Noah's Ark...

[Samm]

I highly doubt Allah is indeed the one true god. There was a time when people believed that Zeus would strike them with a lightning bolt if he got upset at them. Where is Zeus today? Not to mention that the Bible is the only holy book that has stood the test of time. I think I'm pretty safe where I am, thank you.

Zeus strikes an average of about one person per day in this country alone... ;)



I find it comforting that nobody has ever been killed by lightening in Alaska... :D

[Clintville]

I'm not afraid of anything.
Except not receiving eternal life apparently.

[Clintville]

I highly doubt Allah is indeed the one true god.

Why?

There was a time when people believed that Zeus would strike them with a lightning bolt if he got upset at them. Where is Zeus today? Not to mention that the Bible is the only holy book that has stood the test of time. I think I'm pretty safe where I am, thank you.
So your religion is more credible because it is old? Hinduism is older than Christianity you know?

[captusa]

I think the muslim community needs to be shown the error of their ways, but its up to them whether they want to spend eternity in Heaven or not. Just because a bunch of people get sucked in by the so-called "religion of peace" does not mean they are right.

Obviously either people have been suckered in all but one religion or have been suckered by all religions.

[Clintville]

Go to a bookstore, pick up and READ "90 Minutes in Heaven." Its a true story of a minister who was in a horrific car accident and while declared "dead" by medical personnel at the scene, only to come back to life 90 minutes later. If that doesn't convince you that heaven in indeed real, something ain't right in Georgia
A guy was falsely declared dead, and then while unconscious dreamed about Heaven. See, there is a logical explanation.

Or he is lying, but that would make the guy a horrible disgusting evil person.

[Clintville]

And terrorists think they'll be in heaven with 72 virgins. They're wrong.
Says who? Morally, maybe.

[captusa]

Originally Posted by NascarGirl2448
I highly doubt Allah is indeed the one true god. There was a time when people believed that Zeus would strike them with a lightning bolt if he got upset at them. Where is Zeus today? Not to mention that the Bible is the only holy book that has stood the test of time. I think I'm pretty safe where I am, thank you.

I also doubt that Allah is the one true God. Allah is the God of Abraham and his sons Ishmael and Isaac. HE is also known as YHVH.
The Iliad has also stood the test of time ergo one should accept the Deities in the Iliad.
How can you deny Apollo, the Sun God.
Didn't HE make the sun rise this morning ?
You can't have more proof than that.

[Clintville]

Just because a bunch of people get sucked in by the so-called "religion of peace" does not mean they are right.
Sucked in? How are they any different from you? Excluding converts, which I'll assume you are not, how are you not sucked in anymore than them? They were born into the religion just as you were.

[RayMan]

Why is it that no one wants to answer this question?


Because you, biggles and captusa would do a splendiforous job shooting down anything any believer of any religion had to say on the subject.

I have no problem admitting that my viewpoint on God stems directly from faith. No logic involved at all.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is a well-grounded assurance of that for which we hope, and a conviction of the reality of things which we do not see.

I could be way the heck off in left field and totally deceived in my belief but I don't believe I am.

[captusa]

Originally Posted by NascarGirl2448
Go to a bookstore, pick up and READ "90 Minutes in Heaven." Its a true story of a minister who was in a horrific car accident and while declared "dead" by medical personnel at the scene, only to come back to life 90 minutes later. If that doesn't convince you that heaven in indeed real, something ain't right in Georgia.

It is not uncommon for a writer to use the tactic of writing a novel as if it were a reminiscence.
After Jonathan Swift wrote Gulliver's Travels someone actually check the records to see if a ship that Swift decribed left on the date mentioned.

And do you believe every book that you read ?

[captusa]

Because you, biggles and captusa would do a splendiforous job shooting down anything any believer of any religion had to say on the subject.

I have no problem admitting that my viewpoint on God stems directly from faith. No logic involved at all.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is a well-grounded assurance of that for which we hope, and a conviction of the reality of things which we do not see.

I could be way the heck off in left field and totally deceived in my belief but I don't believe I am.

I NEVER attack anything that someone accepts through faith.
When someone insists that what they accept through faith has more validity than what someone else accepts through faith, I react.

[mtdim]

Look at it this way, if you believe in God and find out you're wrong, what have you lost? Nothing.

They may be true, but it's not a reason for believing because only actual evidence can cause people to believe; the potential benefits if the belief is true are irrelevant.

Maybe I should believe there is a million dollars under my mattress. If I'm right, I'll check there and be a million dollars richer. If I check and I was wrong, what have I lost? Nothing. And yet, try as I might, I can't bring myself to believe that there's a million dollars underneath my mattress; all of my observations about how this world works suggest that there is probably not a significant sum of money there.

[CID_0687]

Why is it that no one wants to answer this question?
Because there's no point in explaining to an atheist that which they have no ability to comprehend?

[Drawz]

Because there's no point in explaining to an atheist that which they have no ability to comprehend?

God creates people who have no ability to comprehend why His Word is the truth?
Odd...

[CID_0687]

God creates people who have no ability to comprehend why His Word is the truth?
Odd...
No...certain people, atheists, have chosen to have no faith...it takes an amount of faith to understand belief...without faith there is no belief.

[Samm]

No...certain people, atheists, have chosen to have no faith...it takes an amount of faith to understand belief...without faith there is no belief.

The reciprocal to that would be that theists have faith and therefore believe without choosing to do so. In other words that would mean they are believing without free will. There are several adjectives to describe such individuals. But of course we know that that is not usually how it works... theists choose to believe exactly as atheists choose not to. Neither case is superior over the other, except one is born on reason and facts (or lack thereof) and the other purely on a desire to believe.

[RayMan]

I NEVER attack anything that someone accepts through faith.
When someone insists that what they accept through faith has more validity than what someone else accepts through faith, I comment.



Hi capt,
"Shooting down" was poor wording on my part. I didn't mean to imply that any of you three amigos have an attack mentality just that all three of you will set up and say "nuh-uh," when people of faith step beyond faith and try to "prove" the existence of God.

[captusa]

I think the muslim community needs to be shown the error of their ways, but its up to them whether they want to spend eternity in Heaven or not. Just because a bunch of people get sucked in by the so-called "religion of peace" does not mean they are right.

And the Muslim community thinks the Christian community needs to be shown the error of their ways, but its up to Christian community whether they want to spend eternity in Heaven or not. Just because a bunch of people get sucked in by the so-called "religion of redemption" does not mean they are right.

