Steve Weiss

You are a true apologist for evil. It's ok to murder because other cultures were doing it and because the lord endorses it. The fact that the old version of the bible is still the god approved standard for morality today seems to be lost on you. The bible is inerrant, right? Has the bible been revised to suit less violent norms? If so, please send me a copy of the more humane edition. Since none exists, and god hasn't renounced genocide, human sacrifice, child abuse and numerous other depraved activities, I'll leave it to you to find a justification for the evil that it advocates.

Chris Weimer

Steve Weiss, you'll never find spin advocating that the Bible is inerrant. You're sorely confused.

This is Biblical criticism forum. If you don't understand what Biblical criticism is (and the types), perhaps you'd like to go to GRD where they have conversations about the big bad God you're talking about. Many here, spin including, aren't Christians, so you're fighting an entity that isn't even there.

Steve Weiss

As far as I can see, Spin (as his name implies) seems to be revising the bible to suit his agenda. Let's focus on the ethical standards advocated in its pages. Please indicate which ones I should ignore, which miracles didn't happen, who wrote what and what it means so that we can all agree that the bible is a wonderful book rich in historical accuracy and full of rationality. Why not just purge the big bad god entirely since, in your view, he is totally irrelevant and anachronistic. Then my confusion will be cleared up and I can get into line with you fundies of bible exegesis.

Amaleq13

As far as I can see, you have constructed a strawman because spin is suggesting you do nothing but read the books of the Bible as you would any other piece of similarly ancient literature. This includes avoiding anachronistic morality judgments and relying on the available physical evidence for one's understanding.

It seems to me you are looking for a completely different opponent because the argument you clearly prefer is really only appropriate for a Christian who considers the Bible to represent the timeless morality of the Creator.

And that is certainly not spin.

IOW, the fact that he disagrees with your views does not mean he agrees with the views of your preferred opponents.

Steve Weiss

Await your guidleines as per my request above.

Amaleq13

If you are referring to this "request",:
then you will wait in vain because this is the strawman I've already mentioned. Where did spin claim that any of the miracles happened? Or that the bible is "rich in historical accuracy and full of rationality"?

You are clearly looking for a specific fight but dressing up everyone who disagrees with you in your preferred opponents' team colors just doesn't work.

aa5874

When I read the Bible, it appears to be similar to ancient literature now referred to as Greek mythology, and I understand that Greek mythology is all fiction.

Now, if the gods and goddesses of Greek mythology are established as fictitious figures and the Bible contain similar figures, it should be deduced very easily that the deities contained therein are also fictitious, especially when one takes into account that all these dieties have similar characteristics.

This is written in Matthew 1:18, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

In Greek mythology, the fictitious figure Achilles is the son of a King and a sea goddess.

The similarity is striking, the historicity of both are baseless.

Amaleq13

What you say is arguably true of portions but it is just foolish to characterize the entire collection as "similar" to Greek mythology.

As usual, your thinking is simplistic.

Johann_Kaspar

Spin







:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

That is really too funny!

Damnat quia non intelligat.

mountainman

The only problem with the appearance of "reasonableness"
in the art of divining the chronology of "the tribes" to the
2nd century is that there is no sound, firm, concrete, scientific,
objectively assessed, archeological [b]evidence external to the
literature tradition (ie: the writings of purported authors)
in the first and second and third centuries.

The persecution of "the tribes of the neopythagoreans" in the
fourth century corresponds precisely with the political rise
of "christianity" under the emperor Constantine. If you have
my hypothesis is mind, remember that there was an ADD and
DELETE.

The chronological rise of "the tribe of neopythagoreans" may
be argued to have been born with the life of Apollonius of
Tyana (4 BCE), pupularised through the Second Sophistic,
and the publication by Philostratus, under Emperor Severus,
of his biography "The Life of A". Enter then Plotinus, and his
eventual successor Porphyry.

Witness then the clash of "the tribe of neopythagoreans"
and Constantine's literary tribe of christians in the
fourth century.

Constantine the King
to the Bishops and nations everywhere.

Inasmuch as Arius imitates the evil and the wicked,
it is right that, like them, he should be rebuked and rejected.

As therefore Porphyry,
who was an enemy of the fear of God,
and wrote wicked and unlawful writings
against the religion of Christians,
found the reward which befitted him,
that he might be a reproach to all generations after,
because he fully and insatiably used base fame;
so that on this account his writings
were righteously destroyed;

thus also now it seems good that Arius
and the holders of his opinion
should all be called Porphyrians,
that he may be named by the name
of those whose evil ways he imitates:

And not only this, but also
that all the writings of Arius,
wherever they be found,
shall be delivered to be burned with fire,
in order that not only
his wicked and evil doctrine may be destroyed,
but also that the memory of himself
and of his doctrine may be blotted out,
that there may not by any means
remain to him remembrance in the world.

Now this also I ordain,
that if any one shall be found secreting
any writing composed by Arius,
and shall not forthwith deliver up
and burn it with fire,
his punishment shall be death;
for as soon as he is caught in this
he shall suffer capital punishment
by beheading without delay.


(Preserved in Socrates Scholasticus’ Ecclesiastical History 1:9.
A translation of a Syriac translation of this, written in 501,
is in B. H. Cowper’s, Syriac Miscellanies,
Extracts From The Syriac Ms. No. 14528
In The British Museum, Lond. 1861, p. 6–7)