John A. Broussard

1. Slaves have the option of either obeying or not obeying their master.

2. If they obey, they are rewarded.

3. If they do not obey, they are punished.

4. God desires us "to have a loving relationship with him," i.e., obey her/him/it by having that loving relationship.

5. Those who have a loving relationship are rewarded.

6. Those who do not are punished.

Please explain to me where my argument is erroneous. I've numbered my statements to facilitate your explanation.

Jack the Bodiless

As for Tyre:

Well, the Tyre thread is probably the proper place for this, but THIS thread has a complete set of links to the Farrell Till / Matthew Horgan discussion on this, back on page 1 (which you should have read by now), and you are simply repeating Horgan's mistakes.

Let's look again at Till's summary of what NEBUCHADNEZZAR (specifically) was supposed to do:
Now, it's rather obvious that the shift to THEY refers to HIS (Nebuchadnezzar's) horsemen, wagons, chariots etc. More importantly, however, HE (Nebuchadnezzar) FAILED to carry out the actions prophesied for HIM. The siege, described as HIS action, is supposed to succeed: HE is supposed to break down the towers, enter the gates, trample the streets, slay the people by the sword, and cause Tyre's "strong pillars" to fall.

This did not happen.

The prophecy failed.

Sven

And you PMed me additionally. As I already said there, if you answer again, I will simply copy all this in the Ev/Cr forum. If you don't agree with this, simply don't answer any more.

Of course I agree. Unfortunately for you, modern biblical scholarship (which rests on empiricism and ontology) agrees with me, not with you: Genesis is a myth.

Thanks for the demonstration that you have no idea of biology.
Before you answer this post, it seems absolutely necessary for you to educate yourself on the basics. Otherwise I'm afraid you won't even understand what we are talking about.
Now on my answer to the above:
(1a) What is this to be expected? Biologists can easily imagine life which uses other building blocks, there's even more than enough experimental evidence that it is possible.
(1b) I was talking about the fact that the same gene sequences code for the same amino acid in all life. There's absolutely no a priori reason why this should be this way. Again: Please explain how these similarities lead to this.

(1c) Large parts are very, very similar - from bacteria to man.
(1d) So what? After 3 billion years of evolution, differences in information are the logical result, not a contradiction, as you seem to imply.

Bullshit. The basic functions of all life work nearly identical - although there are in principle many other ways to accomplish these. Everything else, which isn't basic, certainly is expected to vary after 3 billion years. Now answer my question: Please explain how these similarities lead to this.

So what? Please explain how similar metabolisms and environments lead to the same skeleton structure for all vertebrates.
Hint: There's absolutely nothing linking these characteristics a priori.

This dodges the question. The question is why we are genetically so similar that we even share errors in the code. Answer this.

Of course not. And if you had a little bit knowledge of science and/or honesty in you, you would not even ask this question.
Nothing in science is ever inclusively proven. All science can do is to work out a theory based on the available evidence and then look for more evidence which is predicted by the theory. If this evidence is found, good for the theory, if something else is found, the theory must be revised or discarded.
For the last 150 years, we found only evidence predicted by evolution. That's why scientists call it a fact today.

Sven

As a European (German) myself, I might add this (anecdotal) piece of evidence: I grew up as a Christian (deconverted later)-but it was not until about the age of 25 that I even heard that there are Christians (in the USA) how take the bible literal. I was flabbergasted - the possibility to read the bible in any way other than as a collection of myths never occured to me until then, neither did it to anyone I know.

John Kesler

I met a woman who immigrated from Poland to the U.S. She said that in Poland, the attitude is to accept religious teachings without subjecting them to the scrutiny that we in the U.S. do. I probably have as hard a time relating to this mindset as she, and apparently you, have relating to the fundamentalist mindset in the U.S.

Having said that, I am curious how you and others in Germany could be Christians if you regarded the Bible as "a collection of myths." Upon what was your religious faith founded if you believed that the Bible was in the same boat as other religious writings?

Sven

"a collection of myth" is probably a bit rash. The point is that I never really thought about the question, I only knew (intuitively or by education?) that the stories are not literally true.

bfniii

ah, good old jackism. right out of the gate too. why don't you try responding to the analysis i provided? is it because you are stalling for more time? is it because you don't have a response? is it because you aren't able to think past your original remark that you repeat next.......

right no cue! here you even repeat one of the words i cited, overthrow. people don't overthrow a bunch of buildings or an island or a plot of land. they overthrow a ruler, or a group of people or a nation.

btw, verse 15 does not specify that nebuchadnezzar will do the overthrowing. check out verses 13 and 14. got any idea who "I" is? hint: it's God.