[captusa]

No...certain people, atheists, have chosen to have no faith...it takes an amount of faith to understand belief...without faith there is no belief.

I have faith in the total irrationality of Theism (not Deism).
It is my belief that no Deity involves ITSELF with man-kind and my faith in that belief is as strong or stronger than that of any Theist.
I can not prove my belief but I have reason for my faith.
I assume most believers have reasons for their faith.
I do believe SOME do not.

[Pudge]

HUH? I don't feel "enslaved" at all.

The best slaves are the ones who don't realize they're enslaved.

[Pudge]

I'm not afraid of anything.

Then why are you believing just in case? That was your argument, right? That there's nothing to lose by believing and everything to gain, but if you don't believe and you're wrong, whoops- the eternal toaster, right? So yes, the wager that Pascal proposed is one based on fear of divine wrath.

See, I always figured that if it is the Judeo-Christian God, who is omniscient and all-powerful, he would know that my heart really wasn't in it. I'd rather use the brain and free will and be wrong than live a confiscated life and be right. If God chooses not to reveal himself directly he has only himself to blame when his existence is doubted or denied.

[Pudge]

I highly doubt Allah is indeed the one true god. There was a time when people believed that Zeus would strike them with a lightning bolt if he got upset at them. Where is Zeus today? Not to mention that the Bible is the only holy book that has stood the test of time. I think I'm pretty safe where I am, thank you.

See, I have this theory that gods are only as powerful as the number of people who believe in them. They draw their power from us, and we create gods in our own image (not vice versa as the Bible tells us). So the old Roman gods, the Norse gods (whom I choose to honor), every god that is or ever was, only existed because people believed in them. When a god ceases to have followers, that god is, for all intents and purposes, dead. They have no power, and when their names are forgotten, not even the memory of them or the religion built around them will remain. Such is the eventual fate of all gods. They're not immortal, though some do have life that spans thousands of years. And, they have as much power as we choose to give them. It's a give and take relationship no matter what your faith. The more you put into your spirituality, the more you get out of it. Devotion begets inspiration, inspiration begets action, action begets consequences for good or ill. I can't see why anyone would follow any god out of a fear of retribution, though. That's purely a man-made concept driven by greed and lust for power.

[Pudge]

Zeus strikes an average of about one person per day in this country alone... ;)



I find it comforting that nobody has ever been killed by lightening in Alaska... :D

Avalanches and earthquakes, on the other hand...

[Drawz]

See, I have this theory that gods are only as powerful as the number of people who believe in them. They draw their power from us, and we create gods in our own image (not vice versa as the Bible tells us). So the old Roman gods, the Norse gods (whom I choose to honor), every god that is or ever was, only existed because people believed in them. When a god ceases to have followers, that god is, for all intents and purposes, dead. They have no power, and when their names are forgotten, not even the memory of them or the religion built around them will remain. Such is the eventual fate of all gods. They're not immortal, though some do have life that spans thousands of years. And, they have as much power as we choose to give them. It's a give and take relationship no matter what your faith. The more you put into your spirituality, the more you get out of it. Devotion begets inspiration, inspiration begets action, action begets consequences for good or ill. I can't see why anyone would follow any god out of a fear of retribution, though. That's purely a man-made concept driven by greed and lust for power.
Pudge, you played D&D at some point in your life didn't you?
If not you're certainly a fantasy fiction reader.

[Pudge]

Pudge, you played D&D at some point in your life didn't you?
If not you're certainly a fantasy fiction reader.

I grew up on D&D and I do read fantasy quite often. Katharine Kerr, Weis & Hickman, David Eddings, and Orson Scott Card are among my favorite authors.

Still, I don't think I am that far off the mark. I don't believe that gods are literal beings, not the way we imagine them to be. For example, there was no Zeus who looked like Lawrence Olivier in Clash of the Titans who womanized with mortals and had a slew of half-deity children and hurled bolts of lightning at his enemies, but the people who believed in Zeus, and the other Gods of Olympus, gave them life. Doesn't mean they created a literal being but some element of our consciousness does bring to life these gods who, because of our faith in them, affects and influences our lives. What held true for the Pagan Greeks and Norse, for the Hindu and other Eastern religions that are far older than the Abramic religions, for those who believe in the Jehovah, Jesus Christ, or Allah... it is people, our consciousness, our works, which write the legacies of these religions, which validate one's faith in these gods, and which gives life to these gods.

[Drawz]

I grew up on D&D and I do read fantasy quite often. Katharine Kerr, Weis & Hickman, David Eddings, and Orson Scott Card are among my favorite authors.
Love Weis & Hickman and Eddings. Card is ok and I've never read Kerr that I know of (I'm terrible with authors names).

[Drawz]

Sparhawk is one of my favorite characters, BTW.

[Samm]

Avalanches and earthquakes, on the other hand...

Zeus is not responsible for avalanches and earthquakes; blame some other god. ;)

[Glenn_G]

Zeus is not responsible for avalanches and earthquakes; blame some other god. ;)

All the faithful know an angry Poseidon beating the ground with his trident causes earthquakes. You folks in Alaska & southern California really need to turn your lives around and get those prayers flowing... money would help too.

[Pudge]

Zeus is not responsible for avalanches and earthquakes; blame some other god. ;)

I thought you were just speaking of natural phenomenae.

[Pudge]

Love Weis & Hickman and Eddings. Card is ok and I've never read Kerr that I know of (I'm terrible with authors names).

Kerr only has one series and several one-off novels. Her series, about a land called Deverry, is my favorite by far. Start with Daggerspell if you're interested.

And, occasionally, when I discuss things here, you'll hear me refer to the person I am responding to as 'neighbor'. My homage to Sparhawk.

[Drawz]

Kerr only has one series and several one-off novels. Her series, about a land called Deverry, is my favorite by far. Start with Daggerspell if you're interested.


Thanks, neighbor.

[CID_0687]

The reciprocal to that would be that theists have faith and therefore believe without choosing to do so. In other words that would mean they are believing without free will. There are several adjectives to describe such individuals. But of course we know that that is not usually how it works... theists choose to believe exactly as atheists choose not to. Neither case is superior over the other, except one is born on reason and facts (or lack thereof) and the other purely on a desire to believe.
I'm sure there are some that believe with no choice...I would think this is where radicals and the like come into play...But for most there's always a choice...you either choose to believe or you don't...and if someone doesn't believe then there's no faith...therefore they can't comprehend what someone that has faith in a particular God believes.

