mean by your "feminized Jesus:" Jesus restrained Himself
>>> the
>>> first time around, but ONLY for the moment. Now He comes in the OTHER
>>> aspect of Messiah spoken of in the Old Testament, the GOD-KING Messiah,
>>> which the JSBSers hate, because He's coming AFTER THEM.
>
> Notice no comment.
>
Because all this is bullshit. You have no evidence anything happened in the
past.
[more silly bullshit snipped]
>
> Ike
--
Later,
Darrell
Darrell Stec
>> It doesn't not fit the Jesus Seminar.
>
> Oh, you have no idea how well it fits the Jesus Seminar.
>
> Take a bunch of eggheads, put an old "queen" in the midst of them, and
> then sit around and come up with ways to pick apart Orthodox Christian
> beliefs, and all because you simply DON'T LIKE what the Word has to say.
>
In other words "book larnin aint nuthin." Ikey doesn't like them because
they are educated and he only pretends to be.
--
Later,
Darrell
Ike E 2/23/2010
Yes, I originally posted them the other way around, then moved them, but
forgot to grab the citations.
>> 2:15 kai poiesan fragellion ek scoinion pantan exebalen ek tou ierou ta
>> te
>> probata kai toun boan...
>>
>> and [he] made a flaggelion (scourge) from rushes to drive ALL from the
>> area, AND the sheep, AND the bovines....
>>
>
> As usual your Greek is abysmal.
>
> kai (AND) poiesas (HAVING MADE) phragellion (WHIP) ek (OUT) schoinion (OF
> SMALL CORDS) pantas (ALL) exebalen (HE THREW OUT) ek (OUT) tou (OF THE)
> hierou (TEMPLE) ta (THE) te (BOTH) probata (SHEEP) kai (AND) tous (THE)
> boas (OXEN) kai (AND) ton (OF THE) kollubiston (MONEY CHANGERS) execheen
> (HE
> POURED OUT) to (THE) kerma (MONEY) kai (AND) tas (THE) trapedzas (TABLES)
> anetrepsen (HE TURNED UP) kai (AND) tois (TO THE ONES) tas (THE)
> peristeras
> (DOVES) polousin (SELLING) eipen (HE SAID) arate (LIFT UP) tauta (THESE)
> enteuthen (FROM HERE) me (NOT) poieite (MAKE) ton (THE) oikon (HOUSE) tou
> (OF THE) patros (FATHER) mou (OF ME) oikon (HOUSE) emporiou (OF
> MERCHANDISE)
You should talk...
1) "scoinion" is the diminutive for a "rush" or "flagplant" (which is
precisely what I wrote). Now, if you want to use "short cords," you're doing
it by implication, just like the JKV translators.
2) A "phragellion" is NOT a "whip" with one end, but a "scourge" with
mutiple ends.
3) The "ek" after "exbalen" is used as "from," not "out," i.e. "from the
area (or court)" or "out of the court."
4) You cited "te" (the) as "both," which would be "ampherteros" or the like,
when it means ALSO, which means everything thereafter is an ADDITIONAL
statement to the first, which is WHAT I SAID.
5) "heirou" is actually not "temple," but "smaller area," as heirou is the
diminutive of the word for "region," but the assumption is that John was
using the word to represent the court of women or the outer court.
The BIGGIE is the "also," not "both."
Like I said, John was tacking ADDITIONAL information onto what the OTHER
three Gospel writers wrote, who said nothing ABOUT Jesus driving out
animals.
> So the word "all: in the above you got wrong. It refers to both the sheep
> and the oxen.
No, it doesn't, which is why NO ONE EVER TRANSLATED IT THAT WAY.
It's "also," which is precisely how everyone has BEEN interpreting it--IN
ADDITION TO.
> "All the both sheep and the oxen" is a Greek poetic form.
Bullshit.
If anything, it should be...
And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them ALL out of the
temple*, ALSO the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers' money,
and overthrew the tables...
*just like the PREVIOUS three Gospel writers said.
> It
> does not refer to the moneychangers. The moneychangers are dealt with
> later.
> The whip was used to drive our the livestock. I could go on but he simply
> told the moneychangers to leave.
Bullshit.
[snip]
>> The ONLY thing John was doing was ADDING the animals to the story as told
>> by the previous three Gospel writers, NOT CHANGING THE STORY.
>>
>
> Are you that moronic that you don't know everyone can check their bibles
> and
> plainly see John has the Temple incident at the beginning of Joshua's
> ministry and the Synoptics just before his final demise. The incident
> could
> not have taken place twice.
Are you that stupid that YOU PIT ONE AGAINST THREE, AND YOU'RE NOT EVEN
INTERPRETING THE ONE RIGHT?
Here's the REALLY funny part: Which Gospel does the JSBS society ATTACK
FIRST?
ANSWER: JOHN'S.
THEY HATE IT.
But YOU would have people believe that the first three are absolutely wrong,
while you use YOUR MOST DISPUTED GOSPEL to fight against the others.
Sheer stupidity.
[snip mostly back to the point]
> How so? One says that the event happened at the beginning and the others
> at
> the end.
Totally irrelevant.
I already said, Mark got his notes from Peter's teachings, but he didn't
have a chronology, so he assembled into something that made sense.
Not that it matters, because the ORDER in which things has no bearing on the
fact that THEY HAPPENED, just as ALL FOUR writers RECORDED.
[on to the REAL point]
> >> Fourth, and most important, the moneychangers were NOT required: They
> >> had
>> NOTHING to do with the sale of the low quality sacrificial animals--that
>> was a SEPARATE issue.
>>
>
> I've been saying that all along. The changed money from the local coin to
> the only acceptable money that could be used to buy the animals from the
> priests.
No, NOT to buy animals from the priests, you dolt: TO PAY THE TEMPLE TAX.
This was a SEPERATE ISSUE from the selling of crappy animals to use for
sacrifices.
> You might also note that this did not happen in the temple proper, it
> happened in the outer Temple called the Temple of the Gentiles. This is
> reflected in the use of the word 'hieron'. The inner Temple, the Temple
> proper was called 'naos'
I already said that, moron.
>> It had to do with the temple tax. The Pharisees didn't want the image of
>> Caesar or the Roman gods used to pay the temple tax. However, there was
>> NO
>> biblical law against using foreign currency to PAY the tax.
>>
>> Hence, the moneychangers (who were rip-off artists when it came to
>> exchanging currencies) were UNnecessary, as the people coming from
>> different lands could use the currency AT HAND to pay the tax.
Notice no response.
The moneychangers had nothing to do with the selling of animals deficient
for offer as a sacrifice.
It was about the TEMPLE TAX, which the PHARISEES said couldn't be paid with
foreign currency (which was bullshit).
>> In other words, it was just another of those PHARISAICAL rules that the
>> Pharisees made an issue, NOT the LAW OF GOD.
>>
>
> Wrong.
Nope.
> The money changer story was included as a thowback to a passage in
> Jeremiah conflated with another passage in Malachi to pretend it was
> prophetic and for no other reason. It never happened and could never
> happen.
Utter speculation raised to the elevation of "fact," just like all the other
JSBS.
> The very fact that the Pharisees were presented in bad light, shouts out
> that the accounts were written after the Final Diaspora, approximately 70
> years after the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem. In those days
> that
> equaled a time span of about four or five generations.
No, it reinforces the fact that Jesus, Paul, and John all pointed out--the
Jewish leadership was POLLUTED by men who were NOT JEWS, but SAID they were,
but lied, which was the result of the Pharisees heavily recruiting Idumeans
to fill their ranks, and these "non-Jews," EVEN HEROD, starting trying to
convince everyone that there were legitimate "Israelites."
So the Pharisees were presented in a bad light BECAUSE THEY WERE BAD, which
was WHY God determined that the Temple be destroyed (for the second of three
times).
[moving on]
> Prove it. How do you know that Peter was not a character in a story?
> What
> evidence outside the bible and subsequent Christian writers some centuries
> later exists for Joshua, Peter or any of the apostles. Or for Paul for
> that
> matter. Show us the evidence.
Here we have yet another damnable saying of the JSBS people, who assume that
THE CONTEMPORARIES--Mark, Luke, Peter, Paul, and John--ARE ALL LIARS, and
THEY "know the truth."
SINCE we have SEVERAL BOOKS from the same group of contemporaries, YOU SHOW
ME WHERE THEY DIDN'T EXIST, idiot.
>> which is why Mark didn't know
>> that Jesus had delivered His prophetic discourse TWICE on the same
>> day--once to the Sanhedrin in the IMMEDIATE sense, and once to the
>> Disciples in the LONG TERM sense (as Jesus always did with His
>> prophecies).
Note no response.
>>> Nothing in those gospels
>>> say any of the authors talked to Joshua or any of the apostles.
>>
>> And yet about half of the canonical version of Matthew is disparate
>> sayings, like a log, into which is inserted the authors version of
>> elements of Mark's Gospel.
>>
>
>
> No, Mark was first.
No, Matthew's (Mathias') LOG was first, which is IN the canonical "MATTHEW."
THAT'S why the early church writers claimed that MATTHEW was first--the were
referring to a DIFFERENT DOCUMENT than the one WE have (a fact which is also
supported by Jerome, and the Stychometry of Nicea).
> Only Sunday School bible teachers believe otherwise.
> Matthew copied off Mark. Luke copied off Mark, Matthew and other writers
> such as Josephus.
LOL
Most Sunday school teachers don't even KNOW about the "log."
> I won't go into the reason why scholars know this.
LOL
First, you don't know any "scholars," and second, THEY DON'T.
> You do not have a basic
> foundation in the languages or even culture of the area.
LOL
What I have is far beyond anything you people have EVER had.
>> And then we have the OTHER side-source, PAUL, who was God's fly on the
>> wall (unknowingly) gathering information from WITHIN closed chambers that
>> would be essential to know later.
>>
>>> Do you actually think people who can read the bible believe your
>>> bullshit?
>>
>> I can read it just fine.
>>
>> I know when three authors write one thing, and you try to pit the fourth
>> against the three, you're playing a game of satanic sleight-of-hand.
>>
>
> An omnipotent god would never allow those vagrant contradictions to exist.
SURE He would.
In fact, one would be suspicious if variant versions DIDN'T exist--it would
point to A CONSPIRACY.
> It gets even worse if one talks about the crucifixion and resurrection
> stories. The whole process in determining evidence in court relies on
> comparing witnesses stories.
And now we get to ANOTHER fallacy of the JSBS people--NO FAITH. In fact, you
START from a position of NO FAITH, which can ONLY end in ABSOLUTE
CATASTROPHE.
But such are the Laodiceans...
> And we already know witnesses are not
> reliable.
See, there's that underlying arrogance of the JSBS people--the witnesses who
were THERE are "unreliable," but they "are."
> Forensic evidence always trumps eyewitness testimony.
And the forensic evidence SUPPORTS the story.
Not as a chronological record, but as a SERIES OF ACTUAL EVENTS.
> And we
> require that of men. Should not a god be held to the same standard of
> corroborative evidence?
Nope.
You're talking about an ENTIRELY different era where there were no mass
communications or recording devices.
These things are not "newspapers."
Speaking of which, if modern "forensics" is so "factual," how do you account
for the DIFFERENCES IN NEWS REPORTING from DIFFERENT AGENCIES?
Answer: PRIVATE AGENDAS. Just like the JSBS people are PURSUING A PRIVATE
AGENDA, and FALSELY calling it "scholarship."
There's nothing "scholarly" about it.
>>>> Not that it matters, because I'm not referring to days past, but THAT
>>>> DAY COMING, i.e. the Day of the Lord yet to come, in which Jesus will
>>>> come in judgment on the Earth, a concept which your false teachers
>>>> despise, and seek to remove from the Word.
>>>>
>>>>>> which the
>>>>>> frauds don't like--it screws up their "feminized Jesus.")
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ike, you are mistaken. Real men don't have to bully and pick fights
>>>>> to
>>>>> prove their manhood.
>>>>
>>>> No, I'm not mistaken.
>>>>
>>>> Righteous judgment and punishment is not "bullying:"
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course that is what all the bullies say, "He deserved it" or "He got
>>> me mad."
>>
>> And you better get used to the notion that "the Lord is a Man of War" and
>> "God is love" are TWO SIDES of THE SAME COIN.
>>
>> (Yeesh, if we listened to idiots like you, we would all be speaking
>> German
>> or Russian by now.)
>>
>
> Only in your uneducated, simplistic mind.
You are quite the ignorant sot.
The SIMPLETONS would have one believe that all "peace" is "good," and all
"conflict" is evil, which is the most childish reasoning there is.
In GOD'S mind, there is a time for EVERY purpose under heaven, which
frequently REVERSES your CHILDISH THINKING: Sometimes PEACE is EVIL (as
Jesus said) and WAR is, if not "good," NECESSARY to ESTABLISH GOOD.
Where DO they get you one-digit mental midgets from?
>>>> That's the ethos of
>>>> the consequenceless society.
>>>>
>>>> And Jesus neither bullied anyone nor picked the fight, but He DID FIGHT
>>>> IT.
>>>>
>>>> But wait: You ain't seen nothin' yet, for "the Lord is a Man of war"
>>>> and
>>>> "God is love" are BOTH true statements, despite your Marcionish heresy,
>>>> and the next time around Jesus will come in His OTHER aspect (which
>>>> your
>>>> false teachers hate).
>>>>
>>>> That's what I mean by your "feminized Jesus:" Jesus restrained Himself
>>>> the
>>>> first time around, but ONLY for the moment. Now He comes in the OTHER
>>>> aspect of Messiah spoken of in the Old Testament, the GOD-KING Messiah,
>>>> which the JSBSers hate, because He's coming AFTER THEM.
>>
>> Notice no comment.
>>
>
> Because all this is bullshit.
No, it's not: The WHOLE Bible is true (well, the books that should be there,
anyway), and BOTH portrayals of Messiah are true, and God is BOTH a Man of
War AND Love.
Just because you can't reconcile those opposing forces doesn't mean it isn't
so.
> You have no evidence anything happened in the
> past.
That's the ultimate cop-out of idgits like you: DISBELIEVE the witnesses,
BELIEVE the modern liars (who, by the way, are FULFILLING prophecy with
their nonsense).
Ike
Ike E 2/23/2010
Bub, you have no idea what education I have.
Regardless, it's enough to know when someone is DRIVING THEIR AGENDA with
trumped up theology, and their agenda is false peace, universalism,
globalism, etc, which John sums up as "the whoredoms of Babylon."
********
The objectives of the Jesus Seminar:
-Rewrite history to exonerate the Jews because holding the Jews guilty for
their actions is politically incorrect and such notions get in the way of
their non-committal universalistic agenda (even though it wasn't actually
Jews who instigated the matter, but "those who say they are Jews, and are
not, but do lie").
-Eliminate Jesus' eschatology because it gets in the way of their globalism.
-Reduce Jesus' status to that of "just a nice man" to politically correct
Christianity, making it less exclusive and more palatable to the nations
because what He actually taught gets in the way of their globalism, i.e.
their false peace agenda (which is ironic, because that's PRECISELY how the
prophets said that Satan would come after the believers, i.e. through false
peace).
-In furtherance of the previous goals, undermine the validity of the books
of the New Testament (and, when possible, the Old Testament) through unfair
criticisms and impossible late-dating so as to eliminate as much of Jesus'
teachings as possible, in particular those related to sin (for the
furtherance of homosexuality and other deviant behaviors), law and order
(for the furtherance of feminism and socialism), exclusivity (for the
furtherance of universalism), and eschatology (for the furtherance of
globalism). They remove any reference (especially by Paul and the Gospel
writers) to the virgin birth, Jesus' miracles, Jesus' eternal nature, Jesus'
function as the "Lamb of God," Jesus' Divinity, and Jesus' resurrection in
furtherance of these goals.
Like all fraudulent "scholars," the Jesus Seminar started with a objective,
and then set out to rewrite the whole story to meet those objectives using
entirely flawed empirical means, as they base their decisions on the
OPINIONS OF MEN who have A PRECONCEIVED OPINION of WHAT OPINION they WANT
MEN TO HEAR.
(Unfortunately, the same thing has happened in the churches going the other
way, too.)
This is what makes you "Laodiceans" not "hot or cold:" You think you're full
of wisdom when you're full of foolishness: Your agenda is to create a
"faithless and unfaithful" Jesus you can hold in stasis so He can't
interfere with your desires to recreate the world--and even God Himself--in
your own image.
Nevertheless, Jesus WILL interfere with your agenda...big time...but not
before the damage has been done to your souls.
Ike
Geode
> Ike E 2/23/2010 wrote:
>
------------ snipped ---------------
I am not a any scholar about biblical matter, but I found myself that
the genealogies of Jesus are fake. We know are fake, because there
are two of them, that contradict each other. Not only on the names,
but on on the number of the names, one list counts 35 generations more
than the other. If we had only a list, we only had the option to
presume it fake.
And second, the resurrection of people. John is the only book that
tell us about Jesus resurrecting people. If this were true
testimonies all the writers would have tell us this wonders of
resurrecting people. This make me think, that the first writers were
not into the plot of telling Joshua was a man-god, but a sort of
preacher. I see this omission, the resurrection of some Lazare and son
of the widow, as a fabrication trying to prove that he was not merely
a preacher, but a god also.
So, to me, these two examples are a blatant evidence, that the Joshua
character is as fake as a coin of three dollars.
I got not any need to study Ancient Greek to conclude that Jesus is a
fake character. All this Christianity was founded on a falsification.
Like the rest of the gods of Antiquity.
Geode
Darrell Stec
What Lexicon did you get that from? schoinion is the diminutive of schoinos
which is a small rope, or a chord or even a thread. Please refer to
Herodotus' The Histories chapter 1 verse 26, or chapter 5 verses 85 and 86,
or Aristophanes' Acharnians stanza 22. I can give you about 15 or 20 more
examples from Greek literature. Do you even know what a diminutive means?
It means a little version. For instance the diminutive of Elizabeth is
Elysa and that means LITTLE Elizabeth.
> 2) A "phragellion" is NOT a "whip" with one end, but a "scourge" with
> mutiple ends.
First of all 'phragellion' isn't really a Greek word. It is a borrowed
Latin word using the Greek alphabet. Outside of this one occurrence for
the noun, it only appears two more times as a verb form and only in the New
Testament. It is attested to no where else in either the Old Testament
Septuagint, nor in any Greek classic. Giving a definition of 'scourge' is
by association only as an indication of the severity of the punishment it
can inflict. This is to set it apart from the punishment of the lighter
whip called the 'scutica'. The severity is obtained by inference and only
that and mostly from its rare occurrence in Cicero and Catullus. The word
'flagellum' occurs four more times in Latin classical literature and dozens
of times in Jerome's Vulgate. On the other hand 'scutica' only occurs three
times in Classical Latin and nowhere in the Vulgate.
