Christian Discussion Thread V

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No, that's entirely untrue. We DO know that zombies didn't roam Jerusalem, that the sun never just decided to hang around for an extra day, and that the world wasn't entirely covered in water up to the mountain tops less than 10,000 years ago.

History directly contradicts a number of Biblical claims.

Yeah, I don't know where you're getting the zombies from, but there is evidence of a global flood, such as geological strata with marine fossils in them found in continental areas. As for Joshua's battle (I assume that's what you mean when you mention the sun thing), I don't entirely know about that. It's possible that God could have simply made it appear as though no time were passing, but again, I'm not 100% sure.

No, we don't have evidence of a global deluge event happening.

We have, at best, evidence of a regional deluge happening.

[TomKirk]

Well there are actually non-biblical sources of some of the historical events you mentioned happening, like historians such as Josephus and Tacitus. But anyways, I'm not talking about supernatural events; I believe those based on the reliability of biblical texts. My point is that The Book of Mormon directly contradicts what we know about history; the Bible mentions some things we don't know about history outside of the Bible, but it never directly contradicts it.

No, that's entirely untrue. We DO know that zombies didn't roam Jerusalem, that the sun never just decided to hang around for an extra day, and that the world wasn't entirely covered in water up to the mountain tops less than 10,000 years ago.

History directly contradicts a number of Biblical claims.

Yes, yes, not everything in the Bible is true. But there are several books (Kings especially) which soberly chronicle events which did actually occur: it is the oldest long connected historical narrative that we have from anywhere. The point about the Book of Mormon is that NOTHING it says is true, not one thing.

[Gim]

No, that's entirely untrue. We DO know that zombies didn't roam Jerusalem, that the sun never just decided to hang around for an extra day, and that the world wasn't entirely covered in water up to the mountain tops less than 10,000 years ago.

History directly contradicts a number of Biblical claims.

Yes, yes, not everything in the Bible is true. But there are several books (Kings especially) which soberly chronicle events which did actually occur: it is the oldest long connected historical narrative that we have from anywhere. The point about the Book of Mormon is that NOTHING it says is true, not one thing.

Well, some might be true, because they copied some of the Biblical text.

[Czechanada]

No one should feel offended or "stung" by statements that basically amount to "you should not have sex". Chastity is a very good thing. For many people (including all who are gay, but probably an ever greater number who are straight), chastity is their calling. There are precisely two Christian approaches to sexuality - chastity and marriage - and although marriage is the right one for the majority of people, the minority who are called to chastity is not tiny. It is, in fact, a sizable minority.

There have been Christian societies in history where 10-20% of the population was engaged in the monastic life (as monks and nuns). I would guess that the proportion of people for whom chastity is the correct approach hovers somewhere in that interval - ten to twenty percent (and note: you don't have to be monastic to live in chastity).

To live in chastity is a great and holy thing. The fact that our culture abjectly devalues the chaste life is a tragedy. Actually, it's more than a tragedy, it's an outrage. Christians should be actively - indeed, aggressively - celebrating chastity as a noble way of life. We should be aggressively pushing back against our hyper-sexualized culture, against the notion that you need to be having sex to be happy, against the idea that having sex is a measure of personal or social success. We need to celebrate - widely and openly - the call to chastity, especially in the form of the monastic life.

As a social theorist, I have to state that a such sexually repressive dogma is precisely why we have a "hyper-sexualized culture" (when it really isn't.)

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Yeah, I don't know where you're getting the zombies from, but there is evidence of a global flood, such as geological strata with marine fossils in them found in continental areas. As for Joshua's battle (I assume that's what you mean when you mention the sun thing), I don't entirely know about that. It's possible that God could have simply made it appear as though no time were passing, but again, I'm not 100% sure.

No, we don't have evidence of a global deluge event happening.

We have, at best, evidence of a regional deluge happening.

As someone pointed out to me before, there is actually somewhat of a difference between a world wide flood vs a Global Flood.

[Grave_n_idle]

No, that's entirely untrue. We DO know that zombies didn't roam Jerusalem, that the sun never just decided to hang around for an extra day, and that the world wasn't entirely covered in water up to the mountain tops less than 10,000 years ago.

History directly contradicts a number of Biblical claims.

Yes, yes, not everything in the Bible is true. But there are several books (Kings especially) which soberly chronicle events which did actually occur: it is the oldest long connected historical narrative that we have from anywhere. The point about the Book of Mormon is that NOTHING it says is true, not one thing.

The fact that the Bible does describe SOME historical events does not mean that it's historically reliable. In fact, quite the opposite - being historically reliable would mean you can rely on it, and when it's just as likely to start suggesting that you can influence the colours of your pets by feeding them patterned food, it's not 'reliable'.