I can't grasp the concept of Hinduism...I have no faith in it...but, at the same time I do have faith in Jesus Christ...and because of that, I'm not gonna question a Hindu's belief, other than to learn from them...because their faith is just as strong, and means just as much to them as mine does to me.

There are those that are atheists that ask questions in respectful ways, just wanting to understand how those of us who have faith are capable of having it...but then there are those who seem to want to do nothing but tear down people's faith. Calling it fairy tales, other immature things...I don't understand this...My faith in God is as near and dear to me as my wife and children are...even the most devout atheist can understand that...How would they feel if I mocked and ridiculed their family? They'd probably wanna beat the crap out of me, and they'd have every right to do so. Now, I don't want to do harm someone when they're talking about my faith, or anyone else's...but it does hurt...but, I don't expect them to understand.

[NascarGirl2448]

See, I always figured that if it is the Judeo-Christian God, who is omniscient and all-powerful, he would know that my heart really wasn't in it. I'd rather use the brain and free will and be wrong than live a confiscated life and be right. If God chooses not to reveal himself directly he has only himself to blame when his existence is doubted or denied.

Yet, God HAS revealed himself directly, in human form, through Jesus. Now you can debate the existence of the Trinity all day long (people in seminary studying to be ministers even do that!) but if you don't want to believe, that's your choice.

[Thor]

Because there's no point in explaining to an atheist that which they have no ability to comprehend?

I "have no ability to comprehend" your explanation as to why we should believe anything in the Bible is true when you openly admit to "translation errors" in the story of Noah?

Come on, try me.

[Thor]

No...certain people, atheists, have chosen to have no faith...it takes an amount of faith to understand belief...without faith there is no belief.

I have not "chosen to have no faith". My reasoning ability simply tells me that stories involving the violation of physical laws are highly unlikely to be true. And by "highly unlikely", I mean the chances of them being true are somewhere around the odds of hitting the Powerball.

[CID_0687]

I have not "chosen to have no faith". My reasoning ability simply tells me that stories involving the violation of physical laws are highly unlikely to be true. And by "highly unlikely", I mean the chances of them being true are somewhere around the odds of hitting the Powerball.
Thanks. You're only helping demonstrate what I posted.

:hug:

[Thor]

Yet, God HAS revealed himself directly, in human form, through Jesus. Now you can debate the existence of the Trinity all day long (people in seminary studying to be ministers even do that!) but if you don't want to believe, that's your choice.

Hate to burst your bubble, but there is no tangible evidence that Jesus ever existed. There are no records of the Romans crucifying a man named Jesus. There is nothing that was written by "Jesus". There are no portraits, carvings or engravings of Jesus that were made during his supposed lifetime. And, of course, there is no tomb.

I would go so far as to say that a man named Jesus PROBABLY existed. But that's about it.

[CID_0687]

Hate to burst your bubble, but there is no tangible evidence that Jesus ever existed. There are no records of the Romans crucifying a man named Jesus. There is nothing that was written by "Jesus". There are no portraits, carvings or engravings of Jesus that were made during his supposed lifetime. And, of course, there is no tomb.

I would go so far as to say that a man named Jesus PROBABLY existed. But that's about it.
What about the writings of the Jewish historian, Josephus?

[markd]

What about the writings of the Jewish historian, Josephus?Which part? The interpolation?

[Samm]

All the faithful know an angry Poseidon beating the ground with his trident causes earthquakes. You folks in Alaska & southern California really need to turn your lives around and get those prayers flowing... money would help too.

I thought all Poseidon is only responsible for storms at sea and tsunamis... isn't Loki or El Diablo the cause of earthquakes? :eh:

[Samm]

I have not "chosen to have no faith". My reasoning ability simply tells me that stories involving the violation of physical laws are highly unlikely to be true. And by "highly unlikely", I mean the chances of them being true are somewhere around the odds of hitting the Powerball.

One could argue that it is your God given ability to reason that directly lead to your rejection of God and the Bible stories. ;)

[Drawz]

I thought all Poseidon is only responsible for storms at sea and tsunamis... isn't Loki or El Diablo the cause of earthquakes? :eh:

Vulcan does volcanoes, maybe he does earthquakes as well?

[Thor]

What about the writings of the Jewish historian, Josephus?

Josephus was born after Jesus supposedly died. Anything Josephus wrote about Jesus would be hearsay.

[Darkscream]

Back to the main topic..

Clearly the Ark story is either make believe or someone is pretty poor at judging a flood.
For instance - how are we to work out what is the story with Koalas. They exist only in Australia - which at that time hadn't been discovered and no-one had any way of getting to - to get them. They cannot swim. They eat only one particular tree - nothing else - that exists only in Australia and you would only know that if you lived there - which no-one did. So you'd have to get koalas and a certain tree from a country that no-one knew was there and keep them alive and then they would have to get back to only Australia - whilst at the same time having nothing to eat while they got there.

I'm thinking unlikely.

[Thor]

Back to the main topic..

Clearly the Ark story is either make believe or someone is pretty poor at judging a flood.
For instance - how are we to work out what is the story with Koalas. They exist only in Australia - which at that time hadn't been discovered and no-one had any way of getting to - to get them. They cannot swim. They eat only one particular tree - nothing else - that exists only in Australia and you would only know that if you lived there - which no-one did. So you'd have to get koalas and a certain tree from a country that no-one knew was there and keep them alive and then they would have to get back to only Australia - whilst at the same time having nothing to eat while they got there.

I'm thinking unlikely.

Good argument.

Except that we are now being told that the Ark story is the result of a "mistranslation". Supposedly it was NOT a worldwide cataclysm, it was just a flood in a localized area.

Funny how no one in the church is aware of this error....

[5thIDSoldier]

Faith is believing even though common sense says otherwise.

And without faith it is impossible to please God.

[captusa]

Faith is believing even though common sense says otherwise.

And without faith it is impossible to please God.

How is that different than Sam Clemens'
"Faith is the belief in what you know ain't so." ?

[Samm]

Back to the main topic..

Clearly the Ark story is either make believe or someone is pretty poor at judging a flood.
For instance - how are we to work out what is the story with Koalas. They exist only in Australia - which at that time hadn't been discovered and no-one had any way of getting to - to get them. They cannot swim. They eat only one particular tree - nothing else - that exists only in Australia and you would only know that if you lived there - which no-one did. So you'd have to get koalas and a certain tree from a country that no-one knew was there and keep them alive and then they would have to get back to only Australia - whilst at the same time having nothing to eat while they got there.