So your opinion is just that with almost nothing to really go on. But then
you probably never read the Classics in Greek nor Latin so you take the word
of someone who most likely gave an opinion without any real basis. This is
one of those times there just isn't enough evidence to garner an opinion
either way. So scourge or whip, take your pick.
> 3) The "ek" after "exbalen" is used as "from," not "out," i.e. "from the
> area (or court)" or "out of the court."
exbalen comes from ekballo and is often used in conjunction with ek. I can
cite many instances in the Greek literature. In the sense used here it
means out as in "the removal persists" to express completion in the sense of
meaning utterly
> 4) You cited "te" (the) as "both," which would be "ampherteros" or the
> like, when it means ALSO, which means everything thereafter is an
> ADDITIONAL statement to the first, which is WHAT I SAID.
Look at the gender and number. Both in this case refers to sheep and oxen.
And I can cite no less that 20 cases in Classic Greek Literature where 'te'
is rendered as both. It appears many times in lyrics or poetry. Yes
amphoteros does mean two but is not used as a poetic construct furthermore
by the time Acts was written it had acquired a meaning of more than two,
i.e. all together as it is used in Acts 19: 16 or P. of London 2.336.13.
The word amphoteros is infrequently attested whereas the use of ek to mean
out especially with compound verbs using 'ek' or 'ex' is widely attested in
Classic Literature.
Beware that Strong's has a tendency to "churcify" words that mean different
things in common usage.
> 5) "heirou" is actually not "temple," but "smaller area," as heirou is the
> diminutive of the word for "region," but the assumption is that John was
> using the word to represent the court of women or the outer court.
>
Again you are using the the wrong sources. Try sources of archaeological
architecture. The outer temple was familiarly known as the Temple of the
Gentiles. And 'hieron' is not a diminutive of anything. Diminutive means a
smaller edition. 'hieron' comes from a noun meaning sacrifice or victim,
and because of where that sacrifice occurred, the adjective means 'holy'.
From that is the inference to the outer temple or Temple of the Gentiles.
The word for region is 'iron'. Notice that 'hieron' starts with an
aspiration and has an epsilon after the iota whereas 'iron' has no
aspiration and has no epsilon. Different words from different roots. This
is where study comes in and not a hack Google search followed by a cut &
paste job.
> The BIGGIE is the "also," not "both."
>
You are just using Strong's concordance which is not a Lexicon but rather a
cross reference to the poorly translated KJV. Try using a real lexicon.
Learn some Greek and stop trying to fake it with online bible bible study
websites..
> Like I said, John was tacking ADDITIONAL information onto what the OTHER
> three Gospel writers wrote, who said nothing ABOUT Jesus driving out
> animals.
>
>> So the word "all: in the above you got wrong. It refers to both the
>> sheep and the oxen.
>
> No, it doesn't, which is why NO ONE EVER TRANSLATED IT THAT WAY.
>
Nobody? Your knowledge is abysmal. You use a Strong's Concordance and you
think that the the de facto standard in Greek. Try actually learning some
real Greek and look at real examples in literature.
> It's "also," which is precisely how everyone has BEEN interpreting it--IN
> ADDITION TO.
>
>> "All the both sheep and the oxen" is a Greek poetic form.
>
> Bullshit.
>
> If anything, it should be...
>
> And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them ALL out of
> the temple*, ALSO the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers'
> money, and overthrew the tables...
>
Look at the modifiers, the endings. You don't know what they are. I've
already demonstrated how badly you butchered the homework passages. Any
first year, mid term student of ancient Greek would not have made the
mistakes you did. You had the wrong gender, the wrong tenses and the wrong
cases. You don't understand how adjectives and pronouns coincide with
number, gender and case (oh yes, and declension). Because you are
unfamiliar with Greek or even Latin you reshuffle adjectives, nouns and
pronouns as though you can mix and match whatever adjective or pronoun with
any other noun.
In this case the conjunction 'te' is translated as 'both' in Homer's Illiad,
Hesiod's Works and Days, Aeschylus' Persians, Sophocles' Ajax, Aristophanes'
Acharnians, and at least 30 other classical works. Quite frequently 'te'
points forward to 'kai' and there are approximately 20 examples in classical
Literature where the scholars translate that as "both" ... "and".
Face it, Ikey. You are using sources (Google searches) you barely
understand.
I am saying no such thing. What I am saying is that either the Synoptics
were right in their time sequence or John was or even none of the gospels.
I am not discussing who is correct, the Synoptics or John but rather that an
omniscient, omnipotent god would not and could not allow his infallible word
have contradictions. Either the temple scene happened at the beginning of
the ministry or at the end.
And yet you still refuse to address the issue of the guards, which according
to Josephus reached upwards to 40,000. The temple had its guards and the
money changers theirs. Please read all the commentary (with references) in
the Interpreter's Bible and the Anchor Bible. They go to great lengths in
discussing the Temple incident.
>
> [snip mostly back to the point]
>
>> How so? One says that the event happened at the beginning and the others
>> at
>> the end.
>
> Totally irrelevant.
>
> I already said, Mark got his notes from Peter's teachings, but he didn't
> have a chronology, so he assembled into something that made sense.
>
> Not that it matters, because the ORDER in which things has no bearing on
> the fact that THEY HAPPENED, just as ALL FOUR writers RECORDED.
>
> [on to the REAL point]
>
That IS the real point. An omnipotent, omniscient god would not allow
contradictions to happy in an infallible bible.
>
>> >> Fourth, and most important, the moneychangers were NOT required: They
>> >> had
>>> NOTHING to do with the sale of the low quality sacrificial animals--that
>>> was a SEPARATE issue.
>>>
>>
>> I've been saying that all along. The changed money from the local coin
>> to the only acceptable money that could be used to buy the animals from
>> the priests.
>
> No, NOT to buy animals from the priests, you dolt: TO PAY THE TEMPLE TAX.
>
> This was a SEPERATE ISSUE from the selling of crappy animals to use for
> sacrifices.
>
Please see the Anchor Bible and the Interpreter's Bible for a full
explanation of the customs. This passage was to make it look like a
prophecy was being fulfilled.
You just don't have the slightest idea.
>> You might also note that this did not happen in the temple proper, it
>> happened in the outer Temple called the Temple of the Gentiles. This is
>> reflected in the use of the word 'hieron'. The inner Temple, the Temple
>> proper was called 'naos'
>
> I already said that, moron.
>
>>> It had to do with the temple tax. The Pharisees didn't want the image of
>>> Caesar or the Roman gods used to pay the temple tax. However, there was
>>> NO
>>> biblical law against using foreign currency to PAY the tax.
>>>
>>> Hence, the moneychangers (who were rip-off artists when it came to
>>> exchanging currencies) were UNnecessary, as the people coming from
>>> different lands could use the currency AT HAND to pay the tax.
>
> Notice no response.
>
> The moneychangers had nothing to do with the selling of animals deficient
> for offer as a sacrifice.
>
You dolt! That is what I have been writing. Please read with
comprehension. The money changers were bankers who exchanged one type of
coin for anther. Exodus 30: 13-15 required every adult male, regardless of
financial status pay an annual temple tax of half a shekel.
> It was about the TEMPLE TAX, which the PHARISEES said couldn't be paid
> with foreign currency (which was bullshit).
>
It was not bullshit. Exodus specifically says the unit was half a sheckel,
no more and no less, for any male over 20, no matter what his financial
status was. Now if want to maintain that these couple of verses do not mean
exactly what they say then you also have to maintain that Leviticus doesn't
really mean that man should not lie with man as with a woman (although you
don't really understand what that verse means either).
And it was the Sadducees, who were severely strict conservatives, who did
not allow any foreign coin to be used. It was they who had control of the
Temple under the authority of the Romans. They were the ones who profited
from the exchange of money and also the ones who held priestly positions in
charge of the sacrificial animals. They set both the price of the
sacrifice and the rate of exchange.
--
Later,
Darrell
Ike E 2/23/2010
> Ike E 2/23/2010 wrote:
>
>>
>> "Darrell Stec" <dar...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:7v3clh...@mid.individual.net...
>>> Ike E 2/23/2010 wrote:
[snip]
Incorrect.
schoinion is the diminutive of scionos, which was a RUSH or FLAG-PLANT, from
WHICH they made SCOURGES...
Stong's...
4979 scoinion diminutive of scoinos (a rush or flag-plant; of uncertain
derivation); a rushlet, i.e. grass-withe or tie (generally):- small cord,
rope.
Young's...
Cords, small-
A cord made of bullrushes schoinion
Both refer to the SCION of a plant (vowels since reversed), i.e. the section
above the root which is processed for grafting or weaving.
http://www.ehow.com/facts_4966950_what-scion-plant.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafting
http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/hil/ag396.html
If it was a NORMAL scion, it was scoinos. If it was a SHORT section, it was
scoinion.
It had NOTHING to do with "ropes" OR "lengths" DIRECTLY.
It was the LENGTH OF THE PLANT SHOOT IT WAS MADE FROM THAT DETERMINED THE
TERM.
<chuckle>
> Please refer to
> Herodotus' The Histories chapter 1 verse 26, or chapter 5 verses 85 and
> 86,
> or Aristophanes' Acharnians stanza 22. I can give you about 15 or 20 more
> examples from Greek literature. Do you even know what a diminutive means?
> It means a little version. For instance the diminutive of Elizabeth is
> Elysa and that means LITTLE Elizabeth.
LOL
Better go brush up on your agriculture.
Once again, a "phragellion" (from which the modern word "Flagellum" comes)
was a VERY specific device ONLY used for PUNISHMENT. It had NO other
practical use.
The Greek word for "whip" is "Mastiyio."
>> 3) The "ek" after "exbalen" is used as "from," not "out," i.e. "from the
>> area (or court)" or "out of the court."
>
> exbalen comes from ekballo and is often used in conjunction with ek. I
> can
> cite many instances in the Greek literature. In the sense used here it
> means out as in "the removal persists" to express completion in the sense
> of
> meaning utterly
Yes, "to drive FROM" the point of reference.
>> 4) You cited "te" (the) as "both," which would be "ampherteros" or the
>> like, when it means ALSO, which means everything thereafter is an
>> ADDITIONAL statement to the first, which is WHAT I SAID.
>
>
> Look at the gender and number. Both in this case refers to sheep and
> oxen.
Yes, as an ADDITION to the ORIGINAL STATEMENT, just like I said: Jesus drove
out ALL, AND the sheep and bovines.
> And I can cite no less that 20 cases in Classic Greek Literature where
> 'te'
> is rendered as both.
And I can cite examples wherein it is used as "also."
Ro 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of
God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and <5037>
also to the Greek.
Ro 2:9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of
the Jew first, and <5037> also of the Gentile;
Ro 2:10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the
Jew first, and <5037> also to the Gentile:
YOUR objective is to pit John against the other three authors instead of
recognizing that John was just ADDING AN ADDITION THOUGHT.
Hence, your entire argument is just a FABRICATION, just like you trying to
FABRICATE an argument that there is someone out there who disputes that
Revelation was written either just before the temple was destroyed, or soon
after.
THE ARGUMENT DOESN'T EXIST.
<chuckle>
>> Like I said, John was tacking ADDITIONAL information onto what the OTHER
>> three Gospel writers wrote, who said nothing ABOUT Jesus driving out
>> animals.
>>
>>> So the word "all: in the above you got wrong. It refers to both the
>>> sheep and the oxen.
>>
>> No, it doesn't, which is why NO ONE EVER TRANSLATED IT THAT WAY.
>>
>
> Nobody? Your knowledge is abysmal. You use a Strong's Concordance and
> you
> think that the the de facto standard in Greek. Try actually learning some
> real Greek and look at real examples in literature.
Really?
KJV
And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the
temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and
overthrew the tables;
NASB
And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple,
with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money
changers and overturned their tables;
NLT
Jesus made a whip from some ropes and chased them all out of the Temple.
He drove out the sheep and cattle, scattered the money changers' coins over
the floor, and turned over their tables. 16 Then, going over to the people
who sold doves, he told them, "Get these things out of here. Stop turning my
Father's house into a marketplace!"
NKJV
When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple,
with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers' money and
overturned the tables. 16 And He said to those who sold doves, "Take these
things away! Do not make My Father's house a house of merchandise!" 17 Then
His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for Your house has
eaten[a] Me up."[b]
Young's
and having made a whip of small cords, he put all forth out of the temple,
also the sheep, and the oxen; and of the money-changers he poured out the
coins, and the tables he overthrew,
Now, certain MODERN versions, which are geared toward the "feminizing" of
Jesus, are ambiguous at best, but, like I said, that's PART of the processs
of changing the story.
[snippeth to the point]
> I am saying no such thing. What I am saying is that either the Synoptics
> were right in their time sequence or John was or even none of the gospels.
> I am not discussing who is correct, the Synoptics or John but rather that
> an
> omniscient, omnipotent god would not and could not allow his infallible
> word
> have contradictions. Either the temple scene happened at the beginning
> of
> the ministry or at the end.
WHERE the authors put the story is absolutely irrelevant to the story.
And there is NOT one "right" Gospel and three "wrong" Gospel, which is
PRECISELY where you are trying to go.
And like I said, the FIRST Gospel that the Jesus Seminar attacks is JOHN'S
because it FULLY reveals the Divinity of Christ, which makes your argument
all the more ridiculous.
[snippeth]
> That IS the real point. An omnipotent, omniscient god would not allow
> contradictions to happy in an infallible bible.
Sure He would--He let the authors tell their version of the story TO ADD
PERSPECTIVE.
It's just like the document theory in regards to the Pentateuch--YES, there
were multiple authors, and they were there to lend PERSPECTIVE to the law,
and that PERSPECTIVE represents God balancing the four Traits, i.e.
courageous leadership, the innocense of integrity, diligent witness, and the
grace of life.
If we listened to the beast of the JSBS people, we would have to throw out
the ENTIRE BIBLE (which would suit them just fine).
>>> >> Fourth, and most important, the moneychangers were NOT required: They
>>> >> had
>>>> NOTHING to do with the sale of the low quality sacrificial
>>>> animals--that
>>>> was a SEPARATE issue.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've been saying that all along. The changed money from the local coin
>>> to the only acceptable money that could be used to buy the animals from
>>> the priests.
>>
>> No, NOT to buy animals from the priests, you dolt: TO PAY THE TEMPLE TAX.
>>
>> This was a SEPARATE ISSUE from the selling of crappy animals to use for
>> sacrifices.
>>
>
> Please see the Anchor Bible and the Interpreter's Bible for a full
> explanation of the customs.
Not necessary: The FACTS are in the LAW. The moneychangers had nothing to do
with the people selling substandard animals for the sacrifice.
The PHARISEES were trying to keep people from paying the TEMPLE TAX with
FOREIGN COINS, which WASN'T NECESSARY--they were just ADDING BURDEN TO THE
LAW, just like Jesus said.
> This passage was to make it look like a
> prophecy was being fulfilled.
A prophecy WAS fulfilled, you dolt--but that fulfillment was only a
precursor to the ULTIMATE fulfillment yet to come.
(And now we're getting into another issue, the JSBS people's INABILITY TO
READ PROPHECY.)
> You just don't have the slightest idea.
No, YOU don't have an idea of how dualism/triunism works in prophecy.
[snippeth]
>> It was about the TEMPLE TAX, which the PHARISEES said couldn't be paid
>> with foreign currency (which was bullshit).
>>
>
> It was not bullshit. Exodus specifically says the unit was half a
> sheckel,
> no more and no less, for any male over 20, no matter what his financial
> status was.
WHICH WAS A UNIT OF WEIGHT, NOT FORM.
The association with the coin "the shekel" wasn't made with the WEIGHT "the
shekel" until Israel began minting coins.
And there WAS no requirement in the law about the FORM of the coin.
Hence, all this was just the Pharisees adding ANOTHER burden to the law, and
making a "mint" in the process. [pun fully intended]
> Now if want to maintain that these couple of verses do not mean
> exactly what they say then you also have to maintain that Leviticus
> doesn't
> really mean that man should not lie with man as with a woman (although
> you
> don't really understand what that verse means either).
Oh, I understand it just fine.
It's the modern REVISIONISTS who are trying to change the story, as if that
will somehow overcome their SIN.
[snippeth]
>> No, it reinforces the fact that Jesus, Paul, and John all pointed
>> out--the
>> Jewish leadership was POLLUTED by men who were NOT JEWS, but SAID they
>> were, but lied, which was the result of the Pharisees heavily recruiting
>> Idumeans to fill their ranks, and these "non-Jews," EVEN HEROD, starting
>> trying to convince everyone that there were legitimate "Israelites."
>>
>> So the Pharisees were presented in a bad light BECAUSE THEY WERE BAD,
>> which was WHY God determined that the Temple be destroyed (for the second
>> of three times).
Notice no response.
Jesus, Paul, and John all said that the Jewish leadership had been polluted
by "Jews" who were NOT Jews, and said they were, but lied.
What happened to the Jews was AN ACT OF GOD, and it happened PRECISELY for
what the New Testament describes--the corruption in Israel, which was a
FACT, NOT some fairy tale concocted by the New Testament writers "to
preserve Christianity," as the abominable JSBS society insinuates (to
politically "correct" the New Testament towards their private agenda).
[snippeth]
>> No, it's not: The WHOLE Bible is true (well, the books that should be
>> there, anyway), and BOTH portrayals of Messiah are true, and God is BOTH
>> a
>> Man of War AND Love.
>>
>> Just because you can't reconcile those opposing forces doesn't mean it
>> isn't so.
>>
>>> You have no evidence anything happened in the
>>> past.
>>
>> That's the ultimate cop-out of idgits like you: DISBELIEVE the witnesses,
>> BELIEVE the modern liars (who, by the way, are FULFILLING prophecy with
>> their nonsense).
>>
>> Ike
>
> --
> Later,
> Darrell
Note no response.
FACT: The JSBS society CAN'T HANDLE a God who is BALANCED in all
righteousness, judgment, and compassion, and who DESTROYS as well as
CREATES, and PUNISHES as well as REWARDS, and that derives from their
simple-mindedness.
Hence, we have them corrupting scripture at every turn--just like the
heretic Marcion--so they can try to "reduce" the Bible to half a Bible--the
half they can DEAL with--while omitting the half THEY CAN'T.
(And that's the agenda driving you, too.)
Ike
Darrell Stec
I asked you what LEXICON you got that from. Strong's is NOT a lexicon. It
is a cross reference to the poorly translated KJV. Nobody but Sunday School
scholars would use it.
> 4979 scoinion diminutive of scoinos (a rush or flag-plant; of uncertain
> derivation); a rushlet, i.e. grass-withe or tie (generally):- small cord,
> rope.
>
> Young's...
>
> Cords, small-
>
> A cord made of bullrushes schoinion
>
> Both refer to the SCION of a plant (vowels since reversed), i.e. the
> section above the root which is processed for grafting or weaving.