[Grave_n_idle]

Yeah, I don't know where you're getting the zombies from,

Matthew 27:52-3.

...but there is evidence of a global flood

There really isn't.

It's possible that God could have simply made it appear as though no time were passing, but again, I'm not 100% sure.

So the Bible is accurate, but God lies?

Sorry, but the scripture says the sun stopped. It doesn't say it 'looked like' it. Besides, I'm pretty sure that, even in biblical times, people could tell the difference between a day being 24 hours long and being 36-48 hours long.

[Grand Calvert]

Yeah, I don't know where you're getting the zombies from,

Matthew 27:52-3.

...but there is evidence of a global flood

There really isn't.

It's possible that God could have simply made it appear as though no time were passing, but again, I'm not 100% sure.

So the Bible is accurate, but God lies?

Sorry, but the scripture says the sun stopped. It doesn't say it 'looked like' it. Besides, I'm pretty sure that, even in biblical times, people could tell the difference between a day being 24 hours long and being 36-48 hours long.

a.) Okay, so more supernatural things happened. I don't get what you're trying to say. My point was that there were hundreds of witnesses to those resurrections, wheras with the Book of Mormon Joseph Smith was the only witness.

b.) You didn't address the evidence I posted, i.e. marine fossils in continental areas around Earth

c.) Please show me the verses you're referncing about the sun

[Grave_n_idle]

a.) Okay, so more supernatural things happened.

No, they didn't.

The fact that someone CLAIMED they did is a large part of why it's not a reliable historical document - they had an editorial policy that allowed just any old crap - you can't rely on that.

I don't get what you're trying to say. My point was that there were hundreds of witnesses to those resurrections,

No, there were not hundred of witnesses to those resurrections. One verse in one text that claims Jerusalem was full of zombies CLAIMS there were loads of witnesses. That's not the same thing, at all.

...wheras with the Book of Mormon Joseph Smith was the only witness.

You've not researched it, have you? Joseph Smith doesn't claim to be a witness - he just transcribed it. And there are a dozen witnesses to that part.

Would you say that Angels lie?

b.) You didn't address the evidence I posted, i.e. marine fossils in continental areas around Earth

That's not evidence of world-wide flood. That's evidence that low ground can become high ground over a long enough period of time. Any geologist could have told you that.

c.) Please show me the verses you're referncing about the sun

Joshua 10:12-3 "Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day."

It's the same chapter as God intervening directly and throwing rocks at people.

(But not the same chapter as the much more amusing story about god not being able to defeat an army if they have iron chariots. )

[Jochistan]

No one should feel offended or "stung" by statements that basically amount to "you should not have sex". Chastity is a very good thing. For many people (including all who are gay, but probably an ever greater number who are straight), chastity is their calling. There are precisely two Christian approaches to sexuality - chastity and marriage - and although marriage is the right one for the majority of people, the minority who are called to chastity is not tiny. It is, in fact, a sizable minority.

There have been Christian societies in history where 10-20% of the population was engaged in the monastic life (as monks and nuns). I would guess that the proportion of people for whom chastity is the correct approach hovers somewhere in that interval - ten to twenty percent (and note: you don't have to be monastic to live in chastity).

To live in chastity is a great and holy thing. The fact that our culture abjectly devalues the chaste life is a tragedy. Actually, it's more than a tragedy, it's an outrage. Christians should be actively - indeed, aggressively - celebrating chastity as a noble way of life. We should be aggressively pushing back against our hyper-sexualized culture, against the notion that you need to be having sex to be happy, against the idea that having sex is a measure of personal or social success. We need to celebrate - widely and openly - the call to chastity, especially in the form of the monastic life.

As a social theorist

Like with a degree above a bachelors and everything?

[Menassa]

So? how does saying, "you are who you are, just don't fuckin' do it" make it sting any less?

That's a fundamental charge of Christianityband Judaism: you're sinful by nature, don't sin.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Judaism states that people are sinful by nature. More that people struggle with doing good and rejecting evil.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

That's a fundamental charge of Christianityband Judaism: you're sinful by nature, don't sin.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Judaism states that people are sinful by nature. More that people struggle with doing good and rejecting evil.

Yes. And so would the vast majority of Christendom. Only the Calvinists would call humans totally depraved. However if sin weren't part of the nature of humanity, they wouldn't sin. It's not incorrect to assert that humans have a sinful nature, it would be wrong to assert that's the only aspect of their nature though.

[Menassa]

I wouldn't go so far as to say Judaism states that people are sinful by nature. More that people struggle with doing good and rejecting evil.

Yes. And so would the vast majority of Christendom. Only the Calvinists would call humans totally depraved. However if sin weren't part of the nature of humanity, they wouldn't sin. It's not incorrect to assert that humans have a sinful nature, it would be wrong to assert that's the only aspect of their nature though.