I'm thinking unlikely.

I still want to know how the Kiwi got to New Zealand...

[Thor]

Faith is believing even though common sense says otherwise.

And without faith it is impossible to please God.

So, in order to please this deity I must throw my reason and intellect out the window?

I'll pass.

[Drawz]

I still want to know how the Kiwi got to New Zealand...

Same way you get to Carnegie Hall. Practice, practice, practice.

[Samm]

Same way you get to Carnegie Hall. Practice, practice, practice.

I have been practicing all my life... never got near Carnegie Hall, but I have been to New Zealand twice. ;)

Do you suppose the Kiwi flew from Mt. Ararat on Air New Zealand or Qantas? :think:

[Drawz]

I have been practicing all my life... never got near Carnegie Hall, but I have been to New Zealand twice. ;)

Do you suppose the Kiwi flew from Mt. Ararat on Air New Zealand or Qantas? :think:

:)
Nope, I figure that the monkey God Hanuman made himself a giant again and carried them across the ocean, just like he did for Krishna back in the day.

[Darkscream]

I still want to know how the Kiwi got to New Zealand...

You'll have to ask god- I guess.
No one else has a plausible answer ! :)

[Quantrill]

Why is it that no one wants to answer this question?


What reason do you have for believing any of it? None.

However, the fallible men could not have been in error as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit of God.

Thus you have made two errors. 1. You Nelglected the Spirit of God. 2. You believe the global aspect of the flood was wrong.

Quantrill

[Thor]

What reason do you have for believing any of it? None.


Correct!

However, the fallible men could not have been in error as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit of God.



So, nothing in the Bible is in error? Then I suppose it's perfectly fine to keep slaves.

Thus you have made two errors. 1. You Nelglected the Spirit of God.

Ummm... okay. If you say so....

2. You believe the global aspect of the flood was wrong.


Uh, yeah. Because there is no geologic evidence that indicates a global flood ever took place.

[Clintville]

You'll have to ask god- I guess.
No one else has a plausible answer ! :)
Except evolution.

[Pudge]

Yet, God HAS revealed himself directly, in human form, through Jesus. Now you can debate the existence of the Trinity all day long (people in seminary studying to be ministers even do that!) but if you don't want to believe, that's your choice.

There's no evidence that Jesus was anything beyond a mortal man.

[natalie addict]

I have been practicing all my life... never got near Carnegie Hall, but I have been to New Zealand twice. ;)

Do you suppose the Kiwi flew from Mt. Ararat on Air New Zealand or Qantas? :think:

Reminds me of the time when the Danish conductor, Heilige Dankezan, was asked if he ever conducted any of Stockhausen's music. "No", he replied, "but I believed I stepped in some once."

[Quantrill]

Correct!



So, nothing in the Bible is in error? Then I suppose it's perfectly fine to keep slaves.



Ummm... okay. If you say so....



Uh, yeah. Because there is no geologic evidence that indicates a global flood ever took place.

Whats slavery got to do with "error"? Oh, you think it was a mistake that it was put there? No. Its there and God shows that it is not a sin. Unless the Israelite enslaves another Israelite.

Uh... I do say so.


Umm...well...the Bible says there was a global flood and thats what I as a Christian believe.

Quantrill

[Thor]

Whats slavery got to do with "error"? Oh, you think it was a mistake that it was put there? No. Its there and God shows that it is not a sin. Unless the Israelite enslaves another Israelite.


I can't imagine too many things more evil than enslaving another human being. The fact that your deity gives it a big thumbs up demonstrates quite clearly that the Bible was written not by an "all loving" and "just" god, but by primitive men who put things in that reflected the culture of the time.

Umm...well...the Bible says there was a global flood and thats what I as a Christian believe.


And the geologic evidence indicates that without a doubt a catastrophic flood on a global scale absolutely did not happen.

So, when tangible evidence conflicts with your holy book, you throw out the tangible evidence?

[Quantrill]

I can't imagine too many things more evil than enslaving another human being. The fact that your deity gives it a big thumbs up demonstrates quite clearly that the Bible was written not by an "all loving" and "just" god, but by primitive men who put things in that reflected the culture of the time.



And the geologic evidence indicates that without a doubt a catastrophic flood on a global scale absolutely did not happen.

So, when tangible evidence conflicts with your holy book, you throw out the tangible evidence?

Well, at least we are not talking about an "error". I t proves nothing of the sort. It just proves you don't like it.

If Im not mistaken the science of geology is still learning. Correct? So you can believe the incomplete information up to this time if you like. Me, I will go with what God said in the Bible.

Exactly. When your evidence disagrees with God, I throw it out.

Quantrill

[captusa]

Well, at least we are not talking about an "error". I t proves nothing of the sort. It just proves you don't like it.

If Im not mistaken the science of geology is still learning. Correct? So you can believe the incomplete information up to this time if you like. Me, I will go with what God said in the Bible.

Exactly. When your evidence disagrees with God, I throw it out.

Quantrill

When you come up with evidence that there is a God and that there is any way HE communicated HIS word, I might go with HIM myself but it will take a some evidence to convince me that anyone knows the word of God.

[Samm]

You'll have to ask god- I guess.
No one else has a plausible answer ! :)

I did... when I was 12... 50 years ago... still waiting for an answer. :neutral:

[Drawz]

Whats slavery got to do with "error"? Oh, you think it was a mistake that it was put there? No. Its there and God shows that it is not a sin. Unless the Israelite enslaves another Israelite.

Uh... I do say so.


Umm...well...the Bible says there was a global flood and thats what I as a Christian believe.

Quantrill

Wow, some five thousand year old nomad says slavery is ok and you agree with him just because it's in the Bible?

As for the global flood, there are posters here who say that that idea is an error due to mis-translation...

[The Bos'un]

Guess G_d just does not want to answer you. Sorry....

[Drawz]

Guess G_d just does not want to answer you. Sorry....

Why are you sorry? Are you God's publicist?

[Quantrill]

Wow, some five thousand year old nomad says slavery is ok and you agree with him just because it's in the Bible?

As for the global flood, there are posters here who say that that idea is an error due to mis-translation...

Just as Thor, you error. You neglect the Spirit of God.

Quantrill

[captusa]

Originally Posted by Darkscream
You'll have to ask god- I guess.
No one else has a plausible answer !
But HE hasn't supplied any plaisible answers and science has.