>
> http://www.ehow.com/facts_4966950_what-scion-plant.html
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafting
>
> http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/hil/ag396.html
>
> If it was a NORMAL scion, it was scoinos. If it was a SHORT section, it
> was scoinion.
>
> It had NOTHING to do with "ropes" OR "lengths" DIRECTLY.
>
> It was the LENGTH OF THE PLANT SHOOT IT WAS MADE FROM THAT DETERMINED THE
> TERM.
>
As I said before, you lost the discussion the second you used a Wiki.
Anybody including your 10 year old kid can add or subtract information from
a Wiki.
> <chuckle>
>
Idiot! You really are mentally disturbed laughing at your own replies as
though it is an inside joke between you and you.
There is little to no information to get that from. I already explained
why. Can't you read, or is comprehension your problem? How can you make a
determination when the word only appears three times in the whole 2500 years
of Greek and/or Latin Literature. The meaning is by implication ONLY.
There is precious little to go on. I named the two sources that give any
indication of the nature of the whip.
What makes you think anyone else in the world has any more information on
the subject?
> The Greek word for "whip" is "Mastiyio."
>
>>> 3) The "ek" after "exbalen" is used as "from," not "out," i.e. "from the
>>> area (or court)" or "out of the court."
>>
>> exbalen comes from ekballo and is often used in conjunction with ek. I
>> can
>> cite many instances in the Greek literature. In the sense used here it
>> means out as in "the removal persists" to express completion in the sense
>> of
>> meaning utterly
>
> Yes, "to drive FROM" the point of reference.
>
>
>>> 4) You cited "te" (the) as "both," which would be "ampherteros" or the
>>> like, when it means ALSO, which means everything thereafter is an
>>> ADDITIONAL statement to the first, which is WHAT I SAID.
>>
>>
>> Look at the gender and number. Both in this case refers to sheep and
>> oxen.
>
> Yes, as an ADDITION to the ORIGINAL STATEMENT, just like I said: Jesus
> drove out ALL, AND the sheep and bovines.
>
NO. Read what I wrote below. "Te" FOLLOWED BY "kai" is the grammatical
structure. Why are you pretending to know what you are talking about when
all you can do is look up something on Strongs?
>> And I can cite no less that 20 cases in Classic Greek Literature where
>> 'te'
>> is rendered as both.
>
> And I can cite examples wherein it is used as "also."
>
> Ro 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power
> of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and
> <5037> also to the Greek.
> Ro 2:9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of
> the Jew first, and <5037> also of the Gentile;
> Ro 2:10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to
> the Jew first, and <5037> also to the Gentile:
>
You are using Strongs but not a valid LEXICON. The KJV translators made the
translation and Strong came along and cataloged what they did.
> YOUR objective is to pit John against the other three authors instead of
> recognizing that John was just ADDING AN ADDITION THOUGHT.
>
> Hence, your entire argument is just a FABRICATION, just like you trying to
> FABRICATE an argument that there is someone out there who disputes that
> Revelation was written either just before the temple was destroyed, or
> soon after.
>
> THE ARGUMENT DOESN'T EXIST.
>
If they disagree then one of them are wrong. John did not just add
something he totally changed the time sequence. John had the temple
incident at the very beginning of Joshua's ministry and the Synoptics said
it occurred at the very end, days before his crucifixion. And you still
ignore the fact that Josephus gives us very good accounts of the security
during the Passover season. And you are ignoring every other point I have
provided you.
> <chuckle>
>
Idiot!! Again you are laughing at your own reply.
The modern translators had access to hundreds of manuscripts and lots of
archaeological discovering the former people did not. For instance the
translators of the KJV had nothing but the Masoretic Texts for the Hebrew.
They started translating BACK into Hebrew from the Greek Septuagint
beginning around 600 CE and finishing the texts slightly after 1200 CE. So
what you have is Hebrew which is translated into Greek which in turn is
translated back into Hebrew keeping in mind that Hebrew was a dead language
for centuries and by the time the re-translations began nobody really knew
how to pronounce the words, because vowels were not written in Hebrew. They
were added by various markings, however, into the Masoretic texts.
And the translators had nothing resembling the Greek manuscripts. What they
had was Erasmus' Greek version which was completed barely 100 years before.
And again we have Greek manuscripts (revised multiple times) translated into
Latin (several different copies of copies of copies of Jerome's Vulgate,
barely 100 years prior to Erasmus' project) and a couple of copies of copies
of copies of the Old Latin manuscripts. So the translators of the KJV were
using a fairly recent (to them) Greek translation of a Latin translation of
a Greek text.
Now days, thanks to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi
Library, more recent discoveries of older Greek codices, more Latin texts,
and other recently found collections we can see all the many, multiple
revisions, additions and deletions that occurred in the oldest texts. The
were far, far closer to any originals that translator had available
throughout the history.
More modern translations are more accurate because we are getting closer and
closer to the ancient manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek and Latin.
> [snippeth to the point]
>
>> I am saying no such thing. What I am saying is that either the Synoptics
>> were right in their time sequence or John was or even none of the
>> gospels. I am not discussing who is correct, the Synoptics or John but
>> rather that an
>> omniscient, omnipotent god would not and could not allow his infallible
>> word
>> have contradictions. Either the temple scene happened at the beginning
>> of
>> the ministry or at the end.
>
> WHERE the authors put the story is absolutely irrelevant to the story.
>
If you can order the fact around any place you so choose, then you are not
writing history, you are NOT recording eyewitness accounts, and you are NOT
getting the information revealed to you by an omniscient, omnipotent god.
> And there is NOT one "right" Gospel and three "wrong" Gospel, which is
> PRECISELY where you are trying to go.
>
No I am not. First of all the other three have different stories too.
Maybe the three are the right and the one wrong, or even as many scholars
agree, all four are using a literary device to get a religious/theological
point across and the event was not an historical one.
> And like I said, the FIRST Gospel that the Jesus Seminar attacks is JOHN'S
> because it FULLY reveals the Divinity of Christ, which makes your argument
> all the more ridiculous.
>
You have evidence that that is the first of the gospels of the five they
"attacked"? Maybe you have notes on the proceedings?
> [snippeth]
>
>> That IS the real point. An omnipotent, omniscient god would not allow
>> contradictions to happy in an infallible bible.
>
> Sure He would--He let the authors tell their version of the story TO ADD
> PERSPECTIVE.
>
> It's just like the document theory in regards to the Pentateuch--YES,
> there were multiple authors, and they were there to lend PERSPECTIVE to
> the law, and that PERSPECTIVE represents God balancing the four Traits,
> i.e. courageous leadership, the innocense of integrity, diligent witness,
> and the grace of life.
>
> If we listened to the beast of the JSBS people, we would have to throw out
> the ENTIRE BIBLE (which would suit them just fine).
>
What the hell are these JSBS people you keep talking about? The only
acronym found that can be verified stands for Japanese Society of Baby
Science. That would have nothing to do with theology or ancient languages.
>>>> >> Fourth, and most important, the moneychangers were NOT required:
>>>> >> They had
>>>>> NOTHING to do with the sale of the low quality sacrificial
>>>>> animals--that
>>>>> was a SEPARATE issue.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've been saying that all along. The changed money from the local coin
>>>> to the only acceptable money that could be used to buy the animals from
>>>> the priests.
>>>
>>> No, NOT to buy animals from the priests, you dolt: TO PAY THE TEMPLE
>>> TAX.
>>>
>>> This was a SEPARATE ISSUE from the selling of crappy animals to use for
>>> sacrifices.
>>>
>>
>> Please see the Anchor Bible and the Interpreter's Bible for a full
>> explanation of the customs.
>
> Not necessary: The FACTS are in the LAW. The moneychangers had nothing to
> do with the people selling substandard animals for the sacrifice.
>
Red Herring. Nobody claimed that did. You keep snipped the pertinent
material and then repost your same tripe over and over again as though this
has not been dealt with.
The money changers exchanged one type of coin for another. The Sadducees
sold the sacrificial animals and nobody participating in this thread ever
once said they were substandard.
You are as phony and dishonest as they come Ike. You deliberately snip
material and the reply with the same garbage as though you have never been
answered. You ought to thank your lucky stars that here isn't really a hell
because you are doing everything you can to get yourself there.
> The PHARISEES were trying to keep people from paying the TEMPLE TAX with
> FOREIGN COINS, which WASN'T NECESSARY--they were just ADDING BURDEN TO THE
> LAW, just like Jesus said.
>
That is NOT true. It was the ultra strict conservative Sadducees who
controlled the rate of money exchange and the price of the sacrificial
animals. Go read the discussion on this topic in the two reference that
have been provided you. They back up their opinions not only with the OT
but with plenty of Talmud, Midrash, and other commentary.
>> This passage was to make it look like a
>> prophecy was being fulfilled.
>
> A prophecy WAS fulfilled, you dolt--but that fulfillment was only a
> precursor to the ULTIMATE fulfillment yet to come.
>
> (And now we're getting into another issue, the JSBS people's INABILITY TO
> READ PROPHECY.)
>
Again with some imaginary JSBS.
>> You just don't have the slightest idea.
>
> No, YOU don't have an idea of how dualism/triunism works in prophecy.
>
Yes I do. The prophecy is either written AFTER the fact or it is so vague
and so far in the future that anything, and I mean anything can fit the bill
just like Nostradamus' predictions.
> [snippeth]
>
>>> It was about the TEMPLE TAX, which the PHARISEES said couldn't be paid
>>> with foreign currency (which was bullshit).
>>>
>>
>> It was not bullshit. Exodus specifically says the unit was half a
>> sheckel,
>> no more and no less, for any male over 20, no matter what his financial
>> status was.
>
> WHICH WAS A UNIT OF WEIGHT, NOT FORM.
>
> The association with the coin "the shekel" wasn't made with the WEIGHT
> "the shekel" until Israel began minting coins.
>
> And there WAS no requirement in the law about the FORM of the coin.
>
> Hence, all this was just the Pharisees adding ANOTHER burden to the law,
> and making a "mint" in the process. [pun fully intended]
>
You are a dolt. You have already been directed toward the appropriate Old
Testament passages specifically defining that half a SHEKEL and only half a
SHEKEL were allowed to be used. Again read the explanations in the
Interpreter's Bible and the Anchor Bible. And in case you don't know it
most coins are by weight. Yes the shekel was made of silver of a certain
weight. So what? What is your point here? The American Silver Dollar was
also made of a particular specific, uniform weight. That is why the value
remains the same in all transactions. The drachma or talent were also
specific weights of certain metals or blends of metals.
And again it was the Sadducees not Pharisees.
>> Now if want to maintain that these couple of verses do not mean
>> exactly what they say then you also have to maintain that Leviticus
>> doesn't
>> really mean that man should not lie with man as with a woman (although
>> you
>> don't really understand what that verse means either).
>
> Oh, I understand it just fine.
>
> It's the modern REVISIONISTS who are trying to change the story, as if
> that will somehow overcome their SIN.
>
It was not a sin. It was a violation of a purity ritual that made it an
abomination and warranted the death penalty. The exact same violation as
eating seafood that did not have scales, or picking up sticks on the
Sabbath, or wearing more that one kind of fabric, or mixing different colors
of livestock, or using crop rotation. Leviticus deals with purity rituals
and Deuteronomy with moral issues.
You never wear silk or cotton or leather with wool do you? You never eat
any seafood that did not have scales did you? You never ate food from a
farm that rotated crops have you?
> [snippeth]
>
>>> No, it reinforces the fact that Jesus, Paul, and John all pointed
>>> out--the
>>> Jewish leadership was POLLUTED by men who were NOT JEWS, but SAID they
>>> were, but lied, which was the result of the Pharisees heavily recruiting
>>> Idumeans to fill their ranks, and these "non-Jews," EVEN HEROD, starting
>>> trying to convince everyone that there were legitimate "Israelites."
>>>
>>> So the Pharisees were presented in a bad light BECAUSE THEY WERE BAD,
>>> which was WHY God determined that the Temple be destroyed (for the
>>> second of three times).
>
> Notice no response.
>
It is so off the wall that no response would suffice or is necessary.
> Jesus, Paul, and John all said that the Jewish leadership had been
> polluted by "Jews" who were NOT Jews, and said they were, but lied.
>
> What happened to the Jews was AN ACT OF GOD, and it happened PRECISELY for
> what the New Testament describes--the corruption in Israel, which was a
> FACT, NOT some fairy tale concocted by the New Testament writers "to
> preserve Christianity," as the abominable JSBS society insinuates (to
> politically "correct" the New Testament towards their private agenda).
>
> [snippeth]
>
>>> No, it's not: The WHOLE Bible is true (well, the books that should be
>>> there, anyway), and BOTH portrayals of Messiah are true, and God is BOTH
>>> a
>>> Man of War AND Love.
>>>
>>> Just because you can't reconcile those opposing forces doesn't mean it
>>> isn't so.
>>>
>>>> You have no evidence anything happened in the
>>>> past.
>>>
>>> That's the ultimate cop-out of idgits like you: DISBELIEVE the
>>> witnesses, BELIEVE the modern liars (who, by the way, are FULFILLING
>>> prophecy with their nonsense).
>>>
>>> Ike
>>
>> --
>> Later,
>> Darrell
>
>
>
> Ike
--
Later,
Darrell
Ike E 2/23/2010
> Ike E 2/23/2010 wrote:
>
>>
>> "Darrell Stec" <dar...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:7v4hkt...@mid.individual.net...
[snippeth]
>>> Now if want to maintain that these couple of verses do not mean
>>> exactly what they say then you also have to maintain that Leviticus
>>> doesn't
>>> really mean that man should not lie with man as with a woman (although
>>> you
>>> don't really understand what that verse means either).
>>
>> Oh, I understand it just fine.
>>
>> It's the modern REVISIONISTS who are trying to change the story, as if
>> that will somehow overcome their SIN.
>>
>
> It was not a sin.
I should have guessed why you love hearing the perversions of
perverts--you're just another fag with an axe to grind.
You, just like that old queen Crossan, are COMPLETELY discredited, as you
are DRIVEN BY YOUR PRIVATE AGENDA. You don't LIKE what the Word says, so you
seek to change it to make it "politically correct."
You're done, "beast."
Ike
Darrell Stec
>
> "Darrell Stec" <dar...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:7v5qd6...@mid.individual.net...
>> Ike E 2/23/2010 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Darrell Stec" <dar...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> news:7v4hkt...@mid.individual.net...
>
> [snippeth]
>
>
>>>> Now if want to maintain that these couple of verses do not mean
>>>> exactly what they say then you also have to maintain that Leviticus
>>>> doesn't
>>>> really mean that man should not lie with man as with a woman (although
>>>> you
>>>> don't really understand what that verse means either).
>>>
>>> Oh, I understand it just fine.
>>>
>>> It's the modern REVISIONISTS who are trying to change the story, as if
>>> that will somehow overcome their SIN.
>>>
>>
>> It was not a sin.
>
> I should have guessed why you love hearing the perversions of
> perverts--you're just another fag with an axe to grind.
>
> You, just like that old queen Crossan, are COMPLETELY discredited, as you
> are DRIVEN BY YOUR PRIVATE AGENDA. You don't LIKE what the Word says, so
> you seek to change it to make it "politically correct."
You wouldn't like it either if you could actually read it instead of
memorizing the shitty translations and if you could actually think rather
than listening to what others tell you to think.
>
> You're done, "beast."
>
> Ike
--
Later,
Darrell
Day Brown
place for abuse to go on without lotsa people finding out about it. Same
deal with large farm families, such as still exist in my neck of Ozark
woods. The fundies may be just as nuts, but in these cases, they know
someone is watching.
When you enter these small hill town schools, the class photos are
posted on the wall. They are ALL WHITE KIDS. But these are farm families
that have been here for 100 years or more.
During the Civil War, these Ozark counties seceded from the Confederate
government in Little Rock. These hillbillies didnt own slaves and were
not going to fight for the plantation owners who did. No slaves, no
blacks. You dunno if they are racist cause the subject never comes up.
The race mentioned most often is Cherokee; these hills were never seen
as good Indian hunting grounds, and when the Scots/Irish moved in,
nobody was living here. But then, on the Trail of Tears, since they knew
a thing or two about white aristocracy dispossessing small farmers, they
took in lots of Cherokee. So now, nearly everyone is 1/3-1/2 Cherokee,
who hybridized really well because they had also been farmers unlike
most Indians and knew the most appropriate crops here.
The most denigrating comments I hear are not about Blacks or Hispanics,
but Osage & Lakota. Cherokee were not warriors, and neither were these
Scots/Irish farmers, and those who were prone to violence found it more
appealing to move to cities where the liquor stores were closer and the
welfare benefits more generous.
Meth is so debilitating, their women are rarely fertile, so there are
far fewer troublesome kids in school. The remaining population is more
peaceful and more honest.
One time, driving in from out of state, I passed thru Leslie (pop 627)
at 3am, going right by the basketball court. The ball lay there on the
grass. Nobody bothers to take it home. It does not get stolen. In the
school, the lockers not only dont have locks, they dont have doors.
Everyone knows which kid has which jacket, ipod, cell phone, or
whatever, and there's no pawnshop to fence anything.
1% of the population are social predators. With a town of 10,000, the
cops only have to memorize 100 mugshots. But with a million, now its
10,000, and there's no way a cop knows who is on the street. Criminals
know that, and have ever since cities were invented. Which is where they
always move to, while the "pagans" have always been seen as honest and
hardworking people.
Alaska and Utah likewise have lotsa small communities.
Ike E 2/23/2010
2Ti 4:3-4
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but
after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching
ears, and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be
turned unto fables.
I can read just fine, bub.
Any sexual behavior that violates the Triune form is "sin" (which, as Jesus
pointed out, makes EVERYONE sinners when they even LUST after another).
The Triune form: A husband of righteousness and a wife of compassion rearing
children with sound judgment is a microcosm of the triune "New Jerusalem,"
which is a microcosm of the Triune God, which is a macrocosm of the "holy"
person.
Now, you can try and bullshit yourself all you want, but you're not fooling
me OR God.
But thanks for proving that what I said is precisely true, as YOU are agenda
driven just like the frauds of the Jesus BS Seminar--they tickle your ears
with what you WANT to hear, and you listen. (Talk about listening to what
OTHERS tell you to think...)
Ike
Darrell Stec
> 2Ti 4:3-4
>
> For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but
> after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having
> itching ears, and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and
> shall be turned unto fables.
>
> I can read just fine, bub.
No you can't. You just copied what someone else told you it said. You just
proved it.
--
Later,
Darrell
Mike Painter
> To clarify. Mormons, with several wives, have large families. There's
> no place for abuse to go on without lotsa people finding out about
> it. Same deal with large farm families, such as still exist in my
> neck of Ozark woods. The fundies may be just as nuts, but in these
> cases, they know someone is watching.
