What will be this centuries WW2?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


The pharisees are not a minor faction, but one of the two main groupings at the time. They happen to be the grouping that led to rabbinic Judaism, the ancestor of modern Judaism. I know JC couldnt anticipate (oops, Im not sure if what i just said could be seen as anti-christian ) but reading the document, those lines are troubling. They dont make the NT antisemitic. But when i look at other elements that are more supercessionist, they add to my discomfort with the overall book.

and of course the individuals were Jews. But christianity as expressed by Paul certainly distinguishes the Church (including those Jews who followed JC) from the rest of "old" Israel. Im not sure how much each gospel does.

If Christ wasn't against the Pharisees.. how would he be revolutionary?

JM

[KrazyHorse]

The pharisees are not a minor faction, but one of the two main groupings at the time. They happen to be the grouping that led to rabbinic Judaism, the ancestor of modern Judaism.

And if rabbinic judaism was precisely the trend JC was against...? How does that make the NT antisemitic? Secondly, even the Pauline epistles are written at a time when Christianity is viewed by both Christians and the more "orthodox" (not in the modern sense) Jews as a sect within Judaism. The NT is not against Judaism, it's against the "unreformed" (again, not in modern sense) Judaism, and particularly against a trend within Judaism toward hierarchical authority. Ironically, of course, the religion founded on the NT ends up being more hierarchical than Judaism ever aspired to.

"Jesus" (or, at least, the Jesus presented in the NT) preached an anti-authoritarian slant based on Jewish theology. Jews who did not accept the new message were, of course, going to be cajoled by the people who viewed them as wayward brothers. The pharisees, who presented the aspect of Judaism most antagonistic to a figure like Jesus, were going to get the worst of it.

That doesn't make the writing anti-semitic. The main actors in the story all saw themselves as Jewish. Christianity would have a hard time being antisemitic in such a time period.

[Sandman]

and never mind the fact that China's population is actually shrinking just now

China's population is still growing.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


I think this comes down to more of an issue of your limited wit. Again, another completely irrelevant analogy...

The analogy pretty well shows that it's hard for people to think further then what they see and can understand. But if you want to do it without an analogy, that's fine with me.

[Velociryx]

Sandman...yep, I stand corrected, the rate of growth has been shrinking (indicating that their laws are working) but it's still positive (0.59%). My bad, and thanks for the correction!



-=Vel=-

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by CyberShy


The analogy pretty well shows that it's hard for people to think further then what they see and can understand. But if you want to do it without an analogy, that's fine with me.

There is a difference between not being able to understand what there is insufficient data to understand, and just making up a fairy tale to fill the gaps - which is what religion is...

[Robert]

The fact that there are gods invented to fill the gaps doesn't mean that there's no God.
And the fact that we were able to fill some gaps (maybe even most gaps) with science, doesn't mean that we can fill all gaps with science.

You too much faith in science and you judge God too much on human failure.

That makes your believe in science a "science of the gaps" believe system. Which makes you one of us

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by CyberShy
The fact that there are gods invented to fill the gaps doesn't mean that there's no God.
And the fact that we were able to fill some gaps (maybe even most gaps) with science, doesn't mean that we can fill all gaps with science.

Doesn't mean there is a God either. However I don't try to fill the gaps, I exercise patience. Its worth the wait to find out methinks

You too much faith in science and you judge God too much on human failure.

I don't have faith in science, I just don't believe the first thing that is told to me. I suppose I axiomatically exercise scientific method - but this is as a philosophy rather than a religion. For me to accept something it needs to be proven, and all authority is open to rigorous scrutiny.

That makes your believe in science a "science of the gaps" believe system. Which makes you one of us

I'm not going to even dignify that with a proper response Ah sod it, I will. This is a matter of you projecting your belief system onto me. In reality, it just doesn't work like that

[Son of David]

I can't resist



Why do only Matthew and Luke know of the virgin birth?

Of all the writers of the New Testament, only Matthew and Luke mention the virgin birth. Had something as miraculous as the virgin birth actually occurred, one would expect that Mark and John would have at least mentioned it in their efforts to convince the world that Jesus was who they were claiming him to be.