[captusa]

Just as Thor, you error. You neglect the Spirit of God.

Quantrill

First you claim the Bible is the word of God.
When it is pointed out that both the Old and New Testaments condone slavery (including beating a slave to death as long as he doesn't die the same day) you come up with "Spirit of God".

[Quantrill]

First you claim the Bible is the word of God.
When it is pointed out that both the Old and New Testaments condone slavery (including beating a slave to death as long as he doesn't die the same day) you come up with "Spirit of God".

Actually I pointed to the Spirit of God first in response to the claim that the Bible was just written by men.

Then slavery was alluded to which I responded was not a sin as God shows in the Bible.

Then the Bible was again claimed to be just written by men to which I responded the error in that was the neglect of the Spirit of God.

I know Im just repeating what I said, but then again you are just trying to repeat what I said.

Quantrill

[Thor]

Well, at least we are not talking about an "error".

I can provide factual errors in the Bible if you'd like.

Lev 11:6: "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud..."

Hares do not chew the cud.

I t proves nothing of the sort. It just proves you don't like it.


Correct, I do not like slavery. And why would a supposed "all loving" and "just" god EVER say that it's permissable to enslave your fellow human beings? Doesn't it seem much more likely that men, who lived at a time when slavery was the norm, would have written this?

And what do you think? Is slavery an evil? If so, your god is evil. If not, then you would be just like Southern slaveholders who used the Bible to justify slavery.


If Im not mistaken the science of geology is still learning. Correct?

Yes, science is always seeking new information. It's one of the things that makes science so great. And it is possible that at some point in the future geologists will uncover some sort of evidence that indicates a worldwide flood of cataclysmic proportions did occur. However, we are talking about a flood that supposedly took place 4,000 or so years ago. In geologic time, that is about half an hour ago. If this event took place like your holy book says, the evidence would be readily apparent to experts who know what to look for. They have found nothing. Pinning your hopes on the dream that "one day" they'll find the proof is like believing that one day science will find the proof that flying horses once existed.

So you can believe the incomplete information up to this time if you like.

Yes, I will go where the evidence (or lack thereof) leads me.

Me, I will go with what God said in the Bible.



How do you know that's what's written in the Bible is the word of "God"? Because somebody told you so?

Exactly. When your evidence disagrees with God, I throw it out.


Ancient book of unknown authorship and indeterminate origins.

Tangible evidence.

Ancient book conflicts with tangible evidence.

Throw out the evidence!

Just.... wow.

[Thor]

Guess G_d just does not want to answer you. Sorry....

Yeah. Funny how this deity doesn't want to let skeptics know that he is, in fact, real....

[Thor]

Then slavery was alluded to which I responded was not a sin as God shows in the Bible.


Hear that folks? Slavery IS NOT A SIN!

Let's repeal all the anti-slavery laws! After all, "God" says it's okay!

[Quantrill]

I can provide factual errors in the Bible if you'd like.

Lev 11:6: "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud..."

Hares do not chew the cud.



Correct, I do not like slavery. And why would a supposed "all loving" and "just" god EVER say that it's permissable to enslave your fellow human beings? Doesn't it seem much more likely that men, who lived at a time when slavery was the norm, would have written this?

And what do you think? Is slavery an evil? If so, your god is evil. If not, then you would be just like Southern slaveholders who used the Bible to justify slavery.




Yes, science is always seeking new information. It's one of the things that makes science so great. And it is possible that at some point in the future geologists will uncover some sort of evidence that indicates a worldwide flood of cataclysmic proportions did occur. However, we are talking about a flood that supposedly took place 4,000 or so years ago. In geologic time, that is about half an hour ago. If this event took place like your holy book says, the evidence would be readily apparent to experts who know what to look for. They have found nothing. Pinning your hopes on the dream that "one day" they'll find the proof is like believing that one day science will find the proof that flying horses once existed.



Yes, I will go where the evidence (or lack thereof) leads me.



How do you know that's what's written in the Bible is the word of "God"? Because somebody told you so?



Ancient book of unknown authorship and indeterminate origins.

Tangible evidence.

Ancient book conflicts with tangible evidence.

Throw out the evidence!

Just.... wow.


Yes of course, everyone has a long list of Biblical "errors". God said the hare chewed the cud. So whatever He considered as chewing the cud, to which the Israelite could know, is no error.

I don't have to worry about "supposed" or "more likely". I just trust what the Bible says.

As I said already, slavery is not a sin. Scriptures are clear here. So no it is not evil. I can tell you know little of Southern slavery or that era.

I don't pin any hopes on what science finds. Why should I. It will just change its mind 6 months, or 6 weeks, or 6 days, or 6 minutes, from now. You see, even when science finds or discovers some agreement with Scripture, I don't get any hopes up. My hope and unmoveable trust is in God and in the Word He has given, the Bible.

How do I know the Bible is the Word of God? I know.

Are you "wowed" again.

Quantrill

[Drawz]

Yes of course, everyone has a long list of Biblical "errors". God said the hare chewed the cud. So whatever He considered as chewing the cud, to which the Israelite could know, is no error.

I don't have to worry about "supposed" or "more likely". I just trust what the Bible says.

As I said already, slavery is not a sin. Scriptures are clear here. So no it is not evil. I can tell you know little of Southern slavery or that era.

I don't pin any hopes on what science finds. Why should I. It will just change its mind 6 months, or 6 weeks, or 6 days, or 6 minutes, from now. You see, even when science finds or discovers some agreement with Scripture, I don't get any hopes up. My hope and unmoveable trust is in God and in the Word He has given, the Bible.

How do I know the Bible is the Word of God? I know.

Are you "wowed" again.

Quantrill

Not wowed, disgusted. The blind faith in a book that leads you to claim that slavery is not evil is disturbingly similar to the blind faith in a book that led to 19 men crashing planes into the WTC and the Pentagon.

[Quantrill]

Not wowed, disgusted. The blind faith in a book that leads you to claim that slavery is not evil is disturbingly similar to the blind faith in a book that led to 19 men crashing planes into the WTC and the Pentagon.

Well, when God wrote the Book He wasn't seeking your or anyothers approval. And neither do I.

Quantrill

[Thor]

Yes of course, everyone has a long list of Biblical "errors". God said the hare chewed the cud. So whatever He considered as chewing the cud, to which the Israelite could know, is no error.