I know two woman from large families and small towns.
One was just raped on a regular basis by one of her brothers.
The other was raped on a regular basis by all her brothers and her father.
In both cases nobody knew except maybe mom who denied it all.
One of the films shown regularly in rape crisis intervention classes is a
similar tale.
> Everyone knows which kid has which jacket, ipod, cell phone, or
> whatever, and there's no pawnshop to fence anything.
So what? The subject is abuse of children, not stealing.
>
> 1% of the population are social predators. With a town of 10,000, the
> cops only have to memorize 100 mugshots. But with a million, now its
> 10,000, and there's no way a cop knows who is on the street. Criminals
> know that, and have ever since cities were invented. Which is where
> they always move to, while the "pagans" have always been seen as
> honest and hardworking people.
Apparently you have never lived in a large city. It consists of small
neighborhoods and many people will never leave that small area. The cops who
patrol that area will probably do so for most of their career and have no
need to "memorize" mugshots.
Most abusers are *very* good at hiding what they do. They are "The salt of
the earth", "Nicest guy in the world" and will "Give you the shirt off their
back". When trouble come they will be the first to help you.
If you don't believe that then staff an abused woman hotline for a few
years.
>
> Alaska and Utah likewise have lotsa small communities.
With lots of child abuse.
Ike E 2/23/2010
Hey, moron: Read the prophecy--YOU are "THEY."
The Jesus Seminar is a farce, and John's "Revelation" proves it.
Ike
Darrell Stec
I don't see any mention of the Jesus Seminar in Revelation. And it is
comical that the participants in the Jesus Seminar have advanced university
degrees in the appropriate topic, and Ikey without any education whatsoever
thinks he knows more than they. His motto, evident through his posts, is
"book larnin' ain't nuthun'."
That verse doesn't say that, and because you cannot read the Greek
manuscripts you don't KNOW that it does. You can only BELIEVE it says that
because somebody told you it did.
> Ike
--
Later,
Darrell
Ike E 2/23/2010
> Ike E 2/23/2010 wrote:
>
>>
>> "Darrell Stec" <dar...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:7va0f1...@mid.individual.net...
>>> Ike E 2/23/2010 wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2Ti 4:3-4
>>>>
>>>> For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but
>>>> after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having
>>>> itching ears, and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and
>>>> shall be turned unto fables.
>>>>
>>>> I can read just fine, bub.
>>>
>>>
>>> No you can't. You just copied what someone else told you it said. You
>>> just
>>> proved it.
>>
>> Hey, moron: Read the prophecy--YOU are "THEY."
>>
>> The Jesus Seminar is a farce, and John's "Revelation" proves it.
>>
>
> I don't see any mention of the Jesus Seminar in Revelation.
LOL
It's right here...
Rev 3:14-22
And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write:
These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the
beginning of the creation of God:
I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert
cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I
will spue thee out of my mouth, because thou sayest, I am rich, and
increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou
art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be
rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of
thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou
mayest see.
As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and
repent.
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and
open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as
I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the
churches.
> And it is
> comical that the participants in the Jesus Seminar have advanced
> university
> degrees in the appropriate topic, and Ikey without any education
> whatsoever
> thinks he knows more than they.
Ah, the Pharisee argument: "Who maketh this man to learn letters."
(And, having a degree+ of my own, I can tell you that American secondary
education is about POLITICS, not knowledge.)
> His motto, evident through his posts, is
> "book larnin' ain't nuthun'."
It isn't when the "teachers" have a pre-set agenda, and then start skewing
all of the data to ARRIVE at that pre-determined agenda.
> That verse doesn't say that, and because you cannot read the Greek
> manuscripts you don't KNOW that it does. You can only BELIEVE it says
> that
> because somebody told you it did.
LOL
I can read enough to know the foolishness of demons passed off as
"knowledge."
AGAIN, the triune family is the microcosm of the triune "Israel," which is
the microcosm of the Triune God, which is the image of the "holy" (read:
"whole") person, and any sexual behavior that DEVIATES from that triune form
IS SIN (which, as Jesus points out, makes EVERYONE a sinner).
You can try to bullshit yourself, but you can't bullshit me OR God with your
revisionist nonsense.
And I reiterate, John's "Revelation" PROVES that your "teachers" are full of
crap: John made extensive use of Matthew, which is based in part on Mark,
which puts the Gospel RIGHT BACK WHERE TRADITION SAYS THEY WERE WRITTEN.
And you know that now, which is why you can't formulate a contrary argument,
and ramble on about tangents.
Face it: You boys screwed up, because they ARE screwed up--in the body, in
the head, AND in the spirit.
Ike
Darrell Stec
Ikey, you are seeing things. Not only do the words "Jesus Seminar" not
appear there, but even the name, Jesus is not there.
>> And it is
>> comical that the participants in the Jesus Seminar have advanced
>> university
>> degrees in the appropriate topic, and Ikey without any education
>> whatsoever
>> thinks he knows more than they.
>
> Ah, the Pharisee argument: "Who maketh this man to learn letters."
>
> (And, having a degree+ of my own, I can tell you that American secondary
> education is about POLITICS, not knowledge.)
>
You have high school degrees? Wow. Because that is what Secondary
Education refers to. I think that is your problem. You have a GED
(degree+) and think you know more that those that have advanced post
university degrees. And I have never heard anyone with real advanced
degrees speak negatively about education. Only those who do not have it and
are secretly ashamed do so.
>> His motto, evident through his posts, is
>> "book larnin' ain't nuthun'."
>
> It isn't when the "teachers" have a pre-set agenda, and then start skewing
> all of the data to ARRIVE at that pre-determined agenda.
>
>> That verse doesn't say that, and because you cannot read the Greek
>> manuscripts you don't KNOW that it does. You can only BELIEVE it says
>> that
>> because somebody told you it did.
>
> LOL
>
> I can read enough to know the foolishness of demons passed off as
> "knowledge."
>
> AGAIN, the triune family is the microcosm of the triune "Israel," which is
> the microcosm of the Triune God, which is the image of the "holy" (read:
> "whole") person, and any sexual behavior that DEVIATES from that triune
> form
Good then you agree that the Daddy, the Spook and the Son had sex with women
and both El and Yahweh had wives as recent archaeological discoveries have
verified. Are you now ready to admit that Joshua was attending his own
marriage at Cana (notwithstanding the fact that Early Christian writers
living in Jerusalem never heard of Cana, nor Nazareth for that matter)?
What "triune" form of sex did the daddy, the spook and the baby have?
> IS SIN (which, as Jesus points out, makes EVERYONE a sinner).
>
If you actually could read the Greek, you would know that Jesus is just the
English aberration of the Greek name iesous which in English is Joshua from
the Hebrew name. In other words in the Greek Septuagint what is translated
in the Old Testament as Joshua appears as iesous.
> You can try to bullshit yourself, but you can't bullshit me OR God with
> your revisionist nonsense.
>
Not really revisionist as the Nag Hammadi and subsequent manuscripts show.
It was Orthodoxy that was revisionist and with the power of the state behind
it converted those under threat of the sword, and killed all opponents.
> And I reiterate, John's "Revelation" PROVES that your "teachers" are full
> of crap:
It does nothing of the sort. The Jesus Seminar is not mentioned in the
entire New Testament nor for that matter the entire Old Testament. As a
matter of fact it isn't even named in the entire body of the Gnostic
material either or heretical works. It is just that in your ignorance you
want to lump them as bad because their considered and learned opinion
differs from your uneducated, uninformed warm-fuzzy feelings.
> John made extensive use of Matthew, which is based in part on
> Mark, which puts the Gospel RIGHT BACK WHERE TRADITION SAYS THEY WERE
> WRITTEN.
>
> And you know that now, which is why you can't formulate a contrary
> argument, and ramble on about tangents.
>
The counter arguments are many. First how can Paul and all the gospel
writers quote word for word from the Greek Septuagint from books that had
not been written prior to the end of the first century CE? This is attested
to by both Josephus (which is why he wrote his two most famous books) and
also some of the Early Christian writers. That is a feat impossible as
anyone who actually knows foreign languages can tell you. In any given
foreign language classroom of 20 students translating anything other than a
phrase or couple of words you will get at least 15 variations on the
translations. If that were not so, every book from Greek to English would
be translated exactly the same way by every translator. Another proof is in
all the different translations of the bible into English.
The next thing we know is that the use of the word synagogue and rabbi are
anachronisms. Those did not come into being until sometime after the Final
Diaspora of 134 CE. Another is the bias against the Pharisees which was
another post Diaspora cultural leaning, as is evident by the Jewish writings
themselves or even by reading Josephus who wrote at the end of the first
century CE.
Follow that with the rituals mentioned in the gospels, again they started
after the Final Diaspora and not before.
When do you think the mention of more than one of the Pauline epistles
occurred? Can you give evidence for your answer?
If you managed to guess the correct answer, why did it take so long for
someone to be aware of multiple letters?
> Face it: You boys screwed up, because they ARE screwed up--in the body, in
> the head, AND in the spirit.
>
I think you are confusing the spirits screwing up your body and your head.
Alcohol will do that.
> Ike
--
Later,
Darrell
Xan Du
> To clarify. Mormons, with several wives, have large families. There's no
> place for abuse to go on without lotsa people finding out about it. Same
> deal with large farm families, such as still exist in my neck of Ozark
> woods. The fundies may be just as nuts, but in these cases, they know
> someone is watching.
>
> When you enter these small hill town schools, the class photos are
> posted on the wall. They are ALL WHITE KIDS. But these are farm families
> that have been here for 100 years or more.
So, the fact that all the children are the same race is relevant? In
other words, if they were instead all green or all purple -- all
whatever so long as it was same color -- would we still see the same
effect you describe?
Expand a little on the 100 years bit. Is that a significant
stabilizing influence, and if so why? I can guess that a child having
such a large extended family going back multiple generations is part
of it, but I want to hear your thoughts.
Also, I take it that there's little to no immigration into these
communities? What affect does this have?
Finally, how about emigration? Net migration rate ... is it positive
or negative? These towns sound like they have been small for a long
time, so what factors cause people to move out? Are those factors
voluntary or involuntary or both?
> During the Civil War, these Ozark counties seceded from the Confederate
> government in Little Rock. These hillbillies didnt own slaves and were
> not going to fight for the plantation owners who did. No slaves, no
> blacks. You dunno if they are racist cause the subject never comes up.
That makes sense in a monochromatic community.
> The race mentioned most often is Cherokee; these hills were never seen
> as good Indian hunting grounds, and when the Scots/Irish moved in,
> nobody was living here. But then, on the Trail of Tears, since they knew
> a thing or two about white aristocracy dispossessing small farmers, they
> took in lots of Cherokee. So now, nearly everyone is 1/3-1/2 Cherokee,
> who hybridized really well because they had also been farmers unlike
> most Indians and knew the most appropriate crops here.
Nearly everyone is a Caucasian/Cherokee mix, but they self-identify as
"white"?
> The most denigrating comments I hear are not about Blacks or Hispanics,
> but Osage & Lakota. Cherokee were not warriors, and neither were these
> Scots/Irish farmers, and those who were prone to violence found it more
> appealing to move to cities where the liquor stores were closer and the
> welfare benefits more generous.
I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm a little confused. Earlier
you wrote, "You dunno if they are racist cause the subject never comes
up," yet you hear denigrating comments about the Osage & Lakota. So
it seems to me that you don't consider these denigrating comments to
be racist, is that correct, or am I mistaken? If you don't consider
these comments racist, how would you describe them?
> Meth is so debilitating, their women are rarely fertile, so there are
> far fewer troublesome kids in school. The remaining population is more
> peaceful and more honest.
"Their women are rarely fertile" refers to Osage & Lakota women?
> One time, driving in from out of state, I passed thru Leslie (pop 627)
> at 3am, going right by the basketball court. The ball lay there on the
> grass. Nobody bothers to take it home. It does not get stolen. In the
> school, the lockers not only dont have locks, they dont have doors.
>
> Everyone knows which kid has which jacket, ipod, cell phone, or
> whatever, and there's no pawnshop to fence anything.
>
> 1% of the population are social predators. With a town of 10,000, the
> cops only have to memorize 100 mugshots. But with a million, now its
> 10,000, and there's no way a cop knows who is on the street. Criminals
> know that, and have ever since cities were invented. Which is where they
> always move to, while the "pagans" have always been seen as honest and
> hardworking people.
>
> Alaska and Utah likewise have lotsa small communities.
Indeed. I know little about them myself, but again I'm starting to
get your meaning.
I spent four months as an LDS missionary in a town called Lovell, WY.
Population of about 3,000, all white, and about 80% Mormon. There
were only two other churches in town, the biggest of which resided on
a corner of the parking lot of the LDS chapel. Why such a town needed
two full-time missionaries from its own faith continues to elude me,
but I have never been so well-fed in my life, so I didn't complain.
There were doors and locks on the High School lockers, but cars and
houses routinely remained unlocked. The most popular basketball court
was the one inside the LDS chapel, and there were one or two community
balls in case you didn't have your own -- I didn't, so this came in
handy. The church itself was locked but I had a key. Once inside
there were more locks to protect sensitive church paperwork and AV
equipment. But all in all, some superficial similarities to what you
describe in the Ozark.
Fascinating post, Day, very interesting. It seems foreign to me, a
city-dweller most of my life. Please don't take offense ... the
difference of it, your language, how you talk about things in such a
plain and matter-of-fact manner is refreshing on one hand, and
disturbing on the other. This is not a typical reaction for me and I
guess I find it intriguing that I have this response. Please do
answer the questions above I have posed, I am honestly interested in
your answers.
Thanks,
Xan
Ike E 2/23/2010
LOL
Armed forces schools (School of Music, basic and intermediate; Marine Corp
Institute, Staff NCO Academy non-resident program.)
George Washington
Indiana University
Indiana State University (BS in k12 instrumental, choral, and general music;
computer literacy)
VanderCook (post-graduate work).
> And I have never heard anyone with real advanced
> degrees speak negatively about education.
Of COURSE not--the "Pharisees" aren't ABOUT to undermine THEMSELVES,
goofball.
> Only those who do not have it and
> are secretly ashamed do so.
LOL
>>> His motto, evident through his posts, is
>>> "book larnin' ain't nuthun'."
>>
>> It isn't when the "teachers" have a pre-set agenda, and then start
>> skewing
>> all of the data to ARRIVE at that pre-determined agenda.
>>
>>> That verse doesn't say that, and because you cannot read the Greek
>>> manuscripts you don't KNOW that it does. You can only BELIEVE it says
>>> that
>>> because somebody told you it did.
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> I can read enough to know the foolishness of demons passed off as
>> "knowledge."
>>
>> AGAIN, the triune family is the microcosm of the triune "Israel," which
>> is
>> the microcosm of the Triune God, which is the image of the "holy" (read:
>> "whole") person, and any sexual behavior that DEVIATES from that triune
>> form
>
> Good then you agree that the Daddy, the Spook and the Son had sex with
> women
> and both El and Yahweh had wives as recent archaeological discoveries have
> verified.
LOL
There is no such thing in the Word.
> Are you now ready to admit that Joshua was attending his own
> marriage at Cana (notwithstanding the fact that Early Christian writers
> living in Jerusalem never heard of Cana, nor Nazareth for that matter)?
Patently ridiculous.
> What "triune" form of sex did the daddy, the spook and the baby have?
LOL
It's A METAPHOR for the balance of righteousness, judgment, and compassion
in balance, moron.
>> IS SIN (which, as Jesus points out, makes EVERYONE a sinner).
>>
>
> If you actually could read the Greek, you would know that Jesus is just
> the
> English aberration of the Greek name iesous which in English is Joshua
> from
> the Hebrew name.
I'm quite aware that Jesus was referred to by both a "home" name [Joshua,
i.e. "God will save"] and a "street" name [Jesus, i.e. "God's salvation"],
as did most people, one being in the "home" language and the other being in
the "public" language of commerce and politics, Greek.
> In other words in the Greek Septuagint what is translated
> in the Old Testament as Joshua appears as iesous.
Yes, I know.
Now what the hell does any of that have to do with 1) Triunism and 2) the
fact that John's Revelation PROVES that the tradition dates for the writing
of the New Testament (other than the three spurious books) are pretty much
on the mark?
>> You can try to bullshit yourself, but you can't bullshit me OR God with
>> your revisionist nonsense.
>>
>
> Not really revisionist as the Nag Hammadi and subsequent manuscripts show.
> It was Orthodoxy that was revisionist and with the power of the state
> behind
> it converted those under threat of the sword, and killed all opponents.
More pointless deflections.
Now what the hell does any of that have to do with 1) Triunism and 2) the
fact that John's Revelation PROVES that the tradition dates for the writing
of the New Testament (other than the three spurious books) are pretty much
on the mark?
>> And I reiterate, John's "Revelation" PROVES that your "teachers" are full
>> of crap:
>
>
> It does nothing of the sort.
Yes, it does: Even the Jesus Seminar recognizes that Revelation was written
during the reign of Domitian. What they DIDN'T know was HOW EXTENSIVELY JOHN
USED THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
<chuckle>
> The Jesus Seminar is not mentioned in the
> entire New Testament nor for that matter the entire Old Testament.
Yes, it is...
2Ti 4:3-4
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but
after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching
ears, and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be
turned unto fables.
"You" are "they."
> As a
> matter of fact it isn't even named in the entire body of the Gnostic
> material either or heretical works. It is just that in your ignorance you
> want to lump them as bad because their considered and learned opinion
> differs from your uneducated, uninformed warm-fuzzy feelings.
LOL
How ironic.
No, it's the JESUS SEMINAR that seeks "warm-fuzzy feelings:" The can't stand
that God is both "love" AND "a Man of War," because they can't SELL it to
the masses, and it screws up their POLITICALLY "CORRECT" GLOBAL UNIVERSALIST
AGENDA.
My, you ARE deceived...
>> John made extensive use of Matthew, which is based in part on
>> Mark, which puts the Gospel RIGHT BACK WHERE TRADITION SAYS THEY WERE
>> WRITTEN.
>>
>> And you know that now, which is why you can't formulate a contrary
>> argument, and ramble on about tangents.
>>
>
> The counter arguments are many. First how can Paul and all the gospel
> writers quote word for word from the Greek Septuagint from books that had
> not been written prior to the end of the first century CE?
One more time for the moron: The Septuagint was NOT written IN THE FIRST
CENTURY AD, you moron: IT WAS WRITTEN IN THE THIRD THROUGH SECOND CENTURIES
BC--WHEN THEY WERE FINISHING THE CANONIZATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT BEFORE
THE MACCABEAN REVOLT.
See. This is MORE bullshit from the Jesus Seminar.
