No, that's not my point. My point is that the Greatest Generation which accomplished so much, grew up in a Christian centered world. They were surrounded by the Bible and Christian philosophy, and that generation was very successful. Some say the most successful generation. So if Christianity is so harmful, it didn't seem to harm them or stifle their creativity or thirst for knowledge.
What about the generation that went through the civil war? Were they not Christian? How about the generation that burned witches? I would submit that "greatest" generation just did what they had to no different than any other generation. Are you suggesting that current generations could not rise to the task today?
How did king Saul die? Well, it depends on which bible story you choose. In the 31 chapter of 1Samuel, we are told he kills himself, but in the 1 chapter of 2Samuel, he is slain by an Amalekite. 1Samuel 31:4-6 4 Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it. 5 And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise upon his sword, and died with him. 6 So Saul died, and his three sons, and his armourbearer, and all his men, that same day together. 2 Samuel 1:2-10 2 It came even to pass on the third day, that, behold, a man came out of the camp from Saul with his clothes rent, and earth upon his head: and so it was, when he came to David, that he fell to the earth, and did obeisance. 3 And David said unto him, From whence comest thou? And he said unto him, Out of the camp of Israel am I escaped. 4 And David said unto him, How went the matter? I pray thee, tell me. And he answered, That the people are fled from the battle, and many of the people also are fallen and dead; and Saul and Jonathan his son are dead also. 5 And David said unto the young man that told him, How knowest thou that Saul and Jonathan his son be dead? 6 And the young man that told him said, As I happened by chance upon mount Gilboa, behold, Saul leaned upon his spear; and, lo, the chariots and horsemen followed hard after him. 7 And when he looked behind him, he saw me, and called unto me. And I answered, Here am I. 8 And he said unto me, Who art thou? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite. 9 He said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me: for anguish is come upon me, because my life is yet whole in me. 10 So I stood upon him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen: and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord.
The original claim - which I disagree with and am addressing - was that Christianity is bad and dangerous and should not be taught in school in any manner. For the first 200 years, the USA was awash in Christianity and yet it managed to become the wealthiest, most powerful, most admired nation in the world and in modern history. Obviously, Christianity cannot be that bad. As for the current crop of Americans, its hard to tell what they are capable of. If you believe the generational theory (such as Strauss and Howe), then the Millenials are the modern generation which will go through the "crisis" phase and emerge as the new "Greatest Generation". Of course that also means that everyone older than Millenial is part of the problem.
I would argue that our constitution was the mechanism that generated our success. Our civil war was largely due to the south using the bible to defend slavery, which is biblical.
'Many' perhaps take The Bible literally cover to cover, but not most. The majority of Christians understand that some is history, some is command, some is suggestion and some is allegory. IMO its a personally interpreted text. Christians would do well to stop adopting an authoritarive interpretation and leave the meaning of The Word between themselves and God.
I am not arguing that Christianity was the reason for the nations success (although a very strong argument can be made - including that the Constitutional ideas were rooted in part in Christian concepts). The claim was that Christianity is dangerous and bad, I am pointing out that for the first 200 years of the USA, Christianity permeated every aspect of American life and America managed to become the most successful nation in modern history and perhaps in all of history. American's success contradicts the claim that Christianity is bad and dangerous. That's absolutely false on both counts. Slavery was not the reason for the Civil War. The North was as deep in slavery as the South - who do you think transported so many of those slaves to the South, and profited off the slave labor which fed raw material into the Northern industrial system? Read Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery, reprinted in 2006 (and it was written by NE liberals, before you start whining about biased revisionism from Southerners) And note that Lincoln repeatedly wrote that he would not oppose slavery if the South would return to the Union, until the Emancipation Proclamation which only freed slaves in the South, not the North - Lincoln hoped the slaves in the South would revolt. And Lincolns own view was that the slaves should be returned to Africa, not allowed to live in America. <> The New Testament rejects slavery, that's obvious to anyone who reads the New Testament. Pauls letter to Philemon is a rebuttal of the concept of slavery. People today apply modern attitudes to the 1st century AD and expect the new Testament to unequivocally condemn slavery and demand it be ended. That's totally out of context. In the 1st century the entire world was slave owning, it was accepted as the normal way of life, there was no "equal rights" movement or concept - it was impossible to directly condemn slavery and demand it end immediately. The "Golden Rule" (which was also in the Old Testament) itself was at the time a radical thought to propose to the world, but embedded in it was the idea of the elimination of slavery. Learn some history.
