| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/16/2005 03:34:41 PM · #951 |
For what it is worth, the Crusades were carried out in a time in which, in Western Europe, the Church was not only the spiritual authority but the secular one. The Church, basically, had all the power. The Crusades were a secular poilicy wrapped in a religious cloak. The fundamental problem they were dealing with in those days was the law of Primogeniture (inheritance by the first-born son).
At that time, there were very few options open to the sons of nobility; they could make a life in the church, or they could be soldiers. "Trade" was reserved for the lower classes. Education was solely the province of the Church, so all "science" was done by the Church, basically. There came a point in which Western society was suffering from an excess of battle, so to speak. Progress was being hampered by endless, petty wars fueled by warrior-princes with too much time on their hands and nothing to do with it but fight.
The Church, in its "wisdom", came up with a plan to direct all that aggression outwards through conquest, and created the Crusades against the "infidel" for that reason. A cynical person would call this "Church-supported population control"; the end result was beneficial to the Church (and by extension, to Western society) in a couple of ways, not least of which was a serious pruning-back of the second, third etc sons of nobility, simplifying all sorts of lines of succession.
Eventually we ended up with the "children's crusade", a particulkarly egregious example of this sort of approach.
All this is written off the top of my head, and is certainly a gross oversimplification. Don't ask me to back it up; the source materials DO exist but I'm not motivated to dig them up :-)
Robt.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 03:37:00 PM · #952 |
I did not take that one from either book, but just by common-sense. Islam is monotheistic religion that appeared after Christianity, and since it had similarities other than being monotheistic, it attributes the same powers to the god.
Notable difference between the two is the lack of idolizing of anything other than the god itself in Islam. There are no other creatures or entities that are celebrated. Mohamed was a prophet and the same role is given to Jesus. There are no pictures of anyone in Islam, the faith is what people exclusively concentrate on.
From what I understand (again from looking outside the boxes), Islam prescribes slightly different rules of behavior, it does not deny the existence of the above mentioned. |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 03:39:42 PM · #953 |
I must say, I just want to be a part of such a good rant. I am glad we can all bicker about this and perhaps those who have put in their two cents and it was "against this" homosexual union.... if things keep going this way - your opinion may some day not even be a liberty. Think about it.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 03:39:46 PM · #954 |
Originally posted by res0m50r:
The government needs to develop a way to seperate marriage from civil union. |
Get the IRS to change two categories to
Civilly Unified -- Filing Jointly
Civilly Unified -- Filing Separately
and have all the state forms/licenses read "Civil Union" for all couples -- expunge "marriage" from the statutes in every single instance and replace with "civil union "and you solve most of the problems. I have no problem with "marriage" being whatever the religious group the couple belongs to wants it to mean, but as far as the state and Federal governments go, make every statute "gender-blind" (attn: Justices Thomas and Scalia -- this is just like making them "race-blind") and this problem goes away.
You just can't have it both ways -- either everyone can get married or everyone must contract in a civil union -- Brown vs Board of Education (1954) determined that "separate [accomodations] is inherently unequal" and thus in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 03:40:27 PM · #955 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
I did not take that one from either book, but just by common-sense. Islam is monotheistic religion that appeared after Christianity, and since it had similarities other than being monotheistic, it attributes the same powers to the god.
Notable difference between the two is the lack of idolizing of anything other than the god itself in Islam. There are no other creatures or entities that are celebrated. Mohamed was a prophet and the same role is given to Jesus. There are no pictures of anyone in Islam, the faith is what people exclusively concentrate on.
From what I understand (again from looking outside the boxes), Islam prescribes slightly different rules of behavior, it does not deny the existence of the above mentioned. |
Well, the significant difference is that Islam does not accept the divinity of Christ; they accept Him as a prophet, but not as the only Son of God.