Human's having a sinful nature is not the same as the nature of human's is sinful.

[Czechanada]

As a social theorist

Like with a degree above a bachelors and everything?

Yes.

[New confederate ramenia]

No one should feel offended or "stung" by statements that basically amount to "you should not have sex". Chastity is a very good thing. For many people (including all who are gay, but probably an ever greater number who are straight), chastity is their calling. There are precisely two Christian approaches to sexuality - chastity and marriage - and although marriage is the right one for the majority of people, the minority who are called to chastity is not tiny. It is, in fact, a sizable minority.

There have been Christian societies in history where 10-20% of the population was engaged in the monastic life (as monks and nuns). I would guess that the proportion of people for whom chastity is the correct approach hovers somewhere in that interval - ten to twenty percent (and note: you don't have to be monastic to live in chastity).

To live in chastity is a great and holy thing. The fact that our culture abjectly devalues the chaste life is a tragedy. Actually, it's more than a tragedy, it's an outrage. Christians should be actively - indeed, aggressively - celebrating chastity as a noble way of life. We should be aggressively pushing back against our hyper-sexualized culture, against the notion that you need to be having sex to be happy, against the idea that having sex is a measure of personal or social success. We need to celebrate - widely and openly - the call to chastity, especially in the form of the monastic life.

As a social theorist, I have to state that a such sexually repressive dogma is precisely why we have a "hyper-sexualized culture" (when it really isn't.)

This sexually repressive dogma is dominant in society?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Yes. And so would the vast majority of Christendom. Only the Calvinists would call humans totally depraved. However if sin weren't part of the nature of humanity, they wouldn't sin. It's not incorrect to assert that humans have a sinful nature, it would be wrong to assert that's the only aspect of their nature though.

Human's having a sinful nature is not the same as the nature of human's is sinful.

I don't see a difference

[Czechanada]

As a social theorist, I have to state that a such sexually repressive dogma is precisely why we have a "hyper-sexualized culture" (when it really isn't.)

This sexually repressive dogma is dominant in society?

Yes, but not in the way that you think, or the type of sexual repression that Constantopolis is arguing for. The best way to explain is that it is an unconscious sexual repression that exists in private.

[New confederate ramenia]

This sexually repressive dogma is dominant in society?

Yes, but not in the way that you think, or the type of sexual repression that Constantopolis is arguing for. The best way to explain is that it is an unconscious sexual repression that exists in private.

So, it isn't cultural? What would life be like without it? Is it entirely private, or is it more outspoken?

[Menassa]

Human's having a sinful nature is not the same as the nature of human's is sinful.

I don't see a difference

Humans having a sinful nature implies that there can be a nature of good deeds as well (which there is)

The nature of humans being sin implies total depravity.

[Gim]

I don't see a difference

Humans having a sinful nature implies that there can be a nature of good deeds as well (which there is)

The nature of humans being sin implies total depravity.

Yes, that is the marked difference.

Nature of humans being sinful means there is no possibility for human nature to be pure and virtuous.

[Kruatogon]

Well there are actually non-biblical sources of some of the historical events you mentioned happening, like historians such as Josephus and Tacitus. But anyways, I'm not talking about supernatural events; I believe those based on the reliability of biblical texts. My point is that The Book of Mormon directly contradicts what we know about history; the Bible mentions some things we don't know about history outside of the Bible, but it never directly contradicts it.

No, that's entirely untrue. We DO know that zombies didn't roam Jerusalem, that the sun never just decided to hang around for an extra day, and that the world wasn't entirely covered in water up to the mountain tops less than 10,000 years ago.

History directly contradicts a number of Biblical claims.

Zombies.. What an innapropriate name for the holy people who rose back to life. A zombie is merely a mindless, carnivorous walking corpse, while true resurrection puts the soul back to the dead and then probably fully regenerates the body...

It is possible that God didn't flood the WHOLE world;instead, he could have flooded the populated areas.

Oh, and God can do whateve He wants. He could make sun hang around for a hundred years, if He wants to.

Meh...

[The Princes of the Universe]

No, we don't have evidence of a global deluge event happening.
We have, at best, evidence of a regional deluge happening.

As someone pointed out to me before, there is actually somewhat of a difference between a world wide flood vs a Global Flood.

In a time where very few people ever found themselves more than 20 miles from home on any long-term basis, a regional deluge might as well have been a global deluge to them.

[Efraim-Judah]

(Image)

Isn't INC Arian?

[Efraim-Judah]

You can take your 1700 years of Roman Paganism and move aside. ^_^

Funny enough paganism doesn't, and continues not to exist.

All the while polytheism actually has.

Yes it does.

[Gim]

(Image)

Isn't INC Arian?

I think it's a cult.