here is a suggestion. read the accounts written by these authors who wrote biographies of alexander and chronicled the siege at tyre:
Q. Curtius 4.2-4
Arrian 2.15.7-24
Plutarch 24.3-25.2
Diodorus 17.40.2-46

they will clear up your fuzzy memory

no pretending is necessary. read the accounts.

could you please quote your contradictory sources?

ok. let's try a different approach. let's say person A kills someone. he deserves to be punished. what would you recommend?

first, i disagree with you because what you call a curse is nothing more than a prophecy. it's semantics.

second, your reasoning is sophistry, as i have pointed out. in the OT, if someone is evil, they will be punished regardless of their parents' actions. it doesn't matter how long it lasts. it doesn't matter what kind it is. it doesn't matter when in a person's life it happens. it is still suffering and all people experience it. people react differently to it and they have different thresholds. therefore, it is illogical to compare in any way one person's pain to another person's pain. the main point is that pain is temporary and has nothing to do with salvation or eternal suffering.

i challenged you on why you think the canaanites and amalekites were innoncent. no response. your response consisted of you trying to weasel out of providing the text asked for by claiming it doesn't matter. to that i pointed out the sophistry in your argument. no response. well, you did respond. you repeated your previous post as usual.

dang if you didn't go and do it. you have now challenged me to show where you did so. so be it:
1. you state God was so mad at david for the census, He desired to kill 70,000 people. the bible never mentions God's "desire" to do so.
2. deut 24:16. you claim is an example of God punishing someone for someone else's crime. the passage is actually enumerating laws among men.
3. jer 31:29. you claim this is an example of God assuring us that we would only be held accountible for our own actions. you fail to notice "in those days" at the beginning of the verse denoting the future tense. oops. (also check out verse 31). therefore, there is no contradiction.
4. you truncate exodus 20:5.
5. you truncate deut 5:9
6. you truncate exodus 34:7
7. you truncate numbers 14:18
8. you take deut 28:18 out of context by leaving out the previous qualifying verses.
9. exodus 22:29. you mistakenly state that child sacrifice is referred to. i note that the word in question, "nathan" does not.
10. leviticus 27:28-29. you again mistakenly assume child sacrifice is referred to. i asked you what gave you this impression. no response.
11. exodus 7:11, 7:22, and 8:7. you claim the passage refers to egyptian gods. i correct you that it refers to priests. you claim the priests invoke the egyptian gods. i take you to task by asking you to show where. no response.
12. you make contradictory statements regarding God giving adam and eve morality. i call you out on it. no response.

ok. there are the 12 i could find so far.

LET THE DENIALS BEGIN!

btw, didn't you accuse me of something? care to point it out?

you don't even read your own post that you go to the trouble of digging up to quote. you first claim He gave us the ability to discern right from wrong. then you claim He didn't want us to have it. if He didn't want us to have it, why did He give it to us?

if God didn't give us this ability, where did it come from? i know, i know. the tree. where did the tree come from?

what's the matter? did you lose track of the thread? you can't quote the text i asked for? you assumed canaan didn't deserve the curse. i am challenging you to support your assumption.

here is a challenge for you. using the text, show WHY noah cursed canaan.

see above 12 reasons.

oh yeah? using the text, show the reason why the amalekites are cursed.

why, are you incapable? is that a concession? it sure sounds like one. this is the worst non-response from you yet.

the old appeal to numbers. i must be wrong because i'm in the minority. is that what you're saying?

well, i must be in the wrong since you provided that anecdote.

how do you know i don't?

according to some people. care to address why you interpret it that way?

i've got news for you. the first christians were jews!

after it grew from judaism.

obvious to whom?

not that that is necessary. nor that science has conclusively proven it didn't.

i am challenging you to show in the text where morality is equated with a god like power. the only thing i'm dancing around is your inability to quote the text you draw your assumption from.

not all. some do. so who is right? care to discuss?

there is a logical fallacy called "appeal to numbers". look it up. it means the majority isn't always right. additionally, you can't even prove there is a scholarly consensus unless you have polled all the scholars in the world.

1. "you" is not a child. i challenge you to show in the text how i am wrong.
2. i challenge you to explain how children have fruit of the body, produce of the ground, cattle, etc in OT culture.
3. i challenge you to show how the text is referring to anything other than the consequences of obedience and disobedience.
4. i challenge you to explain how, in the first 14 verses, a blessing to the obedient is justified to fruit of the body who are undeserving. how would God be just in rewarding disobedient children.

there's your so called evasion laid out plain and simple. let's see if you're up to my evasion.

the crackpots are quoting scholars. check for yourself.

who quote scholars.

is that it? is that the totality of your response to my analysis? actually, i must applaud you for not responding with your usual "no you didn't" or "no you haven't" or just repeating your original statement.

would you mind quoting the scholars you mention? and these scholars, how do they know that daniel did indeed commit this literary fashion?

i'm not sure what you mean by "range of ages".