Robt. |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 03:42:14 PM · #956 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Originally posted by res0m50r:
As others have requested of me I would hope you have some proof to go along with your claims in regards to Islam. The rest of your post is your opinion and in that we differ. |
Gladly. What specifically do you want me to address. I've grown up in a secular country, with very rich catholic/orthodox/islamic influences, slightly slanted towards the west. I've learned about the religions from secular history books, and read from both the Bible and Qur'an. I haven't read them whole, actually read a very small percentage of both, but I've read about them a lot.
The facts I listed here are historical observations about the history of the europe and near east, from ~5th to ~15th century. I don't think that I suggested any undeniable holy truths, just the independently verifiable (read: you can find these in both western and eastern libraries) facts.
Please point out something that you consider dogmatic or hear-say or otherwise questionable. As you may have noticed, and according to the etymology from this thread, I can be classified as agnostic, with interest in religion from a philosophical viewpoint. So, I think that I can act impartially and reason without prejudice.
Let me know what would you like to question in my observation? |
Originally posted by srdanz:
he would have known that Islam, as a religion that started after christianity, recognizes christianity, believes that it is the same god that both books talk about, and above all, was spread without killing people. |
I was specifically talking about this claim, which was stated as fact. I found the rest of your post to be opinion related and wanted a sources to reference in regards to that specific sentence.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 03:47:55 PM · #957 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
I do not question that the people in the Bible may have lived, in fact I am pretty sure they did. BUT what I am disputing is that the things written by man that are supposed to have happened, did so. And that the stories were not just political and social spin.
Please tell me more about the wood with Goliath on. Sounds interesting! |
I can't help you with your dispute and/or belief that the writtings are not devinely inspired, and are merely political or social spin. That is a personal matter for each to decide. As I stated, I feel certain that in the archives of the Vatican, there lies your evidence (or lack of).
Regarding your interest in the Goliath find, it is in current events and should be in your local newspaper.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 03:48:03 PM · #958 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by res0m50r:
The government needs to develop a way to seperate marriage from civil union. |
Get the IRS to change two categories to
Civilly Unified -- Filing Jointly
Civilly Unified -- Filing Separately
and have all the state forms/licenses read "Civil Union" for all couples -- expunge "marriage" from the statutes in every single instance and replace with "civil union "and you solve most of the problems. I have no problem with "marriage" being whatever the religious group the couple belongs to wants it to mean, but as far as the state and Federal governments go, make every statute "gender-blind" (attn: Justices Thomas and Scalia -- this is just like making them "race-blind") and this problem goes away.
You just can't have it both ways -- either everyone can get married or everyone must contract in a civil union -- Brown vs Board of Education (1954) determined that "separate [accomodations] is inherently unequal" and thus in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. |
The parts of marriage that are civil in nature can be soley part of a civil union. If I decide to get married and want the civil union provided by the United States I will apply for both, but seperately. I believe that to be a fair agreement between all parties. If I want to be married without the benefits or consequences of a civil union that is a choice I make. The government would no longer sponsor marriage with a civil union amendment, thus the violation would no longer exist.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 03:48:26 PM · #959 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by scalvert:
So if Wendy says that Peter Pan is real, then that qualifies as proof? |
No, no, scalvert. Tinkerbell is alive because we believe in fairies and give evidence of belief by applauding. According to the sacred works of J.M. Berry, you have your confused your theology. Heretic! |
That was James Matthew Barrie ... |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 03:50:26 PM · #960 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Riponlady:
I do not question that the people in the Bible may have lived, in fact I am pretty sure they did. BUT what I am disputing is that the things written by man that are supposed to have happened, did so. And that the stories were not just political and social spin.
Please tell me more about the wood with Goliath on. Sounds interesting! |
I can't help you with your dispute and/or belief that the writtings are not devinely inspired, and are merely political or social spin. That is a personal matter for each to decide. As I stated, I feel certain that in the archives of the Vatican, there lies your evidence (or lack of).
Regarding your interest in the Goliath find, it is in current events and should be in your local newspaper. |
//msnbc.msn.com/id/9997587/
Just a quick search in Google provide this as one of the results. This is the first I have heard of it so I can not speak on its accuracy.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 03:51:19 PM · #961 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Regarding your interest in the Goliath find, it is in current events and should be in your local newspaper. |
Goliath find.