> This is attested
> to by both Josephus (which is why he wrote his two most famous books) and
> also some of the Early Christian writers.
Bullshit.
> That is a feat impossible as
> anyone who actually knows foreign languages can tell you. In any given
> foreign language classroom of 20 students translating anything other than
> a
> phrase or couple of words you will get at least 15 variations on the
> translations. If that were not so, every book from Greek to English would
> be translated exactly the same way by every translator. Another proof is
> in
> all the different translations of the bible into English.
No, it's just more JSBS...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint
http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/
In fact, there isn't a single LEGITIMATE SOURCE that says anything as stupid
as your statement.
[snip the rest of the erroneous (and irrelevant) bullshit]
>> Face it: You boys screwed up, because they ARE screwed up--in the body,
>> in
>> the head, AND in the spirit.
>>
>
> I think you are confusing the spirits screwing up your body and your head.
> Alcohol will do that.
Don't drink. Can't. Have diabetes.
Not that it matters, because John PROVES the so-called "higher critics" are
FULL OF CRAP: Revelation, which is probably the BEST DATED BOOK in the
entire New Testament, IS BASED IN LARGE PART ON MATTHEW, which means the
"higher critics" ASSUMPTIONS ARE COMPLETELY FALSE. (But of course.)
But you're so demonically driven and personally defiled that you don't CARE
what the evidence proves--you like their lies, so you intend to keep SPEWING
their lies on their behalf...just like Paul SAID you would.
Ike
Doc Smartass
>
> "Dr. Dumbass, Troll Extraordinaire" <gek...@astroskivviesboymail.com>
> wrote in message news:Xns9D2D81BA630F...@216.196.97.130...
>> "Ike E 2/23/2010" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:hmd00h$l8a$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>>
>>> "John Manning" <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
>>> news:UMSdnQP6IYK1FRTW...@giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fundies and child abuse
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lynn Harris has a bone-chilling article up at Salon about yet
>>>> another incident of fundamentalist Christians taking their beliefs
>>>> to an extreme and getting someone hurt or killed, usually and
>>>> inevitably someone in a vulnerable position. In this case, the
>>>> story is that of 7-year-old Lydia Schatz, whose parents beat her to
>>>> death using a tool---a quarter inch plumbing supply
>>>> line---recommended by the wildly popular authors Michael and Debi
>>>> Pearl, who have an entire series about �child training� for
>>>> evangelical Christians.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> You think that SECULARISTS aren't doing the same, AND WORSE?
>>>
>>> THEY ARE.
>>
>> Wrong.
>
> Notic<snip>
Shaddap. You're wrong.
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling
aa # 1939
Religion: The operating system through which man tells gods what to do.
Larry
news:Xns9D32B5261805...@216.196.97.130:
> Religion: The operating system through which man tells gods what to do.
>
Oh, I LIKE this! Can I steal it, Doc?
--
"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!"
Larry
Doc Smartass
74.209.131.13:
> Doc Smartass <gek...@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9D32B5261805...@216.196.97.130:
>
>> Religion: The operating system through which man tells gods what to do.
>>
>
> Oh, I LIKE this! Can I steal it, Doc?
Yup!
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling
aa # 1939
Religion: The operating system through which man tells gods what to do.
hypa...@comcast.net
wrote:
> "John Manning" <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
>
> news:UMSdnQP6IYK1FRTW...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
> > Fundies and child abuse
>
> > Lynn Harris has a bone-chilling article up at Salon about yet another
> > incident of fundamentalist Christians taking their beliefs to an extreme
> > and getting someone hurt or killed, usually and inevitably someone in a
> > vulnerable position. In this case, the story is that of 7-year-old Lydia
> > Schatz, whose parents beat her to death using a tool---a quarter inch
> > plumbing supply line---recommended by the wildly popular authors Michael
> > and Debi Pearl, who have an entire series about “child training” for
> > evangelical Christians.
>
>
> Not enough...
>
> Pr 22:15 Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of
> correction shall drive it far from him.
>
> Too much...
>
> Col 3:21 Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be
> discouraged.
>
> This is the reason that Jesus went home, and took the night to think about
> it, and made a scourge of short cords (so there would be no accidental
> strikes) before returning to drive the wicked out of the Temple--He didn't
> want to be too severe, but He wanted to get His point across effectively.
>
> So what?
>
> You think that SECULARISTS aren't doing the same, AND WORSE?
>
> THEY ARE.
>
>
> Ike
Cite, please. In other words, since you won't find any,
you are a liar.
hypa...@comcast.net
> On Feb 28, 1:43 pm, "Dr. Smartass, Troll Veterinarian"
>
>
>
>
>
> <gek...@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote:
> > "Ike E 2/23/2010" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote innews:hmd00h$l8a$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> > > "John Manning" <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
> > >news:UMSdnQP6IYK1FRTW...@giganews.com...
>
> > >> Fundies and child abuse
>
> > >> Lynn Harris has a bone-chilling article up at Salon about yet another
> > >> incident of fundamentalist Christians taking their beliefs to an
> > >> extreme and getting someone hurt or killed, usually and inevitably
> > >> someone in a vulnerable position. In this case, the story is that of
> > >> 7-year-old Lydia Schatz, whose parents beat her to death using a
> > >> tool---a quarter inch plumbing supply line---recommended by the
> > >> wildly popular authors Michael and Debi Pearl, who have an entire
> > >> series about child training for evangelical Christians.
>
>
> > > You think that SECULARISTS aren't doing the same, AND WORSE?
>
> > > THEY ARE.
>
> > standard for such behavior--then you try to blame US for your own
> > failings.
>
> > Child-molesting priests? Not their fault--it's them gawddamn sec-yooo-
> > lar-ists!
>
> > Child gets beaten to death by her parents? They was ATHIESTS!!!!!11!1!
>
> > It's shitbirds like you who are the problem. Stop pointing fingers, you
> > guilty piece of crap.
>
> Alright, I'll try again by posting shorter excerpts from two of the
> links I shared earlier:
>
> http://journals.lww.com/smajournalonline/Fulltext/2008/07000/Is_Relig...
>
> "There is qualitative and empirical literature about the relationship
> of religion to corporal punishment and physical abuse. Greven's book,
> Spare the Child: The Religious Roots of Punishment and the
> Psychological Impact of Physical Abuse5 is the most extensive piece of
> qualitative literature. Greven relates many historical accounts of
> physical punishment and abuse from white Protestants, especially those
> from evangelical, fundamentalist and Pentecostal backgrounds who have
> advocated corporal punishment. The source for these beliefs and
> practices is the Bible, particularly from Proverbs in the Old
> Testament. For example, people often rely on the following quotes: He
> that spareth the rod hateth his son; but he that loveth him chasteneth
> him betimes (Proverbs 13:24). and Foolishness is bound in the heart of
> a child, but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him
> (Proverbs 22:15)."
>
> http://vaw.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/13/11/1094(PDF)
Why is there an Adobe warning against this website?
Besides, it's a religious article which means it is not
to be trusted.
>
> "The effect of religious attendance on reducing the probability of
> domestic violence
> is most likely both direct and indirect. As suggested by previous
> research,
> involvement in a religious organization may reduce factors known to be
> correlated
> with domestic violence, such as problem drinking, social isolation,
> and depression.
> Because it has been suggested that the salutary effects of religious
> participation are
> greater for African Americans than for other groups, we may be tempted
> to rely on
> this finding to explain the differential effects revealed here.
> However, previous
> research has also shown that the effects of religious involvement
> cannot be reduced
> to the sum of these indirect effects. It is worth noting here that
> attendance at religious
> services per se may not actually be the key aspect of religious
> involvement that is
> affecting patterns of domestic violence but merely an indicator of
> such. In analyses
> such as the ones presented here, attendance may serve as a proxy for
> prayerfulness,
> positive religious coping styles, self-discipline, or other such
> factors. Therefore, a
> key priority of future research in this area should be the development
> and testing of
> broader theoretical arguments about the potential role(s) of multiple
> dimensions of
> religion and spirituality in this area."
>
> In summary:
>
> 1) Higher levels of religious participate tend to reduce the incidence
> of both child abuse by their parents *and* spousal abuse.
> 2) The generalization in (1) is *not* seen in religions that place an
> emphasis on corporal punishment, for example fundamentalist Christians
> and Pentecostals that specifically advocate severe physical discipline
> based on Proverbs 13:24 and 22:15.
> 3) Lower levels of religious participation, either due to lack of
> belief (atheism/agnosticism) or believers who attend church relatively
> less regularly than other believers tend to abuse children and spouses
> more often.
> 4) Religion alone is not always a good predictor of behavior, factors
> such as unemployment, parents' prior exposure to abuse from their own
> parents or parents who witnessed their own parents abusing each other
> need to be considered.
> 5) Religious factors (or lack thereof) in domestic violence and child
> abuse remain understudied and poorly understood.
>
> -Xan
hypa...@comcast.net
spank/ physically abuse their children more than other Christians,
unless they attend church regularly. Some are so fanatical that
they don't even attend their own church.
hypa...@comcast.net
wrote:
> "Darrell Stec" <dars...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7v1jab...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ike E 2/23/2010 wrote:
>
> >> wrote in messagenews:Xns9D2D81BA630F...@216.196.97.130...
> >>>news:hmd00h$l8a$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> >>>> "John Manning" <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
> >>>>news:UMSdnQP6IYK1FRTW...@giganews.com...
>
> >>>>> Fundies and child abuse
>
> >>>>> Lynn Harris has a bone-chilling article up at Salon about yet another
> >>>>> incident of fundamentalist Christians taking their beliefs to an
> >>>>> extreme and getting someone hurt or killed, usually and inevitably
> >>>>> someone in a vulnerable position. In this case, the story is that of
> >>>>> 7-year-old Lydia Schatz, whose parents beat her to death using a
> >>>>> tool---a quarter inch plumbing supply line---recommended by the
> >>>>> wildly popular authors Michael and Debi Pearl, who have an entire
>
> >>> <snip>
>
> >>>> You think that SECULARISTS aren't doing the same, AND WORSE?
>
> >>>> THEY ARE.
>
> >>> Wrong.
>
> >> bounderies where the discipline of children is concerned, then goes on
> >> another of his satanic tirades, then says I'M wrong.
>
> >> The least...
>
> >> Pr 23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him
> >> with the rod, he shall not die.
>
> >> The most...
>
> >> Eph 6:4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring
> >> them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
>
> >> And this was precisely what Jesus considered before He returned to drive
> >> the "thieves" out of their "dens."
>
> >> [snippeth]
>
> >> Ike
>
> > Ikey, learn to read the Greek.
>
> Already do.
>
> > livestock were.
>
> LLLLOOOLLLL
>
> Yeah, ok. You're done.
>
> (What we have here is another JSBS revision of history to try and take away
> Jesus' manhood, nevermind that Jesus' actions in the temple that day only
> foreshadowed the violence that He will inflict on That Day, which the frauds
> don't like--it screws up their "feminized Jesus.")
Our feminized Jesus? Care to explain the young man
who ran out of JC's room clad in nothing but a sheet?
That's in the Bible. Sounds suspicious to me.
Xan Du
wrote:
'Twas the Holy Ghost, ya silly git. Repent.
-Xan
Ike E 2/23/2010
<hypa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6ae2763f-43c8-4391...@y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> Our feminized Jesus? Care to explain the young man
> who ran out of JC's room clad in nothing but a sheet?
> That's in the Bible.
LOL
Care to cite a reference?
Ike
Xan Du
wrote:
> <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote in message
This may be it:
--------------------
http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/jesus.htm
Was Jesus queer? We don't know. But it is a possibility that cannot be
ruled out. One version of St. Mark's gospel - which is still the
subject of academic dispute - alludes to Jesus having a homosexual
relationship with a youth he raised from the dead.
According to the US Biblical scholar, Morton Smith, of Columbia
University, a fragment of manuscript he found at the Mar Saba
monastery near Jerusalem in 1958, showed that the full text of St.
Mark chapter 10 (between verses 34 and 35 in the standard version of
the Bible) includes the passage:
"And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that
he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into
the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus
instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen
cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for
Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God".
--------------------
No such language in the KJV between Mark 10:34-5.
HTH
-Xan
Bret Ripley
I haven't followed your link, but one clarification should be made.
Contrary to the statement that the Mar Saba letter (purportedly an 18th
century copy of 2nd century letter written by Clement of Alexandria)
suggests that the quoted text was part of the "full text of St. Mark"
[sic], the letter claims that the text was part of a separate, expanded
version of Mark's gospel (usually called "Secret Mark"). It is difficult to
assess whether the Mar Saba letter reflects a genuine letter by Clement,
since no ancient copies of the letter have been discovered and the 18th
century Mar Saba letter itself has disappeared (it currently survives in
photograph form only).
Bret
Xan Du
Do you just know this stuff off the top of your head, or are you like
me -- good at asking Google for the answer and then just pretending to
know this stuff off the top of your head???
Kidding.
I don't put a lot of stock in anything on the link provided, it was
just the first thing I found that addressed the issue. Your
additional info is very interesting and now I have yet another random
bit of evidence to file away for reference when discussing reasons why
I also don't put much stock in anything I read in the Bible either.
Thanks,
Xan
Geode
I had read this part also, Xan. It is very interesting, but it does
not prove that someone called Jesus existed with the biography that is
the gospels. This piece of story and the standard gospels, or even
apocrypha, could be total inventions.
Geode
.
Geode
That's right. It can be a forgery.
geode
Geode
there are other bits as well, showing a faint loved between Jesus and
John, the beloved disciple. There is also the part, when he ask Peter,
"do you love me more than the others?" We have to contort our reason
to explain this.
There is also a story about john man that followed Jesus to the Olives
Mount when Jesus was held by the soldiers, and he fled naked,
abandoning the cloth that was covering his body in the hands of the
soldiers.
Geode
Bret Ripley
Normally I would gladly cop to being a pretender and charlatan. However, in
this case I just happened to have done some reading about Morton Smith and
the Mar Saba letter over the weekend. I did take the liberty of looking up
Smith's translation of the letter to make sure I was remembering things
properly:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/secretmark.html
As Geode elsewhere alludes, it is possible (but, I think, by no means
certain) that the letter is a modern forgery.
> Kidding.
Pulling your punches, eh?
> I don't put a lot of stock in anything on the link provided, it was
> just the first thing I found that addressed the issue. Your
> additional info is very interesting and now I have yet another random
> bit of evidence to file away for reference when discussing reasons why
> I also don't put much stock in anything I read in the Bible either.
Happy to add to the clutter.
Bret
Xan Du
That's why we love you.
> However, in
> this case I just happened to have done some reading about Morton Smith and
> the Mar Saba letter over the weekend. I did take the liberty of looking up
> Smith's translation of the letter to make sure I was remembering things
> properly:
>
> http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/secretmark.html
>
> As Geode elsewhere alludes, it is possible (but, I think, by no means
> certain) that the letter is a modern forgery.
Interesting, I shall read up.
> > Kidding.
>
> Pulling your punches, eh?
Your post had the quality of someone who was speaking from previously
synthesized knowledge and thought. I was jealous.
> > I don't put a lot of stock in anything on the link provided, it was
> > just the first thing I found that addressed the issue. Your
> > additional info is very interesting and now I have yet another random
> > bit of evidence to file away for reference when discussing reasons why
> > I also don't put much stock in anything I read in the Bible either.
>
> Happy to add to the clutter.
>
> Bret
A clutter it is indeed.
-Xan
Xan Du
Oh I think it's almost all total invention. I've read enough to think
that the character of Christ was based on a real person, but that his
divinity was invented post-hoc starting around a century after his
death. I am somewhat remiss for not studying this more I suppose
because I know so much about why the Book of Mormon is fraudulent --
it only seems fair that I should have a similar depth of knowledge
about the Bible and Koran. I like to be an equal opportunity critic
whenever possible.
-Xan
Darrell Stec
It really is there.
kai neaniskos tis sunekolouthei auto peribeblemenos sindona epi gumnou kai
kratousin auton ho de katalipon ten sindona gunnos ephuyen
You might try reading the gospels. But this time you might try to do
something you are not accustomed to (or inept at), namely reading with
comprehension.
Why do you pose as an expert in biblical matters then ask for a cite for a
well known verse found in any readily available bible? It appears that even
atheists know your bible better than you. Are you that destitute that you
cannot find a bible? Steal a Gideon from your local motel. With all the
other sins you commit on these newsgroups (lying, dishonest, fraud) one more
won't make much of a difference to your imagined immortal soul
--
Later,
Darrell
Xan Du
> Ike E 2/23/2010 wrote:
>
> > <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:6ae2763f-43c8-4391...@y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > [snip]
>
> >> Our feminized Jesus? Care to explain the young man
> >> who ran out of JC's room clad in nothing but a sheet?
> >> That's in the Bible.
>
> > LOL
>
> > Care to cite a reference?
>
> > Ike
>
> It really is there.
>
> kai neaniskos tis sunekolouthei auto peribeblemenos sindona epi gumnou kai
> kratousin auton ho de katalipon ten sindona gunnos ephuyen
>
> You might try reading the gospels. But this time you might try to do
> something you are not accustomed to (or inept at), namely reading with
> comprehension.
>
> Why do you pose as an expert in biblical matters then ask for a cite for a
> well known verse found in any readily available bible? It appears that even
> atheists know your bible better than you.
That seems to happen a lot. That's one reason why this atheist got
that way.
> Are you that destitute that you
> cannot find a bible? Steal a Gideon from your local motel. With all the
> other sins you commit on these newsgroups (lying, dishonest, fraud) one more
> won't make much of a difference to your imagined immortal soul
The Marriotts, devout LDS themselves, provide both a Gideon's Bible
and a copy of the Book of Mormon in every room. Can't beat a two-fer!
-Xan
> --
> Later,
> Darrell
Ike E 2/23/2010
"Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aa0462a5-25e0-44c3...@b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> Oh I think it's almost all total invention.
Such foolishness.
> I've read enough to think
> that the character of Christ was based on a real person, but that his
> divinity was invented post-hoc starting around a century after his
> death.
First of all, Revelation proves that the first three Gospels were written
between the time of Jesus' death and the destruction of the temple
Second, the eternal evidence of the Gospels PROVES that Jesus was who and
what He and everyone else said He was, as His statements were so far
advanced in His time that they HAD to be true, or Jesus was a stark, raving
lunatic. What I mean is that in all four Gospels, Jesus spoke of being at
other places in time, a concept that wouldn't show up in other literature
for HUNDREDS and even THOUSANDS OF YEARS, and we are only just now arriving
at the science which can RELATE to such concepts as three-dimensional time,
which John used in Revelation (which he attributes to Christ).
> I am somewhat remiss for not studying this more I suppose
> because I know so much about why the Book of Mormon is fraudulent --
> it only seems fair that I should have a similar depth of knowledge
> about the Bible and Koran. I like to be an equal opportunity critic
> whenever possible.