Yes, I can give you many more factual errors ands contradictions that are contained in the Bible.

So please explain what "chewing the cud" could POSSIBLY mean (other than what we know it to mean). Your reason for claiming this is "no error" is pretty weak. You can just say "whatever God considered as (fill in the blank) is no error".

I don't have to worry about "supposed" or "more likely". I just trust what the Bible says.

Even when the Bible contradicts itself?

As I said already, slavery is not a sin. Scriptures are clear here. So no it is not evil. I can tell you know little of Southern slavery or that era.

I guess I'm more moral than your god. I consider slavery to be an abomination and horribly evil.

Do you think slavery is immoral?

Southern slaveholders used the Bible to justify the institution of slavery. This is a fact. And I've studied that period of American history, so I'm pretty familiar with how slaves were treated in the South.
I don't pin any hopes on what science finds. Why should I. It will just change its mind 6 months, or 6 weeks, or 6 days, or 6 minutes, from now

Yes, science is perfectly willing to change a conclusion or a theory if new information comes along. It's a constant process that always has the doors open. It always baffles me how this is something that can be criticized.

My hope and unmoveable trust is in God and in the Word He has given, the Bible.


Why don't you have "unmoveable trust" in the Koran? That is supposedly the word of "God" as well.

How do I know the Bible is the Word of God? I know.


No, you don't. You can't possibly "know" the Bible is the word of "God" any more than Muslims can "know" the Koran is the word of "God". This is simply a belief you have.

Are you "wowed" again.


Yeah, you just continue to "wow" me.....

[Thor]

Well, when God wrote the Book He wasn't seeking your or anyothers approval. And neither do I.

Quantrill

Yeah, we're just foolish mortals who can't see the wisdom in allowing slavery...:rolleyes:

[Thor]

As I said already, slavery is not a sin. Scriptures are clear here. So no it is not evil.

Don't you realize that in order to rationalize your belief in the Bible you are defending SLAVERY?

[Quantrill]

Yes, I can give you many more factual errors ands contradictions that are contained in the Bible.

So please explain what "chewing the cud" could POSSIBLY mean (other than what we know it to mean). Your reason for claiming this is "no error" is pretty weak. You can just say "whatever God considered as (fill in the blank) is no error".



Even when the Bible contradicts itself?



I guess I'm more moral than your god. I consider slavery to be an abomination and horribly evil.

Do you think slavery is immoral?

Southern slaveholders used the Bible to justify the institution of slavery. This is a fact. And I've studied that period of American history, so I'm pretty familiar with how slaves were treated in the South.


Yes, science is perfectly willing to change a conclusion or a theory if new information comes along. It's a constant process that always has the doors open. It always baffles me how this is something that can be criticized.



Why don't you have "unmoveable trust" in the Koran? That is supposedly the word of "God" as well.



No, you don't. You can't possibly "know" the Bible is the word of "God" any more than Muslims can "know" the Koran is the word of "God". This is simply a belief you have.



Yeah, you just continue to "wow" me.....

Of course you can as can others with a long list.

Yes I can just say that. There is question by many as to whether the Coney in Lev.11:5 chewed the cud also. But God said it did. So it did. And the Israelite understood it.

Yes thats right. I don't worry about supposed contridictions.

Ive already said slavery wasn't a sin. Ive said it wasn't evil. Now your moving to moral. Your having a hard time with this. No, the Bible doesn't teach slavery is immoral. So I don't believe slavery is immoral.

Its not a question of using the Bible, as if making it say something it doesn't. Southernors were being labeled as "evil" just like you are doing because of the institution of slavery.

Im not criticizing science. That is just what science is. But I don't use Science to interprett the Bible.

Yes I do know. I believe, and I know. Impossible to you, yes.

Wow.

Quantrill

[Quantrill]

Don't you realize that in order to rationalize your belief in the Bible you are defending SLAVERY?

Im not rationalizing my belief.

Quantrill

[Drawz]

Im not rationalizing my belief.

Quantrill

Ok, you're just defending slavery.

[Drawz]

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent-it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks, please. Cash and in small bills."

~Lazarus Long

[Glenn_G]

Ive already said slavery wasn't a sin. Ive said it wasn't evil. Now your moving to moral. Your having a hard time with this. No, the Bible doesn't teach slavery is immoral. So I don't believe slavery is immoral.

Its not a question of using the Bible, as if making it say something it doesn't. Southernors were being labeled as "evil" just like you are doing because of the institution of slavery.

Quantrill

Absolutely disgusting

[Thor]

Of course you can as can others with a long list.


And you just turn a blind eye to all of it....

Yes I can just say that. There is question by many as to whether the Coney in Lev.11:5 chewed the cud also. But God said it did. So it did. And the Israelite understood it.


And what if "God" had nothing to do with writing the Bible? You just assume this deity wrote the thing. Well, what about canonical writings that didn't make it into the Bible? Did "God" write them as well? And if he did, why were they not put in the Bible? Oh, that's right! Because early church leaders VOTED on what to include!

Yes thats right. I don't worry about supposed contridictions.

Obviously. Those blinders are difficult to remove, aren't they?

Ive already said slavery wasn't a sin. Ive said it wasn't evil. Now your moving to moral. Your having a hard time with this

I thought things that are immoral ARE sins.

No, the Bible doesn't teach slavery is immoral. So I don't believe slavery is immoral.


You would have been right at home living on a Georgia plantation in 1850.

So it would not be "immoral" for someone to grab you in a parking lot, throw you into a van, slap you in irons and sell you to another person? :eek:

Southernors were being labeled as "evil" just like you are doing because of the institution of slavery.


And your point here would be......??????

Im not criticizing science.

You castigate science because it can change its mind "6 months or 6 days or 6 minutes from now", but that's not a criticism?

But I don't use Science to interprett the Bible.



Neither do I.

Yes I do know. I believe, and I know.

Just as Muslims will tell me they "know" the truth of the Koran. Well, at least one of you is 100% wrong....

Im not rationalizing my belief.

Keep telling yourself that. Because we all know that slavery is a wonderful institution that should be put back into practice....:wall::wall::wall:

[Quantrill]

Absolutely disgusting

Is that a real absolute?

Quantrill

[Drawz]

Quantrill,

Deuteronomy 22:28-30 says that an unbetrothed virgin who is raped by a man should be forced to marry that man. Can I assume you're in favor of that as well?