Robt. |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 03:56:37 PM · #962 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
There are many many articles on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Josephus, a first century historian has presented evidence of "Christ" being an actual living being near the times recorded in scripture. |
There are FAR more artifacts from ancient Egyptian cultures (which pre-date any concept of Christianity by thousands of years). The Egyptians considered their Pharaohs to be divine (similar to other early cultures like the Inca). We know the Pharaohs existed in real life (heck, we even have some of the bodies), but their existence is not verification that the religious beliefs were factual, no matter how many written references you may find. Knowing that Davy Crockett really existed isn't evidence that he killed a bear at the age of three.
Originally posted by Flash:
...I would suggest you consult with ...The Orthodox Jews in Israel, or the Vatican. |
I spent 10 days in and around the Vatican earlier this year. It's an amazing place filled with amazing history and artifacts. Multiple paintings of St. George slaying a dragon aren't very satisfying as evidence of real events though. |
Not sure I get your point here. It appears that you are claiming that since other cultures have provable history and religion, that the Bible is no more accurate as a religious text than the Pharoh's of Egypt. You can believe that if you choose. That is one of the options from Scripture. Choice. Salvation is dependent upon an active choice. Therefore, one can also choose not to believe.
Regarding your time spent at the Vatican, in the 10 days you were around there, did you get to visit the archives from the 1st century? Did you do any translations? Did you visit with any of the numerous scholars who have spent their entire lives dedicated to their research?
If not, then I doubt that your "experience" around the Vatican brought you into contact with the evidence that I was alluding to in my earlier post to RiponLady.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 04:02:42 PM · #963 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
All this is written off the top of my head, and is certainly a gross oversimplification. Don't ask me to back it up; the source materials DO exist but I'm not motivated to dig them up :-)
Robt. |
There's a current/recent series on The Crusades, I think on Discovery Channel or one of that ilk. |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 04:07:56 PM · #964 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by Flash:
Regarding your interest in the Goliath find, it is in current events and should be in your local newspaper. |
Goliath find.
Robt. |
Thankyou. I had thought it was a piece of wood, however it appears it was a piece of pottery.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 04:10:32 PM · #965 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by scalvert:
So if Wendy says that Peter Pan is real, then that qualifies as proof? |
No, no, scalvert. Tinkerbell is alive because we believe in fairies and give evidence of belief by applauding. According to the sacred works of J.M. Berry, you have your confused your theology. Heretic! |
That was James Matthew Barrie ... |
DOH!! Mea culpa!! Mea culpa!! |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 04:11:08 PM · #966 |
On advent and spread of Islam:
//www.pbs.org/empires/islam
-Serge |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 04:12:03 PM · #967 |
| : ) Mea culpa is a Latin phrase and should be italicized ... sorry, I've had no sleep, and needed an excuse to post a limerick I wrote : ) |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 04:17:51 PM · #968 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Riponlady:
You.....keep saying the Bible is fact! That it is factually correct. I have asked before and ask again,how do you know?
P |
Not sure if your are asking this rehtoricly, as a non-believer or to shore up your own personal faith. A magazine titled: Biblical Archeological Review (I believe monthly) has for years published articles by leading scholars and archeologists pertaing to this very question. There are many many articles on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Josephus, a first century historian has presented evidence of "Christ" being an actual living being near the times recorded in scripture. And of course there are continued findings like the recent piece of wood with the name Goliath. Originally posted by Flash:
[quote=Riponlady]I do not question that the people in the Bible may have lived, in fact I am pretty sure they did. BUT what I am disputing is that the things written by man that are supposed to have happened, did so. And that the stories were not just political and social spin.
Please tell me more about the wood with Goliath on. Sounds interesting! |
I can't help you with your dispute and/or belief that the writtings are not devinely inspired, and are merely political or social spin. That is a personal matter for each to decide. As I stated, I feel certain that in the archives of the Vatican, there lies your evidence (or lack of).
