Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why Fundamentalism is Fundamentally Wrong
#21
So John, you are saying that either God or Moses was dishonest. On what basis? Guesswork? Do you think the commandments of God were not known in the world before Sinai? Notice why God said He chose Abraham to be his means of blessing the world:

"And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws." (Genesis 26:4; NKJV)

Abraham lived long before Hammurabi. The commandments and laws of God were known in Abraham's time. So who copied from whom? There is abundant evidence that the Sabbath was known thousands of years before Sinai, in a multitude of ancient cultures. How much else of the commandments of God must have been common knowledge before Hammurabi?

I have studied from many genuine, reputable Bible scholars--who were not tainted by the poison of modernist, faithless "higher criticism." I have studied in depth myself, the whole of the Bible. I am qualified to make the statements I make, because I know what I am talking about, and I always justify what I say by citing the Scriptural warrant for saying it. You cannot dispute what I say without disputing the Bible itself. That is why you are afraid to debate me.
Reply
#22
John,

I've taken a few courses last couple of years about OT theology, etc. What we find is the Jewish culture was influenced by their neighbors. Their language is borrowed, ancient Hebrew is really the same dialect as the Canaanites spoke( and the Greeks borrowed their alphabet from the Jews to an extent).

Some of the biblical parlance originated outside Israel. There are several "mental images" that were common in the ANE religious literature that the Jewish scribes used.

As far as Hammurabi's code, there are similarities and it wouldn't surprise me if some of it was transferred. Why not? It was a reasonable code for that era. The Jewish code was harsher in punishment in some respects

Ron,

No scholar would agree with you that Moses was before Hammurabi. Late date or early date Exodus, 13-15 century BC is it and Hammurabi was before then.
Reply
#23
Hammurabi was almost exactly 400 years before Moses.
Reply
#24
I did NOT say Moses was before Hammurabi, I said ABRAHAM was before Hammurabi (or on rechecking I should say they are generally regarded as being from about the same time; some say that Hammurabi was one of the kings who captured Abraham's nephew, Lot, whom Abraham then rescued), and the commandments and laws of God were evidently known even before Abraham. Please read Genesis 26:4 again: "And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws." (NKJV) And note again my argument from history that multitudes of ancient cultures apparently knew about the Sabbath, since so many of the most ancient languages have words for the seventh day of the week that either sound like Sabbath or mean "rest day." If the fourth commandment were known in the most ancient cultures, even before the first Babylonians, then wouldn't the other commandments have been known as well?

The Bible says that God wrote the ten commandments on tablets of stone with His own finger. This is the only direct, written testimony we have from God Himself. You are charging that either God copied from Hammurabi or Moses was lying and not inspired. Do you really have that much confidence in your scholarship that you are willing to maintain either claim? Such unbelief is truly daring.
Reply
#25
Ron,

The 10 commandments are a tiny part of Torah and I didn't say I think Yahweh borrowed that from Hammurabi. They aren't even part of the legal codex, there's no penalty there for noncompliance.

I do think the Jewish scribes could have accessed Hammurabi because it was a good code. The Jewish code is not identical, there are some similarities. Differences as well.

Something about the OT we need to consider. Jesus said He fulfilled the torah, the prophets and the writings. In fact, He heightened torah by adding onto it, then fulfilling that.

Yet, Jesus never owned slaves, Jesus was against the divorce procedures in torah, Jesus(outrageously so) associated openly with females, some bad ones. Yet in torah, a female could not be a witness for example, yet the NT has them as the first eyewitnesses to the resurrection.

What do I make of that? Lots of the legal codex was stuff God tolerated, not what He wanted. He put up with a lot to get Christ into the world. To see the OT legal codex as God's highest and best is to not get Jesus at all.

Jesus fulfilled the sections Yahweh had as the highest and best and you know what that added up to? It's in Leviticus. Love God and love your neighbor. Do that and you aren't violating anything else.

BTW, I don't get the Abraham reference. He would be 400 years before Moses, roughly when Hammurabi lived. He didn't document anything we're aware of though.
Reply
#26
I was thinking of starting a new thread but John's thread explains this quite nicely. S22

Pat Robertson: Don’t adopt sexually abused children that could grow up ‘weird’



Reply
#27
Palladin, the first four commandments detail what it means to love God. The last six commandments detail what it means to love your neighbor as yourself. This is the only part of the Torah that God wrote Himself with His own finger. It must mean much more than anything else in the Torah.
Reply
#28
(08-17-2012, 09:12 PM)Ron Lambert Wrote: Palladin, the first four commandments detail what it means to love God. The last six commandments detail what it means to love your neighbor as yourself. This is the only part of the Torah that God wrote Himself with His own finger. It must mean much more than anything else in the Torah.

Thanks for making my entire point in that one sentence Ron. S6S6
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#29
(08-15-2012, 11:14 PM)Ron Lambert Wrote: The Bible says that God wrote the ten commandments on tablets of stone with His own finger. This is the only direct, written testimony we have from God Himself. You are charging that either God copied from Hammurabi or Moses was lying and not inspired. Do you really have that much confidence in your scholarship that you are willing to maintain either claim? Such unbelief is truly daring.