I know the history. The north and south were in dispute over slavery. The south seceded, which initiated the war. Being that your god was to inept to make slavery a sin and forbid it, it is no wonder it was widespread. The truth is that the Bible was of men who wanted slavery. No, the NT does not reject slavery. Perhaps you should study history and the Bible without rose colored glasses.
Jesus didn't send the demon into the swine, he allowed the demon to go into the swine, after the demon asked to be allowed to go into the swine. Dogs are much cleaner than sheep or cattle. The "clean" issue is just the Jewish "belief". Kosher. Some on this thread are like the Pharisees that tried to trick Jesus with the law. Asking about stoning someone for adultery....and another one about who a woman would be married to in heaven if she had been married to more than one man. These people don't want to know the truth, they just want to trick others. The TRUTH IS GOD, and they don't want to see the truth. The "God particle" is what gives all atoms mass. No one knows how it works, or ever has seen one, but science know it exists, just like they know that dark matter and dark energy exists. None of these people have seen an atom, but they "believe" what science says. If they don't, they are just refusing the truth, which is the same as refusing the existence of God. People are afraid of what they can't understand...it makes them feel stupid. But stupid is refusing to learn.
Ridiculous! The Civil war was about corporations in the north making profits off the raw materials in the south. So the South tried to secede and build their own factories. Lincoln knew that the north would go bankrupt if that happened. "My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861. "I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so," Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year. https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/abraham-lincoln-said-war-was-over-taxes-not-slavery.95262/ This is what Lincoln really thought of slaves...... "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.” https://markii.wordpress.com/2007/02/19/racist-quote-by-abe-lincoln-happy-black-history-month/
There was a ongoing battle to not allow new states to have slavery. The south saw the writing on the wall and chose secession.
More false claims. You do not know the history of the Civil War. Read E. P. Alexander's (if you know anything about the Civil War, you know who he is) memoirs, which were never intended to be published, in the first few chapters (which cover the year leading up to the war) you will find he discussed with both Southerners and Northerners the issues, and almost never did slavery come up not even with his fellow Northern military officers - it was always about states rights and the Constitution. An edited version was published in 1906, his actual memoir was published in 1998, you can get them on Amazon. Alexander's memoirs were validated through comparison with the memoirs of the officers he mentioned. Get educated, but I'm guessing that actual education is more than you will stand. The same with the Bible. None of your posts in any of the Christianity threads indicate even a cursory understanding of the Bible or Christianity.
Many religions specify works that individuals must do in order to gain god's good graces. Even in branches of Christianity where acceptance of Jesus is the gateway requirement there is an expectation of behavior - meeting with other Christians, chastity, witnessing to those one meets, etc. These are the important works that would be rewarded by god in heaven. The rewards mentioned in the bible aren't conferred based on the accomplishments of a church - they are conferred based on the works of the individual. Other religions can be even more focused on works as the way to please god.
The significant progress ingovernment included an independent judiciary, balance of powers, separation of church and state, rights of individuals - all totally foreign to the bible. Let's remember that in some of our colonies taxes were paid to the dominant religious authority. They lost that as states of the US. Christianity didn't bring us our government innovations any more than it brought us the theory of evolution (given the religious beliefs of those involved).