Regarding your interest in the Goliath find, it is in current events and should be in your local newspaper. |
Thank you for such a helpful response about the Goliath " wood" which is in fact the name Goliath on a piece of pottery which only proves that the name Goliath was in use at this time.
Obviously your "local newspaper" didn't get its fact right when you read about it.
Unfortunately the Ripon Gazette only deals with Ripon events and the Daily Telegraph must have felt there were more important international news to report that day than a piece of pottery being dug up in the Middle East. Silly them, they were probably writing about people dying!
P
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 04:20:35 PM · #969 |
Thank you, honestly ,Bear and ReSom50r for you link so I could read about this event.
Sorry I lost my rag with Flash but offering this as proof, and then just telling me I should have read about itin my local news, made me bite!
P
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 04:25:41 PM · #970 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
: ) Mea culpa is a Latin phrase and should be italicized ... sorry, I've had no sleep, and needed an excuse to post a limerick I wrote : ) |
How do you know I don't speak fluent Latin and expected the same of you? Hmm? Hmm?
P.S. Please, please, please don't ask me if I speak Latin fluently. Let it remain a grand mystery. |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 04:30:18 PM · #971 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
[quote=GeneralE]P.S. Please, please, please don't ask me if I speak Latin fluently. Let it remain a grand mystery. |
Que tacit consentis
I would never pretent to speak Latin, but I know a lot of Latin and Greek word roots. |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 04:37:27 PM · #972 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by milo655321:
[quote=GeneralE]P.S. Please, please, please don't ask me if I speak Latin fluently. Let it remain a grand mystery. |
Que tacit consentis
I would never pretent to speak Latin, but I know a lot of Latin and Greek word roots. |
Is a "pretent" in any way related to a "portent", or is it the condition you find yourself in before you have erected your overnight shelter?
R. |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 04:39:02 PM · #973 |
No, it's pretending to be a typo -- I've had 0 hours sleep last night -- hence no temporary accomodations needed.
Message edited by author 2005-11-16 16:39:52. |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 04:48:23 PM · #974 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by milo655321:
[quote=GeneralE]P.S. Please, please, please don't ask me if I speak Latin fluently. Let it remain a grand mystery. |
Que tacit consentis
I would never pretent to speak Latin, but I know a lot of Latin and Greek word roots. |
LOL! I will see your que tacit consentis and raise you one qui tacet consentit! |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 04:53:25 PM · #975 |
Originally posted by pidge:
res0m50r, or RonB or someone who accepts the bible as fact: You must believe the world is only a couple million years old, correct? How do you explain the overwhelming evidince that supports the earth's true age to be about 4.5 billion years old? I'm just curious. We've already been through Noah's ark and Ron mentioned something a ways back about why people could live to be 600 years old. I'm just wondering. |
I'll comment on a couple of lines that have come and gone recently, at the same time as I take a shot at this (sort of in the spirit of Matthew(leaglebeagle)'s commentary on rights (which was well done).
First of all, concerning Joshua's recent statements, I think maybe what he's trying to say (I haven't read the discussion he linked last yet) is that whatever the real truth is (and he and I believe its contained in the Bible, others believe its contained in science texts, others....), whether or not you believe it is truth does not change its character - it still remains the truth.
For example, I was watching Nova last night, and this week's episode was on Isaac Newton. Apparently, according to Nova (and they made at least one mistake, so maybe I'm on slippery ground), prior to Newton, it was believed that "white" light was pure, and that passing that light through a prism altered or changed the light, creating colored light. Newton proved that white light was actually the combination of the various colors of the spectrum. (I hope I haven't mangled the facts or the terms too much here.)
Now, before Newton's discovery, "white" light was composed of the full (?) spectrum of colors. Before the Romans, before the Greeks, before the Egyptians, before the Mesopotamians, the real truth was that white light contained the entire spectrum of color, no matter what people thought, beleived, or could prove or disprove at their particular point in history. Newton's discovery didn't change the truth, simply revealed it.