Deuteronomy 22:5 states that women wearing mens clothes is an abomination unto the Lord thy God. Are you a woman? If so, do you wear pants? If not, do any of the women in your family wear pants? If they do, do you chastise them for offending God?

[Quantrill]

And you just turn a blind eye to all of it....



And what if "God" had nothing to do with writing the Bible? You just assume this deity wrote the thing. Well, what about canonical writings that didn't make it into the Bible? Did "God" write them as well? And if he did, why were they not put in the Bible? Oh, that's right! Because early church leaders VOTED on what to include!



Obviously. Those blinders are difficult to remove, aren't they?



I thought things that are immoral ARE sins.



You would have been right at home living on a Georgia plantation in 1850.

So it would not be "immoral" for someone to grab you in a parking lot, throw you into a van, slap you in irons and sell you to another person? :eek:



And your point here would be......??????



You castigate science because it can change its mind "6 months or 6 days or 6 minutes from now", but that's not a criticism?



Neither do I.



Just as Muslims will tell me they "know" the truth of the Koran. Well, at least one of you is 100% wrong....



Keep telling yourself that. Because we all know that slavery is a wonderful institution that should be put back into practice....:wall::wall::wall:

And what if? And then if? So many if's. The Bible declares to be written by God. So your the one "what iffing". Why do I want to go where your at?

The institution of slavery was based on Israels enemies and or an Israelite selling himself voulutarily. Slavery has been illegal in this country since about 1866. So no one is free to go make slaves of anyone.

Ahhh Georgia in the spring time.

My point being that the constant claim of slavery by the North against the South was just a facade to create them as "good" and the South as "evil" giving them justification before the world to destroy the South. You use slavery the same way. You feel you have found that which justifies your rejecting God who wrote the Bible, when in realilty you don't want nothing to do with Him regardless. Your too good for Him. You said so yourself.

No, I don't castigate Science. I just don't let Science influence my belief in God or the Bible. I fully expect Science to change its mind. It has to. Its always learning. It doesn't no everything.

Thats true, somone is wrong.

Im not telling myself, Im telling you.

Quantrill

[Quantrill]

Quantrill,

Deuteronomy 22:28-30 says that an unbetrothed virgin who is raped by a man should be forced to marry that man. Can I assume you're in favor of that as well?

Deuteronomy 22:5 states that women wearing mens clothes is an abomination unto the Lord thy God. Are you a woman? If so, do you wear pants? If not, do any of the women in your family wear pants? If they do, do you chastise them for offending God?

No, I do not attempt to keep these regulations given to Israel under the Law.

Quantrill

[Drawz]

No, I do not attempt to keep these regulations given to Israel under the Law.

Quantrill

Is it wrong to force a woman(Jewish or not) to marry her rapist?

[captusa]

And what if? And then if? So many if's. The Bible declares to be written by God. So your the one "what iffing". Why do I want to go where your at?

.......Quantrill
What if the Bible was not written by God.
If God did not write the Bible then whoever wrote the Bible WAS LYING.
If God did not write the Bible then men wrote and editted the Bible and men are capable of lying.

I have often asked the question of believers.
Why do you assume God doesn't lie.
If God is omnipotent he obviously can do anything so if HE lied HE would lie better than any human so people would believe every lie HE told.
Especially if HE said HE doesn't lie.

[Thor]

And what if? And then if? So many if's. The Bible declares to be written by God. So your the one "what iffing". Why do I want to go where your at?


We know the Bible is true because it was written by "God". And we know it was written by "God" because the Bible says so.

And round and round we go....

The institution of slavery was based on Israels enemies and or an Israelite selling himself voulutarily

Yeah, I've heard this lame argument before. True, there are sections of the Bible where slavery is referred to as selling yourself voluntarily. Read Leviticus 25:44-46. It specifically says you can buy and own slaves. It also specifically says you can buy CHILDREN.

Slavery has been illegal in this country since about 1866. So no one is free to go make slaves of anyone.


I wasn't talking about what is LEGAL. I was talking about what is MORAL. And, according to you, slavery is moral. So you should agree that it would be moral for someone to grab you off the street and sell you into slavery.

Ahhh Georgia in the spring time.


With the slaves working in the fields....

My point being that the constant claim of slavery by the North against the South was just a facade to create them as "good" and the South as "evil" giving them justification before the world to destroy the South.

Yes, the Union did have the moral high ground in the Civil War. And the "justification" they had for destruction was their desire to end the war as quickly as possible.

You feel you have found that which justifies your rejecting God who wrote the Bible, when in realilty you don't want nothing to do with Him regardless.

No, the fact that slavery is allowed by this deity is in complete contradiction to the notion that he is "just" and "all loving". And if this deity does indeed exist, and he does put his stamp of approval on enslaving your fellow human beings, you're right - I want nothing to do with him.

Your too good for Him. You said so yourself.


Not just me. Obviously the human race is more moral than your god. Slavery is considered an evil just about everywhere.

No, I do not attempt to keep these regulations given to Israel under the Law.



So you blatantly disregard "God's" laws?

[captusa]

We know the Bible is true because it was written by "God". And we know it was written by "God" because the Bible says so.

And round and round we go....



Yeah, I've heard this lame argument before. True, there are sections of the Bible where slavery is referred to as selling yourself voluntarily. Read Leviticus 25:44-46. It specifically says you can buy and own slaves. It also specifically says you can buy CHILDREN.



I wasn't talking about what is LEGAL. I was talking about what is MORAL. And, according to you, slavery is moral. So you should agree that it would be moral for someone to grab you off the street and sell you into slavery.



With the slaves working in the fields....



Yes, the Union did have the moral high ground in the Civil War. And the "justification" they had for destruction was their desire to end the war as quickly as possible.



No, the fact that slavery is allowed by this deity is in complete contradiction to the notion that he is "just" and "all loving". And if this deity does indeed exist, and he does put his stamp of approval on enslaving your fellow human beings, you're right - I want nothing to do with him.



Not just me. Obviously the human race is more moral than your god. Slavery is considered an evil just about everywhere.



So you blatantly disregard "God's" laws?

Also the New Testament enumerated the duties a slave owed his master and the OT was written during Roman rule so the OT would have dealt with what slaves of Romans qwed their masters.

[Quantrill]

Is it wrong to force a woman(Jewish or not) to marry her rapist?

No law God gives is wrong. Unless one is under this law there is no authority to force anything.

Quantrill

[Thor]

No law God gives is wrong. Unless one is under this law there is no authority to force anything.