Gee, let's hear this "equal" criticism of the Bible over the various
fraudulent religious books out there.
Ike
Ike E 2/23/2010
> Ike E 2/23/2010 wrote:
>
>>
>> <hypa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:6ae2763f-43c8-4391...@y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Our feminized Jesus? Care to explain the young man
>>> who ran out of JC's room clad in nothing but a sheet?
>>> That's in the Bible.
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> Care to cite a reference?
>>
>> Ike
>
> It really is there.
No, it's not.
> kai neaniskos tis sunekolouthei auto peribeblemenos sindona epi gumnou kai
> kratousin auton ho de katalipon ten sindona gunnos ephuyen
A fraud writes in Greek to pervert a Greek-language book, and that "proves"
that it was "in there" to begin with, though no one ever saw it in any text
that came before it?
My how despicable the mouth of the typical faggot is, not because of what he
puts in it (which is gross enough), but because of what comes out of it.
[snippeth the rest of the ridiculous argument based on a ridiculous premise]
Ike
Xan Du
> "Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:aa0462a5-25e0-44c3...@b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> [snip]
>
>> Oh I think it's almost all total invention.
>
> Such foolishness.
Proverbs 26 (KJV)
3 A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the
fool�s back.
Show me where in the atheist Bible it says that fools should be beaten
and treated like animals.
>> I've read enough to think
>> that the character of Christ was based on a real person, but that his
>> divinity was invented post-hoc starting around a century after his
>> death.
>
> First of all, Revelation proves that the first three Gospels were written
> between the time of Jesus' death and the destruction of the temple
Revelation proves that John tripped on magic mushrooms on the isle of
Patmos.
> Second, the eternal evidence of the Gospels PROVES that Jesus was who and
> what He and everyone else said He was, as His statements were so far
> advanced in His time that they HAD to be true, or Jesus was a stark, raving
> lunatic. What I mean is that in all four Gospels, Jesus spoke of being at
> other places in time, a concept that wouldn't show up in other literature
> for HUNDREDS and even THOUSANDS OF YEARS, and we are only just now arriving
> at the science which can RELATE to such concepts as three-dimensional time,
> which John used in Revelation (which he attributes to Christ).
I don't doubt your belief, Ike. But you are the kind of Christian that
seems to think that atheists are somehow more evil and dangerous than
the text in your own sacred writ is actually commanding *you* to be. I
will not let that stand unopposed. It's nothing personal; you have some
likable qualities and make me laugh from time to time, but unfortunately
you seem to be selectively and deliberately oblivious about a few things.
>> I am somewhat remiss for not studying this more I suppose
>> because I know so much about why the Book of Mormon is fraudulent --
>> it only seems fair that I should have a similar depth of knowledge
>> about the Bible and Koran. I like to be an equal opportunity critic
>> whenever possible.
>
> Gee, let's hear this "equal" criticism of the Bible over the various
> fraudulent religious books out there.
In my own time and season.
-Xan
>
> Ike
>
>
Ike E 3/11/2010
> Ike E 2/23/2010 wrote:
>> "Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:aa0462a5-25e0-44c3...@b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Oh I think it's almost all total invention.
>>
>> Such foolishness.
>
> Proverbs 26 (KJV)
>
> Show me where in the atheist Bible it says that fools should be beaten and
> treated like animals.
Funny that you should say that: Jesus referred to the Gentile woman as a
"dog," and for reasons you aren't aware of.
From the beginning, there was the "beast" man who was of no more esteem than
the average barnyard animal; then there was the "angelic" man whom God
created distinct from the "beasts."
When the two got together, THAT'S when the trouble started.
>>> I've read enough to think
>>> that the character of Christ was based on a real person, but that his
>>> divinity was invented post-hoc starting around a century after his
>>> death.
>>
>> First of all, Revelation proves that the first three Gospels were written
>> between the time of Jesus' death and the destruction of the temple
>
> Revelation proves that John tripped on magic mushrooms on the isle of
> Patmos.
Shows what you know: Revelation is the most PERFECT book of the
Bible--through the techniques Jesus used with John, there is almost 0
distortion (unlike some others).
>> Second, the eternal evidence of the Gospels PROVES that Jesus was who and
>> what He and everyone else said He was, as His statements were so far
>> advanced in His time that they HAD to be true, or Jesus was a stark,
>> raving lunatic. What I mean is that in all four Gospels, Jesus spoke of
>> being at other places in time, a concept that wouldn't show up in other
>> literature for HUNDREDS and even THOUSANDS OF YEARS, and we are only just
>> now arriving at the science which can RELATE to such concepts as
>> three-dimensional time, which John used in Revelation (which he
>> attributes to Christ).
>
> I don't doubt your belief, Ike. But you are the kind of Christian that
> seems to think that atheists are somehow more evil and dangerous than the
> text in your own sacred writ is actually commanding *you* to be.
Actually, you're partially right, as, ironically, atheists will face the
same fate as Christians in the end of this age. See, Satan intends to use
global religion as the weapon of choice against God, and atheists just don't
fit the program. So the choices will be 1) deny Christ and bow to "Caesar,"
or 2) proclaim Christ and have "Caesar" kill you, or, as Jesus said...
"Whoever shall save their life shall lose it; but whoever will lose their
life for My sake and the Gospel's shall save it."
There won't be any "middle" choices.
> I will not let that stand unopposed. It's nothing personal; you have
> some likable qualities and make me laugh from time to time, but
> unfortunately you seem to be selectively and deliberately oblivious about
> a few things.
Oh, quite the opposite: I'm VERY aware of what's going on around here.
>>> I am somewhat remiss for not studying this more I suppose
>>> because I know so much about why the Book of Mormon is fraudulent --
>>> it only seems fair that I should have a similar depth of knowledge
>>> about the Bible and Koran. I like to be an equal opportunity critic
>>> whenever possible.
>>
>> Gee, let's hear this "equal" criticism of the Bible over the various
>> fraudulent religious books out there.
>
> In my own time and season.
ah, shucky darns...
Just when the conversation was getting interesting...
Ike
Xan Du
The main point here is that atheists have no bible. You guys do. Your
Bible advocates killing for land, money, sex and power. It is a
millstone around your neck, as surely as the one Christ talks about in
Matthew 18 (KJV):
6 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.
We free-thinkers have nothing of the sort that you can pin on us. The
only way that Christians can conform to modern morality and ethics --
and many of you do a great job of that I would add -- is to ignore large
swaths of the text that purports to describe your beliefs.
So we might sound like dicks when we say it, but is it any wonder that
atheists call y'all just a bit off kilter because you can't seem to read
what your own Bible says and parse it properly?
-Xan
Day Brown
> Expand a little on the 100 years bit. Is that a significant
> stabilizing influence, and if so why?
If there are minorities, demagogues arise to scapegoat. if not, then
people dont have the same excuse and must look to their own.
> I can guess that a child having
> such a large extended family going back multiple generations is part
> of it, but I want to hear your thoughts.
That works both ways, honorable hard working families produce kids that
follow the tradition; if not, then not. We see DNA markers also that are
increasingly accounting for high rates of pathology. A line that has Y
chromosomes with high levels of testosterone and adrenalin with lower
seratonin and dopamine have high rates of violence, sexual abuse, and
substance abuse.
Science Daily had a rap on a "Warrior Gene" associated with streetgang
participation.
> Also, I take it that there's little to no immigration into these
> communities? What affect does this have?
We'll havta wait. The census bureau's fastest growing demographic is
the "x-urb". Transnationals have realized that people in communities of
less than 50,000 tend to have lotsa kin still in the area, and they do
not want to move away from extended family support. This results in less
staff turnover and thus more profit.
> Finally, how about emigration? Net migration rate ... is it positive
> or negative? These towns sound like they have been small for a long
> time, so what factors cause people to move out? Are those factors
> voluntary or involuntary or both?
For a long time, the less functional have seen urban welfare more
generous with less social stigma, and for those engaged in crime, a
larger base of victims... who wont recognize the predators.
> Nearly everyone is a Caucasian/Cherokee mix, but they self-identify as
> "white"?
Formerly. It usta affect the ability to get a home loan. But recently,
People became proud of a native American heritage.
>> The most denigrating comments I hear are not about Blacks or Hispanics,
>> but Osage & Lakota. Cherokee were not warriors, and neither were these
>> Scots/Irish farmers, and those who were prone to violence found it more
>> appealing to move to cities where the liquor stores were closer and the
>> welfare benefits more generous.
>
> I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm a little confused. Earlier
> you wrote, "You dunno if they are racist cause the subject never comes
> up," yet you hear denigrating comments about the Osage & Lakota. So
> it seems to me that you don't consider these denigrating comments to
> be racist, is that correct, or am I mistaken? If you don't consider
> these comments racist, how would you describe them?
There are no Lakota or Osage here. Its more a part of their increasing
awareness of their own history. Blacks and Hispanics were not a part of
it, and are not here, so they are never mentioned.
>> Meth is so debilitating, their women are rarely fertile, so there are
>> far fewer troublesome kids in school. The remaining population is more
>> peaceful and more honest.
>
> "Their women are rarely fertile" refers to Osage & Lakota women?
No, just referring to the local population; the moonshiner clans have
gotten into meth.
>> Alaska and Utah likewise have lotsa small communities.
>
> Indeed. I know little about them myself, but again I'm starting to
> get your meaning.
> I spent four months as an LDS missionary in a town called Lovell, WY.
> Population of about 3,000, all white, and about 80% Mormon. There
> were only two other churches in town, the biggest of which resided on
> a corner of the parking lot of the LDS chapel. Why such a town needed
> two full-time missionaries from its own faith continues to elude me,
> but I have never been so well-fed in my life, so I didn't complain.
> There were doors and locks on the High School lockers, but cars and
> houses routinely remained unlocked. The most popular basketball court
> was the one inside the LDS chapel, and there were one or two community
> balls in case you didn't have your own -- I didn't, so this came in
> handy. The church itself was locked but I had a key. Once inside
> there were more locks to protect sensitive church paperwork and AV
> equipment. But all in all, some superficial similarities to what you
> describe in the Ozark.
>
> Fascinating post, Day, very interesting. It seems foreign to me, a
> city-dweller most of my life. Please don't take offense ... the
> difference of it, your language, how you talk about things in such a
> plain and matter-of-fact manner is refreshing on one hand, and
> disturbing on the other. This is not a typical reaction for me and I
> guess I find it intriguing that I have this response. Please do
> answer the questions above I have posed, I am honestly interested in
> your answers.
Part of it is related to hominid evolution in small villages where
people felt more connected to where they were. As Mike notes, cities
have somewhat isolated urban neighborhoods. But the drivebys, for
instance, show how easy it is for outsiders to enter and leave with no
clue as to who they were.
I know every vehicle that drives by my place, and notice as well when a
strange truck shows up. As often happens during deer season. But they
dont drive by the school in a small town like Leslie, and if any did as
the kids were walking home, somebody would be watching.
Its a tough call as to when a community should step in to try to stop
abuse as Mike mentioned, vs when everyone should just mind their own
business. With a homogeneous population, if a kid acts differently, it
gets noticed more and not attributed to unknown social values. We now
also know that the beady eyed look in some family lines is not egzactly
genetic, except for the markers related to alcohol abuse- which results
in fetal alcohol syndrome.
These DNA markers associated with substance abuse and violence presents
a challenge to Christian dogma which had always maintained 'free will'
and sin in need of salvation. Where to draw the line between what has
been seen as sin worthy of damnation and psychopathology has not been
reasonably worked out.
Larry
$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com:
> Transnationals have realized that people in communities of
> less than 50,000 tend to have lotsa kin still in the area, and they do
> not want to move away from extended family support. This results in less
> staff turnover and thus more profit.
>
Larry The Cable Guy always makes a joke about going to the family reunion
looking for a new wife....(c;]
Ike E 3/11/2010
"My" Bible does no such thing.
> It is a millstone around your neck, as surely as the one Christ talks
> about in Matthew 18 (KJV):
Nonsense. Christ was talking about the persecution of His children, even to
the End of the Age (as John uses the same metaphor in Revelation).
Now you're blaspheming.
> 6 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.
Which has what to do with the Word of God?
> We free-thinkers have nothing of the sort that you can pin on us.
You have nothing, period.
> The only way that Christians can conform to modern morality and
> ethics...
LOL
As if Truth changes to fit your personal agenda.
> --
> and many of you do a great job of that I would add -- is to ignore large
> swaths of the text that purports to describe your beliefs.
>
> So we might sound like dicks when we say it, but is it any wonder that
> atheists call y'all just a bit off kilter because you can't seem to read
> what your own Bible says and parse it properly?
I cannot speak for others, but I parse it just fine.
You, however, don't have a clue as to how it all fits together, which would
account for your satanic beliefs.
Ike
Xan Du
Your language comprehension skills must be lacking then. I say this out
of concern, not insult.
>> It is a millstone around your neck, as surely as the one Christ talks
>> about in Matthew 18 (KJV):
>
> Nonsense. Christ was talking about the persecution of His children, even to
> the End of the Age (as John uses the same metaphor in Revelation).
>
> Now you're blaspheming.
If you have the freedom to interpret the Bible to your own ends, I will
remain free to have mine.
My interpretation is that it is not blasphemy to be critical of a text
written by humans to serve their own greedy, and nefarious IMO, ends.
>> 6 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.
>
> Which has what to do with the Word of God?
>
>> We free-thinkers have nothing of the sort that you can pin on us.
>
> You have nothing, period.
>
>> The only way that Christians can conform to modern morality and
>> ethics...
>
> LOL
>
> As if Truth changes to fit your personal agenda.
It certainly seems to change to fit your own. Just saying.
>> --
>> and many of you do a great job of that I would add -- is to ignore large
>> swaths of the text that purports to describe your beliefs.
>>
>> So we might sound like dicks when we say it, but is it any wonder that
>> atheists call y'all just a bit off kilter because you can't seem to read
>> what your own Bible says and parse it properly?
>
> I cannot speak for others, but I parse it just fine.
>
> You, however, don't have a clue as to how it all fits together, which would
> account for your satanic beliefs.
Satan actually makes a lot more sense to me than God, he's at least
consistently evil. God seems to waffle a bit. Not a good sign.
-Xan
> Ike
>
>
Xan Du
> Xan Du wrote:
>> Expand a little on the 100 years bit. Is that a significant
>> stabilizing influence, and if so why?
> If there are minorities, demagogues arise to scapegoat. if not, then
> people dont have the same excuse and must look to their own.
Yes, I have noticed that groups with no external opposition tend to find
minor differences with people within their own group.
For example, Muslims living in the United States where they are a
minority tend to be more tolerant of people within their own
congregations than Muslims in countries like Indonesia where that belief
is the predominant religion. Indonesian Muslims have very similar
social dynamics within their congregations and neighborhoods that Utah
Mormons have -- strikingly similar dynamics.
To extend this analogy further, it has been my personal observation that
Indonesian Muslims are on the whole less militant than their Middle
Eastern counterparts because the Indonesians are not threatened on all
sides by other groups with different beliefs, but similar desire for
regional dominance.
>> I can guess that a child having
>> such a large extended family going back multiple generations is part
>> of it, but I want to hear your thoughts.
> That works both ways, honorable hard working families produce kids that
> follow the tradition; if not, then not. We see DNA markers also that are
> increasingly accounting for high rates of pathology. A line that has Y
> chromosomes with high levels of testosterone and adrenalin with lower
> seratonin and dopamine have high rates of violence, sexual abuse, and
> substance abuse.
>
> Science Daily had a rap on a "Warrior Gene" associated with streetgang
> participation.
Sure, I understand the inheritability aggressive vs. passive behavioral
traits (or selfish vs. altruistic). But my question was directed more
toward social and family dynamics: my hypothesis is that in rural areas
where multi-generation families exist in tightly-knit communities,
grandparents play a significantly positive role in guiding their own
children through the child-rearing process. And also, the grandparent
to grandchild relationship would seem to be beneficial as well.
Assuming that there are, on average, "good" genetics and "good"
child-rearing practices within the population.
>> Also, I take it that there's little to no immigration into these
>> communities? What affect does this have?
> We'll havta wait. The census bureau's fastest growing demographic is
> the "x-urb". Transnationals have realized that people in communities of
> less than 50,000 tend to have lotsa kin still in the area, and they do
> not want to move away from extended family support. This results in less
> staff turnover and thus more profit.
Logical.
>> Finally, how about emigration? Net migration rate ... is it positive
>> or negative? These towns sound like they have been small for a long
>> time, so what factors cause people to move out? Are those factors
>> voluntary or involuntary or both?
> For a long time, the less functional have seen urban welfare more
> generous with less social stigma, and for those engaged in crime, a
> larger base of victims... who wont recognize the predators.
So those with more maladaptive genetic traits tend to move out of the
rural areas into urban ones?
>> Nearly everyone is a Caucasian/Cherokee mix, but they self-identify as
>> "white"?
> Formerly. It usta affect the ability to get a home loan. But recently,
> People became proud of a native American heritage.
Depending on how recent is "recently", I can see that some gov't policy
changes may be at work on that point.
>>> The most denigrating comments I hear are not about Blacks or Hispanics,
>>> but Osage & Lakota. Cherokee were not warriors, and neither were these
>>> Scots/Irish farmers, and those who were prone to violence found it more
>>> appealing to move to cities where the liquor stores were closer and the
>>> welfare benefits more generous.
>>
>> I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm a little confused. Earlier
>> you wrote, "You dunno if they are racist cause the subject never comes
>> up," yet you hear denigrating comments about the Osage & Lakota. So
>> it seems to me that you don't consider these denigrating comments to
>> be racist, is that correct, or am I mistaken? If you don't consider
>> these comments racist, how would you describe them?
> There are no Lakota or Osage here. Its more a part of their increasing
> awareness of their own history. Blacks and Hispanics were not a part of
> it, and are not here, so they are never mentioned.
So the subject comes up very infrequently, but when it does, it is in
reference to old tribal tensions that don't exist in present day. I
think I'm clear now.
>>> Meth is so debilitating, their women are rarely fertile, so there are
>>> far fewer troublesome kids in school. The remaining population is more
>>> peaceful and more honest.
>>
>> "Their women are rarely fertile" refers to Osage & Lakota women?
> No, just referring to the local population; the moonshiner clans have
> gotten into meth.
That does indeed sound like a debilitating combination.
I can say that this small town effect is unnerving to urbanites. What
is considered an appropriate level of observation and watchfulness in
small towns is construed as prying and violation of privacy in urban
environments. This is not exactly breakthrough in knowledge, I frankly
just haven't talked to many people from rural areas about this sort of
thing -- there aren't as many of you as there are urbanites, and we city
boys certainly have a tendency to look down our noses at the backwoods
hill types. Part of my reaction to your posts is that it uncovered some
prejudices that I wasn't really aware of because I'm not often
confronted with them.