So, if the Bible is true, it does not matter whether you can prove or disprove its contents. For you to believe and accept it as true, that may be required, but it does alter that truth. Likewise, if there is no God, if the physical realm is all there is, then the Bible is completely false and useless, and all my faith is pointless. (In fact, even Paul wrote that if Christ did not rise from the dead - a core of the Christian faith and Bible doctrine - that we are to be most pitied.)
I do agree, as has been pointed out, that proving the Bible's truth using scriptures is not valid as proof of its authenticity. I've personally tried to only bring up specific scriptures in response to "where does it say...?" type questions or challenges, and I think that this is true in most cases in this thread for others as well.
********************************
Now, as far as the question of the age of the universe, the earth, and the 6 days of creation, there is what I thought was a very interesting book that I picked up a few years ago, called Creation and the Big Bang. Before you think: "Oh great, another pseudo-scientific peice of propoganda put out by some evangelical Christian", this book is written by a secular Jewish man with, at least, acceptable scientific and academic credentials. (I don't recall his "bonafides", and my copy of the book is packed in a box at the moment, but as I recall he is a physicist, and the back cover at Amazon addresses him as Dr.)
He basically rethinks the whole origin of the universe (and the earth), reconciling the physics of a "big bang" event with the Genesis creation account. And he finds a harmony between the two. While I'm nowhere near qualified to do justice to his arguments, and it has been a few years since I read it, a key peice of how you "fit" 15 billion years of our physical universe within six days of creation all falls within the Theory of Relativity - that as you approach the speed of light, time decreases. So think of a stationary God, creating the universe. He speaks, and the universe is created and expands forth from Him. As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, uses "light" as descriptive and representative of God. Now the creation account is told from God's perspective - the perspective of the "light". So if everything began at that speed and immediately began slowing down, and has been slowing down ever since (which I believe is supported by current science), then "time" (which is relative, depending on your vantage point) at the point of creation moved much slower, particularly when observed from our current "perspective" or speed. We look back from our relatively slow speed, with time stretching through billions of years, back to the beginings of the universe and see billions of years spanned in what really took days - from God's perspective. Its also interesting that as you consider the events that occured in the six days, the represent decreasing periods of time (from our perspective) since our speed was continually slowing and approaching where we are today.
I've probably butchered this, so please don't tear my brief description apart or accept it as an accurate or complete (or even understandable)explaination of the work in this book. I'm simply trying, from a rusty memory, to give one piece of the whole which specifically addresses the time discrepency between the biblical age of the earth and current scientific observations. If you are honestly interested in considering whether the Bible can be reconciled with science, this is well worth the read (and quite readable as well).
******************************
There's one other issue I wanted to try to tackle, but I'm having trouble getting it down. It relates to the manner many of the "debates" in this thread have come about and the course they've followed, but this response is getting way too long as it is, so I'll save it until I can come up with a better explanation.
Originally posted by pidge:
Oh yah, and to open another can of worms, someone mentioned everything the bible has predicted has come true. Uhm, what were those predictions and what's in store for us next? |
I'm not sure that this exact claim has been made, but I briefly state what I believe the case is:
There is an overwhelming amount of prophecy in the Bible that has come true. I'll personally give a little and say that some of what is accepted as "fulfilled prophecy" may be open to interpretation. However, there are many which are stunningly clear and accurate, and the mathematical odds of them coming true, in combination, is quite staggering.
On the other hand, one can't say that "everything the bible has predicted has come true", since some of it applies to things that have not come to pass yet. In answer to your question, there are probably lots of opinions on that. One person I heard a year or so ago (a reporter for, I think, CBS radio, who has been stationed in Israel for many years) said that he believes, based on his readings of some of the Old Testement prophets that the next event on the "prophetic timeline" is an attack and/or war on Israel by the Arab countries. Of course, the possibility of that doesn't exactly take divine inspiration. Beyond that, I'm sure you've heard of the whole "anti-Christ" thing. Well, based on most scholars reading of prophecy, that's on the horizon.
Originally posted by pidge:
Thanks!
Oh yes, and gays should be allowed to marry! Wait I already said that. Never mind |
Quite often. :) |
|