The apostle Paul never mentions the virgin birth, even though it would have strengthened his arguments in several places. Instead, where Paul does refer to Jesus' birth, he says that Jesus "was born of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3) and was "born of a woman," not a virgin (Galatians 4:4).

Why did Matthew include four women in Joseph's genealogy?

Matthew mentions four women in the Joseph's genealogy.

a. Tamar - disguised herself as a harlot to seduce Judah, her father-in-law (Genesis 38:12-19).

b. Rahab - was a harlot who lived in the city of Jericho in Canaan (Joshua 2:1).

c. Ruth - at her mother-in-law Naomi's request, she came secretly to where Boaz was sleeping and spent the night with him. Later Ruth and Boaz were married (Ruth 3:1-14).

d. Bathsheba - became pregnant by King David while she was still married to Uriah (2 Samuel 11:2-5).

To have women mentioned in a genealogy is very unusual. That all four of the women mentioned are guilty of some sort of sexual impropriety cannot be a coincidence. Why would Matthew mention these, and only these, women? The only reason that makes any sense is that Joseph, rather than the Holy Spirit, impregnated Mary prior to their getting married, and that this was known by others who argued that because of this Jesus could not be the Messiah. By mentioning these women in the genealogy Matthew is in effect saying, "The Messiah, who must be a descendant of King David, will have at least four "loose women" in his genealogy, so what difference does one more make?"

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html

[Jon Miller]

Those 4 women are also big in the OT.

And the virgin birth is more miraculous than the raising of Lazurus? Or feeding the mulitutudes? Or even making the blind see?

All of the different accounts include some things, and not others. It would make sense that some would not find the birth to be that important (especially if they were trying to tell about His life).

And how would the virgin birth have assisted Paul's arguments? (I admit to not having read Paul in a few months)

Jon Miller

[Alex Woehr]

Re: Provost Harrison

The problem is that you do not understand CyberShy's definition of faith. When ever we humans take an action or believe something with an expected outcome, we do it for the following reasons:

A) We are 100% sure we are right about the expected outcome (stupidity or ignorance), or
B) we are mostly sure about the expected outcome, but not quite because we are aware of the amount of uncertainty surrounding that action (faith).

For example, suppose someone steps outside to get to her car, since she needs to go to work that day. She starts out as A), expecting to get to work. As she walks to her car, she suddenly realizes that there is a possibility she might die in a car crash. She has no way of knowing what the possibility of that occurring is since she is not aware of the factors influencing it. She eventually decides to go to work anyway, because she has children at home who need food and so forth, and she assumes that the probability of the car crash is low because it hasn’t happened yet. She has actually acted in faith, in this case faith in the sobriety of the other individuals on the road. You, by rejecting theism, have placed your faith in a materialistic universe by definition. In actuality, there is no axiomatic difference between a philosophy, a religion or, for that matter, any ideology except in the specific axioms which are accepted. CyberShy (and I, for that matter) accept the idea of theism and reject materialism as an incomplete description of reality, and you reject the idea of theism because, in your opinion, there is not enough proof to believe in God. There is also a spiritual aspect of faith, but in deference to you, I will not elaborate .


My apologies for the threadjack.

[Tsar_of_Cows]

I think the defineing moment will be when Oil out-prices gold, and only millionarres can afford to drive petrol cars anymore.

[Provost Harrison]

Well I think it is time we started to emphasise alternative fuels for vehicles a little more...with increases in efficiency and increases in crop yields genetic modification can bring us we should be able to solve this problem - coupled with synthesising plastics from organic sources. Fuel production and use integrated into the carbon cycle The big bogeyman that is GM may actually become our saving grace in terms of being able to get the sufficient yield required.

[chequita guevara]

Gobal warming is going to cause mass migrations from the coasts, massively disrupt the economy, and cause resource wars to break out all across the world. Rather than there being one great massive war, there will be dozens of genocidal brushfire wars across the Earth . . . except in North America.

[Flip McWho]

And New Zealand, preferably.