You are correct about the Demons being allowed to go into the swine. My poor choice of words doesn't change a thing. The pigs were receptive to the demons and the demons knew it. That is the point I made. Jesus did not degrade the gentiles. Show me where -The "God particle is what gives all atoms mass" is alluded to anywhere in scripture. In no way do I buy into the New Age Metaphysical. My response is to the "godless" and how they interpret Matthew 7:6. In no way was Jesus referring to the gentiles when He said "Cast not your pearls before swine". He of course was referring to demons. Sometimes demons possess the bodies of Gentiles or others. Perhaps even here on this thread! You share a little of the Gospel with them, and they do try and tear you to pieces. They initiate these threads to do exactly that! The Gospel of Jesus stands on it's own. Let them swing at the air!
Can we get back to the subject of this thread? Contradictions and the viability of the Bible. If you don't believe the Bible need be inerrant to be viable, that's ok, but can we have honest discussion concerning these discrepancies?
Those passages do not contradict, but they do conflict and are evidence of two different versions of Hebrew history cleverly edited and weaved together. Actually, it's "Do not murder" (the correct literal translation). The root is clearly R-Tz-Ch, which means to take a life with pre-meditation usually with malice aforethought and for personal profit or gain. That can be contrasted with the root for the verb "kill" H-R-G which means to take a life through negligence and is distinguishable from the root M-O-T, which means to slay. If you want to look at contradictions, then how many times did Jesus go to Jerusalem? Matthew, Mark and Luke state that Jesus went to Jerusalem once and only once, while John contradicts them. John claims that Jesus went to Jerusalem twice: the first time to over-turn the tables of the money-changers in the Temple and the second time to be judged. If you analyze the gospels, you'll see that John often contradicts the other three.
I am definitely going to refute your post. No where does it state anywhere" Jesus went to Jerusalem once and only once." In Luke 2:41 It says " Every year his parents went to Jeruusalem for the feast of the Passover. When He was 12 years old....." then it describes his parents losing sight of Him. In those days, families included extended families and they traveled in large caravans for protection. He probably walked along, in this large caravan visiting various Aunts Uncles and cousins (maybe even John the Baptist). Personally, I can imagine how Joseph and Mary overlooked him for a while. Along the way, Jesus had to see the crosses with dying and decaying bodies as an example of defying the Roman Army.. That was just the conditions of the times. Just because a certain Gospel doesn't record the same thing, does not mean it didn't happen. We have four Gospels in the Bible. Praying men, obedient to the Holy Spirit, selected those Gospels because they were not "repetitive" but had different emphasis. Some will say Matthew was written with a Hebrew influence, Mark was written with a propensity toward power and authority to appeal to to appeal to those in power, Luke was written by Paul's Physician where his influence was more on the healing and miracles of Jesus, John explains the purpose of Jesus and appeals to the World at large. It is descriptive of "Who" Jesus is. A real seeker will learn an indefinite amount when he studies all four. Your thou shalt not kill interpretation is right on the money!
I do not believe so. God gave free will and appears to have been ready for less than 100% obedience rate. I have never seen an adequate and compelling explanation of why god did what he did that is based on the bible. That is itself interesting in that religion is pretty much the exploration of "why" questions. Yet, the answers seem to stop at "because of god", and not why god did it.
That is what I said. Religions can put into practice works, but it's not a requirement. Just being religious does not mean one does works, or good works. It is not a requirement of religion.
Sorry, I do not understand what this has to do with explaining why an inerrant book would have errors ... almost by definition a sacred text with errors would require interpretation And then we get to a place where humans are judged on conformity to a book that they may have erroneously interpreted So then we humans are placed in a situation where we are forced to interpret a book which not only has errors we must correctly detect, but this book also does not conform to common sense or logic. How are we expected to reliably extract celestial truth? Which means that we are surrounded by preachers who can say almost anything and justify that teaching "because of god who transcends all human understanding"
Ok. But, if one believes heaven is closed if specific works are not adequately executed, then I suggedt they may be considered required. I agree that there could be a system of religious belief in which one can do or not do whatever one wants and still be completely square with that sysfem of belief. But, that sounds rare to me.