> Its a tough call as to when a community should step in to try to stop
> abuse as Mike mentioned, vs when everyone should just mind their own
> business. With a homogeneous population, if a kid acts differently, it
> gets noticed more and not attributed to unknown social values. We now
> also know that the beady eyed look in some family lines is not egzactly
> genetic, except for the markers related to alcohol abuse- which results
> in fetal alcohol syndrome.
>
> These DNA markers associated with substance abuse and violence presents
> a challenge to Christian dogma which had always maintained 'free will'
> and sin in need of salvation. Where to draw the line between what has
> been seen as sin worthy of damnation and psychopathology has not been
> reasonably worked out.
That wins the understatement of the year award I think. I don't have
personal contact with many fundamentalist Christians -- my urban
lifestyle allows me to avoid them as much as I choose, and I typically
choose to do so. But getting involved in Usenet again after years of
being away from it has exposed to the thought patterns of that group and
I find it disturbingly destructive. But I bear in mind that what I read
in newsgroups is not necessarily a representative sample. Far
otherwise, as in any media, the extreme minority probably tends to have
the loudest voice, which skews perception of the whole group.
Thanks for getting back to me. Do chat some more, I have enjoyed it.
-Xan
Doc Smartass
news:hmg1um$mhn$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> "Dr. Dumbass, Troll Extraordinaire" <gek...@astroskivviesboymail.com>
> wrote in message news:Xns9D2D81BA630F...@216.196.97.130...
Hey, no one's ever made fun of my nym before. Very original.
>> Wrong.
>
> Notice how the fraud REMOVES the citations from the Word that set the
> bounderies where the discipline of children is concerned, then goes on
> another of his satanic tirades, then says I'M wrong.
You're still wrong. You're also an asshole, but that's a different post.
AND...piss on your scripture. It's wrong, as well.
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling
aa # 1939
Religion: The operating system through which man tells gods what to do.
Ike E 3/11/2010
> Ike E 3/11/2010 wrote:
>> "Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:hnbkc0$jv3$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
[snip]
>>> It is a millstone around your neck, as surely as the one Christ talks
>>> about in Matthew 18 (KJV):
>>
>> Nonsense. Christ was talking about the persecution of His children, even
>> to the End of the Age (as John uses the same metaphor in Revelation).
>>
>> Now you're blaspheming.
>
> If you have the freedom to interpret the Bible to your own ends, I will
> remain free to have mine.
>
> My interpretation is that it is not blasphemy to be critical of a text
> written by humans to serve their own greedy, and nefarious IMO, ends.
Who are you trying to kid with this rhetorical bullshit?
Jesus was speaking of those who would harm His little ones, both literally,
and in the broad context of the believers.
Where do you get off misappropriating this statement to blaspheme the Word
itself?
And where did I ever "interpret the Bible to my [own] ends?" And what "ends"
would those be?
Ike
Geode
I share this idea with you, "the extreme minority probably tends to
have
the loudest voice, which skews perception of the whole group."
The general religious person, even in small towns, are more discreet.
But in a way, those extremists sometimes are at the head of theirs
churchs.
Anyway, most churches direction are collective. That what I think of
Mormons and other. By I never had been inside any of them.
Geode
Xan Du
> "Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:hne840$i0g$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Ike E 3/11/2010 wrote:
>>> "Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hnbkc0$jv3$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> [snip]
>
>>>> It is a millstone around your neck, as surely as the one Christ talks
>>>> about in Matthew 18 (KJV):
>>> Nonsense. Christ was talking about the persecution of His children, even
>>> to the End of the Age (as John uses the same metaphor in Revelation).
>>>
>>> Now you're blaspheming.
>> If you have the freedom to interpret the Bible to your own ends, I will
>> remain free to have mine.
>>
>> My interpretation is that it is not blasphemy to be critical of a text
>> written by humans to serve their own greedy, and nefarious IMO, ends.
>
> Who are you trying to kid with this rhetorical bullshit?
It may be rhetorical, but I'm not kidding -- I do actually believe that
statement to be true.
> Jesus was speaking of those who would harm His little ones, both literally,
> and in the broad context of the believers.
And in that broad context, I argue that the raping of virgins described
in Numbers 21, and other OT passages like that, are a millstone around
your own neck, and anyone else who claims the Bible to be literally
correct and 100% the word of God.
> Where do you get off misappropriating this statement to blaspheme the Word
> itself?
The same place you get off telling non-believers that they're
blasphemers -- difference of opinion, freely expressed under the
protection of our man-given Constitution and Bill of Rights.
> And where did I ever "interpret the Bible to my [own] ends?" And what "ends"
> would those be?
Lotsa different Christians interpret the Bible different ways. More to
the point, there seems to be a lot of selective interpretation of what
the Bible says. IOW, Christians seem to by and large cherry pick the
parts of the Bible they want to believe in, and ignore the things that
don't fit with their own personal or cultural view of morality.
-Xan
> Ike
>
>
Ike E 3/11/2010
> Ike E 3/11/2010 wrote:
>> "Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:hne840$i0g$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Ike E 3/11/2010 wrote:
>>>> "Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:hnbkc0$jv3$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>>> It is a millstone around your neck, as surely as the one Christ
>>>>> talks about in Matthew 18 (KJV):
>>>> Nonsense. Christ was talking about the persecution of His children,
>>>> even to the End of the Age (as John uses the same metaphor in
>>>> Revelation).
>>>>
>>>> Now you're blaspheming.
>>> If you have the freedom to interpret the Bible to your own ends, I will
>>> remain free to have mine.
>>>
>>> My interpretation is that it is not blasphemy to be critical of a text
>>> written by humans to serve their own greedy, and nefarious IMO, ends.
>>
>> Who are you trying to kid with this rhetorical bullshit?
>
> It may be rhetorical, but I'm not kidding -- I do actually believe that
> statement to be true.
>
>> Jesus was speaking of those who would harm His little ones, both
>> literally, and in the broad context of the believers.
>
> And in that broad context,
Here comes another deflection.
> I argue that the raping of virgins described in Numbers 21,
???
Where is there anything about "raping of virgins" described in Numbers 21?
> and other OT passages like that, are a millstone around your own neck,
> and anyone else who claims the Bible to be literally correct and 100% the
> word of God.
There are errors in the New Testament, to be sure, like the author of
Canonical Matthew attributing statements to Jesus that Jesus could never
have made, at least not in the way the author worded them, but I've found no
such thing in the Old Testament.
>> Where do you get off misappropriating this statement to blaspheme the
>> Word itself?
>
> The same place you get off telling non-believers that they're
> blasphemers -- difference of opinion, freely expressed under the
> protection of our man-given Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The US Constitution is irrelevant to the Word.
>> And where did I ever "interpret the Bible to my [own] ends?" And what
>> "ends" would those be?
>
> Lotsa different Christians interpret the Bible different ways.
Another deflection: What are my "ends?"
> More to the point, there seems to be a lot of selective interpretation
> of what the Bible says. IOW, Christians seem to by and large cherry pick
> the parts of the Bible they want to believe in, and ignore the things that
> don't fit with their own personal or cultural view of morality.
The Jesus Seminar most of all, which is why they do such a hatchet job on
the Bible, especially the New Testament.
But you still haven't explained what my "ends" are...
Ike
L.Roberts
wrote:
More of his pig ignorant stupidi-idiocy.
L.Roberts
Atheist
Xan Du
By you, as usual.
>> I argue that the raping of virgins described in Numbers 21,
>
> ???
>
> Where is there anything about "raping of virgins" described in Numbers 21?
Sorry, my mistake, Judges 21 (KJV). Here's rather lengthy excerpt
illustrating the cruelty and total disregard for human life of the LORD
of the OT:
7 How shall we do for wives for them that remain, seeing we have
sworn by the Lord that we will not give them of our daughters to wives?
8 ś And they said, What one is there of the tribes of Israel that
came not up to Mizpeh to the Lord? And, behold, there came none to the
camp from Jabesh-gilead to the assembly.
9 For the people were numbered, and, behold, there were none of the
inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead there.
10 And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the
valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of
Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children.
11 And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy
every male, and every woman that hath lain by man.
12 And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead four hundred
young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they
brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.
13 And the whole congregation sent some to speak to the children of
Benjamin that were in the rock Rimmon, and to call peaceably unto them.
14 And Benjamin came again at that time; and they gave them wives
which they had saved alive of the women of Jabesh-gilead: and yet so
they sufficed them not.
15 And the people repented them for Benjamin, because that the Lord
had made a breach in the tribes of Israel.
16 ś Then the elders of the congregation said, How shall we do for
wives for them that remain, seeing the women are destroyed out of Benjamin?
17 And they said, There must be an inheritance for them that be
escaped of Benjamin, that a tribe be not destroyed out of Israel.
18 Howbeit we may not give them wives of our daughters: for the
children of Israel have sworn, saying, Cursed be he that giveth a wife
to Benjamin.
19 Then they said, Behold, there is a feast of the Lord in Shiloh
yearly in a place which is on the north side of Beth-el, on the east
side of the highway that goeth up from Beth-el to Shechem, and on the
south of Lebonah.
20 Therefore they commanded the children of Benjamin, saying, Go and
lie in wait in the vineyards;
21 And see, and, behold, if the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance
in dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and catch you every man
his wife of the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin.
22 And it shall be, when their fathers or their brethren come unto us
to complain, that we will say unto them, Be favourable unto them for our
sakes: because we reserved not to each man his wife in the war: for ye
did not give unto them at this time, that ye should be guilty.
23 And the children of Benjamin did so, and took them wives,
according to their number, of them that danced, whom they caught: and
they went and returned unto their inheritance, and repaired the cities,
and dwelt in them.
Note the killing of children ... little ones. It is better that a
millstone be hanged around the necks of such people according to the NT
God speaking through Jesus Christ.
Now are you getting the point? Any more deflecting you wish to do?
>> and other OT passages like that, are a millstone around your own neck,
>> and anyone else who claims the Bible to be literally correct and 100% the
>> word of God.
>
> There are errors in the New Testament, to be sure, like the author of
> Canonical Matthew attributing statements to Jesus that Jesus could never
> have made, at least not in the way the author worded them, but I've found no
> such thing in the Old Testament.
Why then does not this omnipotent Creator of the universe correct the
Word? Seems like a trivial thing for such a being to do.
>>> Where do you get off misappropriating this statement to blaspheme the
>>> Word itself?
>> The same place you get off telling non-believers that they're
>> blasphemers -- difference of opinion, freely expressed under the
>> protection of our man-given Constitution and Bill of Rights.
>
> The US Constitution is irrelevant to the Word.
It's what gives you the freedom to believe in as you wish, Ike. It's
what also gives me the freedom to point out what a terribly horrifically
violent, archaic and irrelevant document it is.
If you want to live in an autocratic theocracy, think about which
version of which God you might have to live in. What if the Mormons
take over? Would you like that very much?
>>> And where did I ever "interpret the Bible to my [own] ends?" And what
>>> "ends" would those be?
>> Lotsa different Christians interpret the Bible different ways.
>
> Another deflection: What are my "ends?"
Loose, very very loose ends. As in not very well thought through, full
of logical gaps, cherry-picked beliefs, and borderline insanity. I'm
sorry to be so personal, but people such as you really try my naturally
occurring altruism and atheistic benevolence.
>> More to the point, there seems to be a lot of selective interpretation
>> of what the Bible says. IOW, Christians seem to by and large cherry pick
>> the parts of the Bible they want to believe in, and ignore the things that
>> don't fit with their own personal or cultural view of morality.
>
> The Jesus Seminar most of all, which is why they do such a hatchet job on
> the Bible, especially the New Testament.
I have no idea who the Jesus Seminar are. I have my own access to
Scripture, and do my own reading of it. My opinions of it are my own.
> But you still haven't explained what my "ends" are...
You have no coherent, logical goal so far as most of us can tell. Only
you can explain what your ends are. So far, you've not done a very good
job of it except to imply that you'd be happy to see atheists removed
from the United States so that you and your fellow followers of of a
2,000-6,000 year old book can live like Moses and his progeny in a
desert, raping virgin women and killing unbelievers.
-Xan
>
> Ike
>
>
Larry
news:hnmlcl$ljm$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> There are errors in the New Testament, to be sure, like the author of
> Canonical Matthew attributing statements to Jesus that Jesus could
> never have made, at least not in the way the author worded them, but
> I've found no such thing in the Old Testament.
>
>>>
They couldn't know what Jesus, if there ever was a Jesus, said because
they didn't start writing the books for 80 to 100 years, LONG LONG after
any kind of eye witness was long dead and gone who could have REFUTED
what the scribes wrote down at the direction of the clergy trying to
take over! Human males only lived to be about 35 two thousand years
ago! NO witnesses around you can write anything that's politically to
your advantage!
The Jesus/Bible time lines are NEVER discussed with christers. It's
just too obvious and embarrassing.
Ike E 3/11/2010
"Larry" <no...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9D3CECBED59...@74.209.131.13...
> "Ike E 3/11/2010" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:hnmlcl$ljm$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> There are errors in the New Testament, to be sure, like the author of
>> Canonical Matthew attributing statements to Jesus that Jesus could
>> never have made, at least not in the way the author worded them, but
>> I've found no such thing in the Old Testament.
>>
>>>>
>
> They couldn't know what Jesus, if there ever was a Jesus, said because
> they didn't start writing the books for 80 to 100 years
Oh, goodie: ANOTHER idiot making impossible statements.
1) Revelation, which is the best-dated book in the New Testament, was
written in c.96 AD.
2) Revelation incorporates major elements of the Gospel of Matthew: a) John
quotes him as an "angel" in the introduction (with modification), b) John
uses Matthew's infancy narrative (found ONLY in Matthew), c) John uses
Matthew's version of the Olivet Discourse for his chronological "scroll" in
three parts, d) John provides the resolution of the Beatitudes, ALSO only
found in the Gospel of Matthew.
3) Matthew's Gospel is an expansion of the real Matthew's log, and the
Gospels of Mark and Luke.
4) Luke's Gospel and Acts don't go as far as 1) the destruction of the
temple, 2) the move of the center of Christianity to Asia Minor (as John
does at the beginning of Revelation), 3) the martyrdom of Peter and Paul
(though he does document the martyrdom of Stephen and James bar Zebedee).
5) Luke's Gospel is based in part on Mark.
6) Matthew's "log" was written by Matthias the Replacement Disciple sometime
after the death and resurrection of Christ, but before the Gospel of Mark.
This rhetorical bullshit about the books of the New Testament being written
80 to 100 years after the first Advent of Christ isn't just improbable--IT'S
PATENTLY IMPOSSIBLE.
(Now Hebrews, 2 Peter, and Jude are a different matter.)
<chuckleth and snippeth>
Ike
Darrell Stec
>>I argue that the raping of virgins described in Numbers 21,
>
> ???
>
> Where is there anything about "raping of virgins" described in Numbers 21?
Good catch. The rape occurred in Numbers 31, but also in Judges 21.
--
Later,
Darrell
Darrell Stec
>>and other OT passages like that, are a millstone around your own neck,
>> and anyone else who claims the Bible to be literally correct and 100% the
>> word of God.
>
> There are errors in the New Testament, to be sure, like the author of
> Canonical Matthew attributing statements to Jesus that Jesus could never
> have made, at least not in the way the author worded them, but I've found
> no such thing in the Old Testament.
>
In that case try reading the OT again. This time with reading
comprehension. I have at least 100 contradictions and inconsistencies in
the OT. And quite a few in the NT where the writers quote OT prophets and
no such quote appears there.
--
Later,
Darrell
Xan Du
little mixed up by which awful thing is in which book. Pick a page is
sometimes a fun game, this kind of stuff is hard to miss.
-Xan
Larry
> This rhetorical bullshit about the books of the New Testament being
> written 80 to 100 years after the first Advent of Christ isn't just
> improbable--IT'S PATENTLY IMPOSSIBLE.
>
Let's play a while longer......
How do you explain away the ROMAN HISTORICAL RECORDS that make NO
REFERENCE to any "miracle man" who can walk on water, raise the dead,
convert water into wine, feed thousands with 2 fish, heal the sick and
dead....EXCEPT where Christers a hundred years later told them the dogma
and they wrote it down without much comment in Rome, itself?
If some little bearded guy in a dress could HEAL SICK AND WOUNDED ROMAN
SOLDIERS, he'd have been the richest Roman Jew on the PLANET and the
front page story on every "Roman Times" papyrus until the empire
crumbled! Yet, NONE of Pilates' bureaucrats thought to write down
anything about the man, the miracles, the crowds, the conviction, the
sentence, the hanging, the resurrection, the ghost
appearances....nothing! The records of who got hung and why of every
petty thief and political murder is recorded. Romans LOVED making
records and made vast libraries of them. Roman history is VERY well
documented in the Middle East/Palestine.
Why are people so intense on trying to find out as much as they can
about the origin of the human species, not even vaguely curious to find
out the truth about what some wavy-haired Baptist salesman in an Armani
suit and Rolex Oyster are telling them? It doesn't make SENSE!
Why didn't the Christers of 0-1AD write down anything "sacred", LIVE AS
IT HAPPENED?? There's not a single piece of papyrus that exists to even
make a note he ever existed? There HAS to be a reason "WHY?"
Those documents SHOULD have been the most closely guarded writing on the
PLANET! But, no, noone thought to right anything down? We have all of
Paul's letters, so SOMEONE was saving what was written, somewhere! Why
no LIVE, EYEWITNESS DOCUMENTATION OF EVERY BREATH OF THIS GOD-MAN? Why
wasn't there an artist drawing his picture as he was talking to
thousands of people in a cow pasture? If this man existed, that piece
of art would have been worth half the GDP of the Roman Empire! But, all
the artists' rendering of this man-god were hundreds to thousands of
years AFTER his death! Romans had thousands of really good artists
working around the clock! If YOU were a Roman artist, and one of your
captives could wave his hand over a dead body and make it alive again,
WOULDN'T YOU WANT TO SAVE HIS PICTURE FOR EVERY ROMAN IN THE EMPIRE TO
SEE?! Why didn't anyone draw his picture, make him a beautiful
painting??
Is it because it's all a MYTH created to enrich the ever-more-powerful
CLERGY and their POLITICAL AGENDA?!
"Hey, guys! If we create this myth, we can get money out of governments
and people! We'll be filthy RICH!"
We'll call it "Horus"....new group, "Zeus"....no, how about
"Judaism"...no wait, that's getting stale, how about "Jesus"....no,
"Islam"....Hey! How about us?, "Mormons"....We don't like them,
"Freemasons"....We got it! "Scientology"....no, how about
"HIV/AIDS"?....no, how about "Global Warming"....oops, it's getting
cooler, change that to "Climate Change". Does every generation have a
group of hoaxters creating some panic for the mass of fools to enrich
themselves and create a new religion to continue its enrichment?