I daresay a lot more. God, Moses, Abraham, scripture, everything you trust in so dearly is complete Scheiße.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#30
Ahh, the foibles of fundamentalism(pun intended). Now the much ballyhooed and trumpeted principle of "Conversion Therapy" is being shown for the Turkey it really is.

Quote:John Paulk made a name for himself in the 1990s as a so-called ex-gay who believed wholeheartedly in conversion therapy — the controversial theory that homosexuals can be counseled and “converted” to heterosexuality. Years later, he has reportedly left his wife and ministry and is now saying that he was gay all along.

For quite some time, Paulk was extremely vocal in the ex-gay movement. He founded a ministry called Love Won Out and was even featured on a 1998 cover of Newsweek with his wife, Daily Mail notes. But today, he’s singing a very different tune (his wife, Anne, though, also an ex-gay, is still reportedly a leader in the movement).

The Big Lie to all this is that religious fundamentalism refuses to recognize that there is a biologically genetic alteration to normal DNA, which causes homosexuality/bisexuality. To them this can all be prayed away.

And even worse is the conveniently swept under the rug fact that 100% homosexuality is a tiny portion of the movement. The overwhelming majority of 'so called' Gays(pun intended) are really bisexual to one degree or another. And this has given myopic Fundamentalism an opening to trumpet their mistaken belief that they can convert gays from one lifestyle to another.

But I was drawn to this part of the article:

Quote:“I will personally encourage people to boycott him until he rectifies some of the damage he’s done,” Bean said, calling for Paulk to go on a national tour to speak out against the ex-gay ministry. “This is damage he’s done to millions of kids — kids who tried to ‘pray the gay away’ and when they couldn’t, killed themselves.”

I have no idea just how many bisexual kids actually killed themselves out of frustration, but it is religious fundamentalism that is at least partially responsible for making promises based on Junk Science/faith. Its a huge religious con game that needs to be totally exposed for the fraud it is.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#31
John L, I have been patiently waiting for evidence that homosexuality is genetically caused, and I have not seen it yet. If in fact homosexuality is genetically caused, then it cannot be condemned morally any more than being short or having hemophilia could be condemned. Society still would have a responsibility to determine fairly and justly how homosexuals should be treated, whether they should be allowed to adopt children, etc.

I have read where a number of homosexual rights advocates claim that for them homosexuality is a choice only, and not a physical defect or illness. This contradicts the proposition that homosexuality is genetically predetermined. Thus homosexual advocates have been making contradictory claims.

It is obvious to anyone who believes the Word of God that homosexuality is not part of God's original ideal. When He created man, as a sexual creature with two genders, He said all His creation (including man) was "very good." (Gen. 1:31) If homosexuality is another example of God's ideal creation being marred and corrupted as a consequence of the sin of mankind, then that means homosexuals are victims of nature gone awry. If that is the case, then anyone who would seek to treat them the way God would, would treat them with tolerance and pity.

That does not give homosexuals leave to try to "recruit" straights to follow their lifestyle, nor does it give them the right to call same-sex unions "marriages" in the Biblical sense, because the Creator defined marriage as being a permanent union between one man and one woman. But again, tolerance would accord them the right to have some kind of legally-protected union if they feel this is necessary.

I do know of a case where a man was forcibly raped by a homosexual and made to believe that he was a "latent" homosexual, and thus was recruited into a homosexual lifestyle by being brainwashed. He later sought help directly from God, after he contracted AIDS, and claims that he was healed. He was healed of a disease that was an obvious complication of AIDS (he was hospitalized with pneumonia, and thought to be a day away from death), and the elders from the church came and annointed him in accord with James 5:14, 15, and the next day he was fully recovered and able to return home, and did not become ill again for another year, when finally he died. He also claimed that he was no longer a homosexual. After his death, his twin brother lent me his brother's diary to read where all this was detailed. I also had the testimony of many people in our church who befriended him. But he never really was a homosexual in the first place, he just thought he was. (His twin brother, by the way, is not homosexual.)
Reply
#32
John,

I think gay females sometimes are gay due to environmental factors and IF that is valid, then they probably can be gay or straight. I know a girl who will tell you she was straight as a stick, had a terrible father-daughter relationship, terrible marriage and then decided maybe a relationship with a girl was a wiser option due to perceived female empathy thinking and perception that all males are hateful a.ssholes.

Men typically aren't like that, so I think if you're gay, you're gay. I agree with you that genetics probably plays a role even in the female I am discussing. But, it is not 100% determinative.

I also think we all have X proclivities genetically.

I have genetic alcoholism proclivities. I also am not an alcoholic although I am borderline. How is that if I have the pre disposition via genetics? Because I have chosen not to be a drunkard so far, that's how, but, I want to be everyday.

Why is gay conduct or 1 million other desires different except it has become chic for gay folks to see their desires as normal? Even though it kills the gay male early based on US disease control data more than alcoholism?

Read the book by Jeffrey Dahmer's father, it will shed light on the combination of genetic pre disposition and human free will. It's an eye opener. It stunned me.