Sven

Hint: A little bit of research helps.

According to carbon dating and textual analysis, the documents were written at various times between the middle of the 2nd century BC and the 1st century AD.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_scrolls

If you want to continue this discussion with Jack, you might want to educate yourself on the topic. This article seems to be a good start.

ETA: Oh, after reading the post below, I have to change this to: "This article is an excellent start."

Peter Kirby

Heh. I wrote a large part of that Wikipedia article.

It would be great if someone else could improve it too.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Jack the Bodiless

Yes, of course "God" is supposed to be behind the overthrow of Tyre (according to Ezekiel).

...But which PERSON is supposed to carry this out? Check out chapter 26, verses 7 to 11. Got any idea who "he" is? Hint: it's Nebuchadnezzar.

He didn't do the things specifically prophesied for HIM to do. The prophecy failed.
Much of the population ESCAPED to Sidon. Later, they came back, repaired the damage, and Tyre thrived again. Not that this matters, of course. The prophecy regarding NEBUCHADNEZZAR failed.
Punishment of person A for his crime.

Here are two things I would NOT recommend:

1. Punishing the CHILDREN of person A for person A's crime.

2. Punishing person A, but declaring that the punishment is for the crimes of A's PARENTS.
You're still dodging, I see.

According to the BIBLE itself, the punishment was NOT for THEIR actions. Because of this, it DOESN'T MATTER whether THEY were nice people or not.

How is this not a response? How can you pretend otherwise?

And how long will you maintain this sophistry?
1. God killed 70,000 people. This was some sort of accident? He didn't mean to do it? Don't be ridiculous.

2. Deut 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin". Where have I ever claimed that this is "an example of God punishing someone for someone else's crime"? This is one of the "NO verses". You have become hopelessly confused.

3. Again, this is one of the "NO verses". By arguing AGAINST this, and trying to restrict it to the future, you're SUPPORTING the claim that God has punished people for the actions of others. Your confusion deepens.

4, 5, 6, 7: I have not altered the context. Each verse specifically describes the punishment of future generations for the actions of their parents, and nearby verses do not change that fact. See my "Mr. Smith" analogy.

8. The previous verses merely refer to OTHER curses against wrongdoers, IN ADDITION to the cursing of the wrongdoer's children.

9, 10: taken together, these verses describe the giving of the firstborn and the sacrifice of persons given. You don't like the implications, which is why you don't want to consider both verses together. But Ezekiel confirms that this happened, and I've already pointed out that it isn't just the Bible which says that the Caananites had a habit of sacrificing their firstborn, and that the fictional nature of the Exodus (and the Caananite origins of Judaism) were given as examples of historical scholarship that fundamentalists reject.

11. Please explain how MERE MORTALS can perform miracles. You have yet to do so.

12. I have not made contradictory statements on this, and I have pointed this out: your accusation is false.

So, NO actual examples so far.
This is merely a repetition of the false accusation in point 12 above. READ YOUR BIBLE. God didn't GIVE this ability to us, we STOLE it!
Again, that response WASN'T from the discussion of Noah's curse of Caanan. Not that it matters. Caanan was cursed because of what his father, Ham, did:
Caanan wasn't even THERE.
Because of the actions of their ancestors, 400 years previously:
You apparently didn't realize that you ARE in the minority.
I am giving you the standard Jewish interpretation: you claimed that the Jews had a "conspiracy of silence" regarding Isaiah 53.

There's already a thread running on this: prophecy of suffering and glorified Messiah
But MOST Jews never converted to Christianity, because Jesus failed to fulfil the Messianic prophecies. Ask THEM why. Here's a link for you: Did Jesus fulfill ALL these criteria?
Science, history and archaeology have conclusively proved that Noah's Flood never happened.
No, my POINT is that the REASON WE WERE THROWN OUT OF EDEN was to prevent us obtaining yet another power which deities have and humans aren't supposed to have.
The first 14 verses of WHAT? Exodus? Leviticus? Deuteronomy? Which chapter?

You're getting hopelessly muddled by mixing your responses to different verses, and even different BOOKS.
I have, in many cases, checked the actual claims of the crackpots/scholars: and found them to be baseless. So have others.
Well, I see you've been given some homework. But, to put it simply: the existence of the Book of Daniel in the Dead Sea Scrolls is not a problem, as the most recent documents date from the 1st century AD. There was also no centuries-long period of "canonization". And if the scholars are arguing that Daniel's style resembles other apocalyptic literature of the period: doesn't that suggest to you that there IS other apocalyptic literature from the period?