How fucking stupid most humans are to let them do this SO OFTEN!
Larry
> 1) Revelation, which is the best-dated book in the New Testament, was
> written in c.96 AD.
>
> 2) Revelation incorporates major elements of the Gospel of Matthew: a)
> John quotes him as an "angel" in the introduction (with modification),
> b) John uses Matthew's infancy narrative (found ONLY in Matthew), c)
> John uses Matthew's version of the Olivet Discourse for his
> chronological "scroll" in three parts, d) John provides the resolution
> of the Beatitudes, ALSO only found in the Gospel of Matthew.
>
> 3) Matthew's Gospel is an expansion of the real Matthew's log, and the
> Gospels of Mark and Luke.
>
> 4) Luke's Gospel and Acts don't go as far as 1) the destruction of the
> temple, 2) the move of the center of Christianity to Asia Minor (as
> John does at the beginning of Revelation), 3) the martyrdom of Peter
> and Paul (though he does document the martyrdom of Stephen and James
> bar Zebedee).
>
> 5) Luke's Gospel is based in part on Mark.
>
> 6) Matthew's "log" was written by Matthias the Replacement Disciple
> sometime after the death and resurrection of Christ, but before the
> Gospel of Mark.
>
>
....and you ALL take this as if it were copied from one hard disk to
another, bit by verified bit, error and poltical change free, never
changing like a printing press makes duplicate newspapers.
EVERYTHING you're reading is the bastardized, politicized, clergy and
scribe modified copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy,
INTERPRETATION, changed to suit horrible, dispicable men in robes and
funny hats over CENTURIES to suit their current political needs to
INCREASE POWER AND PROFITS. That book you're quoting, over and over,
can't be even a shred of close to any lost original text of the original
writers after all those revisionists, hand copiers (scribes), Church
political hacks paying the scribes to write it "their way", changing
dogma to suit the political whims of the clergy elite over thousands of
years.....TRANSLATION after TRANSLATION. "Aeons" became "Ages" became
"The End of the World", for one example....as the end of the Age of
Pisces got too close, threatening the Church as the Age of Aquarius
draws near about 2150 AD.
Aren't you even curious as to what it ORIGINALLY said before the Clergy
got hold of it? Aren't you curious about the GLARING CONTRADICTIONS in
it...the calls for genocide, murder, armagheddon?....all doomsday
bullshit like global warming and AIDS and "terrorism" is used today?
Xan Du
any other Christian group you don't believe in likely think you're as
blind and stupid as you claim them (and us atheists) to be.
-Xan
Xan Du
believers. It's a natural thing to want to do. But damn frustrating to
watch, though sometimes entertaining.
-Xan
Day Brown
> Sure, I understand the inheritability aggressive vs. passive behavioral
> traits (or selfish vs. altruistic). But my question was directed more
> toward social and family dynamics: my hypothesis is that in rural areas
> where multi-generation families exist in tightly-knit communities,
> grandparents play a significantly positive role in guiding their own
> children through the child-rearing process. And also, the grandparent
> to grandchild relationship would seem to be beneficial as well.
>
> Assuming that there are, on average, "good" genetics and "good"
> child-rearing practices within the population.
to FL or AZ. "Epigenetics" says each generation receives a mirror image
of molecular tags on the DNA. As a result, the 1st & 3rd have the same
patterns. This explains some of the greater understanding they have, and
as one researcher put it, they both have a 'mutual enemy'.
Whatever Aryans became later, initially they were farmers in SE Europe.
The 5500 year old graveyard at Varna, Bulgaria, shows women averaged in
their mid 40's at death, which means they survived to be grandmothers,
and as you say, were there to play a "significantly positive role",
which freed younger women to take up new pursuits. Which had something
to do with the explosion of pottery and fabric technologies.
They also developed herbal birth control which stabilized the
populations and gave the adults more time to develop technologically.
The Varna graveyard, in stark contrast to those later, did not have any
kids in it, and forensic exam of the skeletons reveals they were all
well nourished all thru childhood.
Epigenetics was discovered by Swedish demographics which revealed a
curious pattern among the grandchildren of those who had suffered famine
in childhood.
> So those with more maladaptive genetic traits tend to move out of the
> rural areas into urban ones?
Since the maladaptive men have less economic support their women look to
the urban social safety nets. Conversely, in my neck of Ozark woods
there are more jobs for men who are physically fit, and the activity
tends to clear the mind. And while the timber, cattle, and farm work has
always been here, the opening of the Fayetteville shale natural gas
wells & pipeline construction has offered even more jobs for men.
Then too, the 'X-urbs' are buying land for 'hobby farms' that creates
jobs in landscaping, dirtwork, & construction- with support jobs in feed
mills, building supply, implement/tractor dealers & repair.
>>> Nearly everyone is a Caucasian/Cherokee mix, but they self-identify as
>>> "white"?
>> Formerly. It usta affect the ability to get a home loan. But recently,
>> People became proud of a native American heritage.
>
> Depending on how recent is "recently", I can see that some gov't policy
> changes may be at work on that point.
Last decade. The tribes that got gambling casinos has motivated others
to try to recover their tribal identity. There is some animosity on the
part of some Cherokee trying to recover their ancestral spiritual
traditions twards those who want to claim the tribal identity, but want
to remain Christian.
Day Brown
>> You, however, don't have a clue as to how it all fits together, which
>> would account for your satanic beliefs.
>
> Satan actually makes a lot more sense to me than God, he's at least
> consistently evil. God seems to waffle a bit. Not a good sign.
science, the Levantine mandate is to bury one's nose in the holy word.
For if it all is the result of 'the will of God', and that can change,
what good can come of science? So, he says they study the scripture to
try to extract the least bit of revelation.
And if they'd all stay there and do that, it'd be OK. But then, as you
have seen, lacking the powers of reason (which they have not tried to
improve on, as the Greeks suggested) they come here and display for all
to see, that irrationality.
And yes, as you've said, it is too bad. Therapy has not been effective.
But there is a lotta data now from brain chemistry to reveal why the
Fundies think (if that's the right word) as they do. It has a lot to do
with the intolerance of ambiguity Dr. Freud picked up on.
Whatever else scripture is, it claims to be virtual and unadulterated
truth. Which makes it attractive to those who see how conflicted and
complex modern times are.
The neurological explanation is that rearing kids on sugar cereals,
junkfood, and soda does not provide the trace minerals needed to
maximize mental development, with neural pathways running off in many
directions without the needed order. A lot of internal noise in brains
that as a result, just cant deal with it all.
Ike E 3/11/2010
[snip]
> Sorry, my mistake, Judges 21 (KJV). Here's rather lengthy excerpt
> illustrating the cruelty and total disregard for human life of the LORD of
> the OT:
All of this goes back to the sons of men/sons of God dichotomy, and the fact
that, before the Jews rejected Christ, the Gentiles were of no more
significance to God than any "barnyard animal," or, to use Jesus' term,
"dogs."
So God HAS no "regard for human life" TO BEGIN WITH.
So what does he care for the "beasts" He produced to achieve His desired
goal, which is to extract "gold" from an "ore" in the "crucible" of the
world?
See, the problem is not that the Word is wrong, but that you DON'T KNOW THE
WORD (and yet presume to sit in judgment on it).
[snippeth]
Ike
Ike E 3/11/2010
"Darrell Stec" <dar...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:808ds5...@mid.individual.net...
> Ike E 3/11/2010 wrote:
>
>>>and other OT passages like that, are a millstone around your own neck,
>>> and anyone else who claims the Bible to be literally correct and 100%
>>> the
>>> word of God.
>>
>> There are errors in the New Testament, to be sure, like the author of
>> Canonical Matthew attributing statements to Jesus that Jesus could never
>> have made, at least not in the way the author worded them, but I've found
>> no such thing in the Old Testament.
>>
>
> In that case try reading the OT again. This time with reading
> comprehension.
No, YOU try reading it again with comprehension, and comprehend this...
"The tree of life" = the lineage leading to "Israel."
The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" = THE GENTILES.
One tree was/is/will be fit for use, and the other fit for destruction.
You're whining over the destruction of some insignificant "branches."
> I have at least 100 contradictions and inconsistencies in
> the OT. And quite a few in the NT where the writers quote OT prophets and
> no such quote appears there.
You have nothing except your own vanity.
Ike
Ike E 3/11/2010
> "Ike E 3/11/2010" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:hnmvc0$41b$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> This rhetorical bullshit about the books of the New Testament being
>> written 80 to 100 years after the first Advent of Christ isn't just
>> improbable--IT'S PATENTLY IMPOSSIBLE.
>>
>
> Let's play a while longer......
>
> How do you explain away the ROMAN HISTORICAL RECORDS that make NO
> REFERENCE to any "miracle man" who can walk on water, raise the dead,
> convert water into wine, feed thousands with 2 fish, heal the sick and
> dead....
Which ones were in Jerusalem during the life and time of Jesus Christ?
> EXCEPT where Christers a hundred years later told them the dogma
> and they wrote it down without much comment in Rome, itself?
Because they weren't in Jerusalem during the life and times of Jesus Christ,
so someone had to tell them about it.
Now, what does your little irrelevant argument by inversion have to do with
the LITERARY FACT that there is NO WAY that ANY book of the New Testament
(except John's Gospel, and the spurious books of Hebrews, 2 Peter, and Jude)
could have been written later than c. 96 AD BECAUSE JOHN WAS USING MATTHEW'S
GOSPEL to construct Revelation (which came AFTER Luke's Gospel and Acts,
which came AFTER Mark's Gospel, which came pretty much AFTER most, if not
all, of Paul's epistles)?
Ike
Ike E 3/11/2010
> Larry wrote:
[snippeth]
> Turn that logic inward on yourself Ike.
No, Larry's proposal was pointless.
The LITERARY fact (without even getting into the content itself) is that
John USED Matthew's Gospel to construct Revelation, so there is no way ANY
books of the New Testament (except John's Gospel, and the spurious books)
were written at any time BUT the first century, pretty much just as
tradition has it.
> The Jews, Muslims, Mormons and any other Christian group you don't
> believe in likely think you're as blind and stupid as you claim them (and
> us atheists) to be.
They have no idea what's going on.
Neither do you.
Ike
Ike E 3/11/2010
> "Ike E 3/11/2010" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:hnmvc0$41b$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> 1) Revelation, which is the best-dated book in the New Testament, was
>> written in c.96 AD.
>>
>> 2) Revelation incorporates major elements of the Gospel of Matthew: a)
>> John quotes him as an "angel" in the introduction (with modification),
>> b) John uses Matthew's infancy narrative (found ONLY in Matthew), c)
>> John uses Matthew's version of the Olivet Discourse for his
>> chronological "scroll" in three parts, d) John provides the resolution
>> of the Beatitudes, ALSO only found in the Gospel of Matthew.
>>
>> 3) Matthew's Gospel is an expansion of the real Matthew's log, and the
>> Gospels of Mark and Luke.
>>
>> 4) Luke's Gospel and Acts don't go as far as 1) the destruction of the
>> temple, 2) the move of the center of Christianity to Asia Minor (as
>> John does at the beginning of Revelation), 3) the martyrdom of Peter
>> and Paul (though he does document the martyrdom of Stephen and James
>> bar Zebedee).
>>
>> 5) Luke's Gospel is based in part on Mark.
>>
>> 6) Matthew's "log" was written by Matthias the Replacement Disciple
>> sometime after the death and resurrection of Christ, but before the
>> Gospel of Mark.
>>
>>
>
> ....and you ALL take this as if it were copied from one hard disk to
> another, bit by verified bit, error and poltical change free, never
> changing like a printing press makes duplicate newspapers.
[yawn]
Bub, I'm not even getting into the CONTENT of the books--just the BASIC FACT
that, if John used the canonical Matthew in his "Revelation" (which he did),
then it's IMPOSSIBLE for ANY book of the New Testament (other than John's
Gospel and the spurious books) to have been written at any time but IN the
MIDDLE of the FIRST CENTURY.
That means that the "higher critics," in particular the frauds of the Jesus
Seminar, are completely full of shit (which probably explains why even the
higher critics are beginning to withdraw their support for the JBS ["Jesus
Bullshit Seminar"]--even THEY are beginning to figure out that the frauds
are not playing fair.
Ike
Xan Du
> "Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:hnmnqf$360$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> [snip]
>
>> Sorry, my mistake, Judges 21 (KJV). Here's rather lengthy excerpt
>> illustrating the cruelty and total disregard for human life of the LORD of
>> the OT:
>
> All of this goes back to the sons of men/sons of God dichotomy, and the fact
> that, before the Jews rejected Christ, the Gentiles were of no more
> significance to God than any "barnyard animal," or, to use Jesus' term,
> "dogs."
Right, so line by line, the NT fulfills the law of the OT, right?
<looking>
<looking furiously>
<frantically looking>
Nope. Nothing that says, chapter and verse, the Son of Man taketh away
this old law and replaceth it with this new one.
Zippo.
It's a real muddle, just the sort of thing you'd expect from a *human*
produced document in the age before Microsoft SQL's full-text indexing
technology.
Not at all what we'd expect an all-knowing deity to produce. Unless
his/hers/its intent was to confuse the tarnation out of us. Which might
be an argument I could buy, but so far I haven't met anyone kooky enough
to use it.
(Note to Slim, there's my best Duwayne Anderson impression. Lap it up.)
> So God HAS no "regard for human life" TO BEGIN WITH.
Yeah, I figured that one out. Thanks for the tip though.
On a serious note, life *is* fungible to an all-powerful deity that
created the whole universe. It's a consistent position, sort of like
those Jay Leno Doritos commercials, "Kill 'em all, I'll make more."
But from where I'm sitting, believing in no afterlife, knowing that when
I shuffle off this mortal coil that I become naught but worm food, life
is not so fungible. Those who are so casual about the taking of life
for God's purposes freak me out a little bit.
At least give me some credit here for balking at your position ... just
a little.
> So what does he care for the "beasts" He produced to achieve His desired
> goal, which is to extract "gold" from an "ore" in the "crucible" of the
> world?
>
> See, the problem is not that the Word is wrong, but that you DON'T KNOW THE
> WORD (and yet presume to sit in judgment on it).
>
> [snippeth]
>
> Ike
>
Well, I'm glad that I could yet again make you feel better about your
beliefs today. I am here to be evil after all, just as God intended me.
-Xan "Isaiah 45:7" Du
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
> How do you explain away the ROMAN HISTORICAL RECORDS that make NO
> REFERENCE to any "miracle man" who can walk on water, raise the dead,
> convert water into wine, feed thousands with 2 fish, heal the sick and
> dead....EXCEPT where Christers a hundred years later told them the dogma
> and they wrote it down without much comment in Rome, itself?
First of all, the Romans would not have bothered with Jewish
things and Jesus walked in Judea. Why would superstitious
Romans, who laughed at the idea of the Jews' "one god"
bother writing about Jesus, a common man to them, just
walking around preaching about being nice to others?
Secondly, there were many people claiming to heal and perform
magic, etc.. The difference is that Jesus' acts could not just
be chalked up to common trickery.
Thirdly, there is mention of His existence and the fact that
He had been executed and that there were people who
were claiming that He was alive.
The bottom line, is that it is the intentional ignorance
of atheists that lead to their conclusions. They don't
want to believe, so they go and read a couple of
atheist web pages and falsely call that research and
then think they have some new information, that no
Christian has ever seen and will certainly wipe out
the faith of them all and pretend that no one could
possibly respond to their nonsensical "facts". <chuckle>
Don't bother responding. I won't play your game.
Go do some actual research.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
Satan subtracts and divides. God adds and multiplies.
Ike E 3/18/2010
> Ike E 3/11/2010 wrote:
>> "Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:hnmnqf$360$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Sorry, my mistake, Judges 21 (KJV). Here's rather lengthy excerpt
>>> illustrating the cruelty and total disregard for human life of the LORD
>>> of the OT:
>>
>> All of this goes back to the sons of men/sons of God dichotomy, and the
>> fact that, before the Jews rejected Christ, the Gentiles were of no more
>> significance to God than any "barnyard animal," or, to use Jesus' term,
>> "dogs."
>
> Right, so line by line, the NT fulfills the law of the OT, right?
Bub, don't even PRESUME to teach me doctrine: You'll be licking your ass for
a week to get the bad taste out of your mouth.
And I know PRECISELY what the NT says: That the BELIEVERS overcome the
condemnation of the law that is pronounced against everyone by GRACE through
FAITH ("and that not of yourselves, lest any man should boast").
Now, as to whatever doctrinal bullshit the Morons, er, Mormon's taught you,
that's your problem, not mine.
And now that you've attempt to drag the subject OFF-TOPIC AGAIN, back to the
point:
All of this goes back to the sons of men/sons of God dichotomy, and the fact
that, before the Jews rejected Christ, the Gentiles were of no more
significance to God than any "barnyard animal," or, to use Jesus' term,
"dogs."
So the problem here is that you have no idea what the basis of the Bible is,
but you presume to judge God ANYWAY.
Ike
Xan Du
> "Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:hnpvo9$vrg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Ike E 3/11/2010 wrote:
>>> "Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hnmnqf$360$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> Sorry, my mistake, Judges 21 (KJV). Here's rather lengthy excerpt
>>>> illustrating the cruelty and total disregard for human life of the LORD
>>>> of the OT:
>>> All of this goes back to the sons of men/sons of God dichotomy, and the
>>> fact that, before the Jews rejected Christ, the Gentiles were of no more
>>> significance to God than any "barnyard animal," or, to use Jesus' term,
>>> "dogs."
>> Right, so line by line, the NT fulfills the law of the OT, right?
>
> Bub, don't even PRESUME to teach me doctrine: You'll be licking your ass for
> a week to get the bad taste out of your mouth.
I don't have as much incentive to study it anymore.
> And I know PRECISELY what the NT says: That the BELIEVERS overcome the
> condemnation of the law that is pronounced against everyone by GRACE through
> FAITH ("and that not of yourselves, lest any man should boast").
Citation?
> Now, as to whatever doctrinal bullshit the Morons, er, Mormon's taught you,
> that's your problem, not mine.
I can read for myself. Long before I quit, I had my own ideas about
what I was reading.
> And now that you've attempt to drag the subject OFF-TOPIC AGAIN, back to the
> point:
>
> All of this goes back to the sons of men/sons of God dichotomy, and the fact
> that, before the Jews rejected Christ, the Gentiles were of no more
> significance to God than any "barnyard animal," or, to use Jesus' term,
> "dogs."
Ok.
> So the problem here is that you have no idea what the basis of the Bible is,
> but you presume to judge God ANYWAY.
No, my reading of it differs from yours. Just like your reading differs
from other Christian sects you don't subscribe to. All your puffery is
in vain -- it really all comes down to that it's just your word against
everyone else's.
-Xan
> Ike
>
>