Factoring in the potential female difference from males I alluded to above(which may explain the difference between the male and female in your case above), I do not think genetic pre disposition can be "killed off". It can be managed.

Ron,

If you talk to most gay males, they are going to tell they came about that desire like we did liking girls and at the same ~ age. I know Christian gay males who struggle with this mightily because they've been raised to think they "chose to be gay" and it can change and it can't anymore than your own sin lust pattern is gone after you believed. Unless you are prepared to tell us you are now w/o sin, why would we expect a gay person to be?

The sole instance in the biblical text discussing WHY anyone is gay is Romans 1. Paul states "they" were handed over to various lust patterns which includes homosexual desires by Yahweh due to a group think of exceptional arrogance that led them to think more of the created than the creator. He basically gave them what they desired, a reversal of norms.

From "they" on, the sin nature has been passed down.

It's of interest who "they" is, but, another story.

Bottom line, not one word in biblical literature or human academia states that people arrive at the age we all do thinking of sex and make a calculated decision, "let's see here, Johnny looks better than Mary and Johnny turns me on or vice versa". To think that is so illogical.

You and I did not decide we liked Mary, we just did. As natural as can be, just like a gay person does. With the possible exception of some bi girls and scenarios like you develop above, which is outside the normal human psychological experience.

It's another false pseudo Christian tradition we have that says gay folks choose to be gay like that except for psychological problems we discussed.
Reply
#33
Outside of religion, facts can be laid down that stand alone.

As Ron noted, there has never been science behind Homosexuality having a genetic cause. There have been plenty of bad science, where a researcher lied about data, on purpose, to further an agenda.

The science which has not lied, is that behavioral psychology can explain a conversion process - to either create a dysfunction, or to heal it. We all know wife beaters so often come from a family history of abuse - that it is commonly accepted that there may be familial causes. However; the only research that has not been routinely debunked, is that it is experience and physical reinforcement that engenders the dysfunction - not genes.

John Paulk was not the sole example or even the poster boy of "healed gays." The phenomenon is documented - but so is persuading Straights into a gay lifestyle. Both things happen. The human psychology is adaptive enough for anything.
Reply
#34
The History Channel is putting out another series on the bible, ‘Bible Secrets Revealed’. This is almost certainly going to create a lot of friction within the Christian community, because the fundamentalist elements will almost certainly scream bloody murder. It should be interesting to follow.

For the record, I am skeptical of some things the History Channel puts out, so I will be looking at this with an open mind.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#35
William,

I don't know about scientific evidence relating to gay folks and genetics.


I didn't choose to be straight, I just got excited when I saw little girls and wanted to play football with little boys instead of with their privates. Why would a gay human find their sex orientation any other way than I did?

John,

You could watch stuff like that and get into available research online from various scholars. There aren't any fundy scholars. There are confessional and non confessional.
Reply
#36
Quote: I ... wanted to play football with little boys instead of with their privates.

Well, this is the problem with football...with soccer you can do both....and it is so much fun when you can land a ball into the opposite team's genitals.
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#37
(11-14-2013, 12:03 PM)mv Wrote: ...it is so much fun when you can land a ball into the opposite team's genitals.

You see both extremes in Soccer. It is the least abusive and physically demanding at the house-level (AYSO and other non-aggressive leagues) - yet at the travel-team level, the top athletes compete with extreme toughness. At the level I coached, my kids were drawn from a dozen different high schools, and were the cream of the crop. I had the one and two top state tennis players on the team - as well as the MVPs in track and other sports. They were sought after by football, baseball, wrestling, and basketball coaches.

On the other hand - if you've ever seen any episodes of Back in the Game, where James Caan is the reprobate old ball-player grandpa, the little league baseball team on that show is so similar to some house-level soccer teams I've seen, that it is scary. Funny, but scary.
Reply
#38
I thought this study was interesting. As the scientist says, it makes no good logic to him because he sees everything through a natural/science filter, but, it pretty much repeats the case Paul made in Romans chapter 1:18-20.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...tural.html
Reply
#39
(11-27-2013, 10:14 AM)Palladin Wrote: I thought this study was interesting. As the scientist says, it makes no good logic to him because he sees everything through a natural/science filter, but, it pretty much repeats the case Paul made in Romans chapter 1:18-20.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...tural.html

It makes perfectly logical sense, to me anyway. When one is surrounded by grandeur that is overwhelming, and not of human making, it is easy to think big. When one is constantly exposed to works of man, such as big cities, we tend to think along lesser lines.

This is why urban areas are more prone to Collectivist thinking, and large percentages of secularists. It is far easier to contemplate the "Heaven on Earth" possibility there.

That is why rural populations are more religious and conservative in nature. Perhaps we should outlaw cities? For our own good?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#40
No, even people in NYC can see the stars at night. Honestly, if one simply studies the human body it is mind boggling.

I think atheists are 1 of 2 things, folks who simply are sleep walking through life and don't want to deal with something like God that they can't eyeball and folks who have been led to atheism by life experiences.

If you're a big reader, check out "Lincoln's Struggle with God". He was an aggressive atheist similar to modern aggressive atheists for much of his adult life and he honestly had a good reason for it. Very late in his life did he arrive at belief.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)