Quantrill

What do you mean "unless one is under this law"? This law was given by "God" (or so you believe). Aren't we ALL subject to this deity's laws?

[Drawz]

No law God gives is wrong. Unless one is under this law there is no authority to force anything.

Quantrill

So, you support slavery and forcing Jewish rape victems to marry the man who raped them.

Repulsive.

[Drawz]

What do you mean "unless one is under this law"? This law was given by "God" (or so you believe). Aren't we ALL subject to this deity's laws?

Nope, for some reason many (mostly inconveinient) laws only apply to the Jews.

[Quantrill]

We know the Bible is true because it was written by "God". And we know it was written by "God" because the Bible says so.

And round and round we go....



Yeah, I've heard this lame argument before. True, there are sections of the Bible where slavery is referred to as selling yourself voluntarily. Read Leviticus 25:44-46. It specifically says you can buy and own slaves. It also specifically says you can buy CHILDREN.



I wasn't talking about what is LEGAL. I was talking about what is MORAL. And, according to you, slavery is moral. So you should agree that it would be moral for someone to grab you off the street and sell you into slavery.



With the slaves working in the fields....



Yes, the Union did have the moral high ground in the Civil War. And the "justification" they had for destruction was their desire to end the war as quickly as possible.



No, the fact that slavery is allowed by this deity is in complete contradiction to the notion that he is "just" and "all loving". And if this deity does indeed exist, and he does put his stamp of approval on enslaving your fellow human beings, you're right - I want nothing to do with him.



Not just me. Obviously the human race is more moral than your god. Slavery is considered an evil just about everywhere.



So you blatantly disregard "God's" laws?

Yes, round and round.

Israel could buy those who were not Israelites. These were slaves. God institutes slavery. Is it wrong, evil, immoral? No.

Your scenario of grabbing someone off the street in a parking lot is not comparable. If an institution of slavery is not existant then there is nothing to govern and its just an individuals action.

"When its peach pickin time in Gerogia...."

The Union had no moral ground. They had to create a facade which lives today which you are a perfect example of.

Thats how it is with God, if you don't want Him, He honors your decision.

Well, Im not concerned with what "everywhere" thinks, if what they think is contrary to God.

No, I blatantly do not place myself under the Law.

Quantrill

[TonkaTim]

Deuteronomy 22:28-30 says that an unbetrothed virgin who is raped by a man should be forced to marry that man. Can I assume you're in favor of that as well?

Drawz,
The word you are using for rape in Deuteronomy 22:28 is - שכב - the transliteration is shakab which is a word with multiple meanings, our modern definition of rape is not one of them. The context of the passage means to "lie with (sexually)". For many years it was commonly accepted, I think the term is called "shotgun wedding".
Deuteronomy 22:28 - "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;"


Deuteronomy 22:5 states that women wearing mens clothes is an abomination unto the Lord thy God. Are you a woman? If so, do you wear pants? If not, do any of the women in your family wear pants? If they do, do you chastise them for offending God?

The meaning of Deuteronomy 22:5 - God intended for the sexes to be distinct and we are commanded not to masculinize women or feminize men by appearence.
- Deuteronomy 22:5 - "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

As far as women wearing pants, it is not relevent as long as women are present themselves as feminine, unless you are proposing that we dress like the ancients did. I would not be particularly fond of wearing a robe myself, back then both men and women wore robes and pantaloons (pants) as undergarments. So the context is easily understood.

Twisting words & meaning, taking words & phrases out of context is not intellectually honest.

[Quantrill]

What do you mean "unless one is under this law"? This law was given by "God" (or so you believe). Aren't we ALL subject to this deity's laws?

We are all subject to God, but not all are under the Mosaic Law.

Quantrill

[TonkaTim]

We are all subject to God, but not all are under the Mosaic Law.

Quantrill

I'm curious why you say that?

[Quantrill]

So, you support slavery and forcing Jewish rape victems to marry the man who raped them.

Repulsive.

If Israel is following God, and following the Mosaic Law, then yes I would support it. But that Law is not in affect at this time.

But these laws in no way cause me to find any wrong or fault with God or the Bible.

Now thats repulsive, isn't it?

Quantrill

[Clintville]

So I don't believe slavery is immoral.
Wow, would I be banned if I called you a horrible person for this?

So what do you think about the Reconstruction Amendments?

[TonkaTim]

But that Law is not in affect at this time.
Quantrill

Based on?

[Quantrill]

I'm curious why you say that?

Because the Law of Moses was specifically given to the people of Israel. It was not given to the Gentiles. It had a design and purpose fitted to Israel.

Prior to Exodus 19, there was no nation of Israel and no Law of Moses. People before that time operated and were accountable to God through other institutions. After the giving of the Law, Israel was now responsible to God by that Law. And people who were not Israel were still under the previous institutions because they were not placed under the Law by God.

Quantrill

[TonkaTim]

Wow, would I be banned if I called you a horrible person for this?

So what do you think about the Reconstruction Amendments?

In the Law servitude is permited but not commanded. Odd thing, in the modern era we find servitude, a great amount of servitude. We can measure it in degrees, we can call it slavery or servitude. We can look at this concept from its purest form. Ownership to right of ones labor. In that concept all wage earners are slaves or servants via Internal Revenue Service, for the Central bank since all payments are made to them.

See - Ronald Reagan's Grace Commission Report.

[TonkaTim]

Because the Law of Moses was specifically given to the people of Israel. It was not given to the Gentiles. It had a design and purpose fitted to Israel.

Prior to Exodus 19, there was no nation of Israel and no Law of Moses. People before that time operated and were accountable to God through other institutions. After the giving of the Law, Israel was now responsible to God by that Law. And people who were not Israel were still under the previous institutions because they were not placed under the Law by God.

Quantrill

You are not the first person I've ran across recently saying this. If you practice Judaism and read the Talmud I can understand your prespective in regards to the noahide laws. But if you are a believer in Christ Jesus, I'd be real interested to know which denominations are teaching Antinomianism.

[Quantrill]

Wow, would I be banned if I called you a horrible person for this?

So what do you think about the Reconstruction Amendments?

Would you be banned? I don't know. But I am not offended so I don't see why.

I think as much of the Reconstruction ammendments as I do the Reconstruction period.

Which isn't much.

Quantrill

[Drawz]

In the Law servitude is permited but not commanded. Odd thing, in the modern era we find servitude, a great amount of servitude. We can measure it in degrees, we can call it slavery or servitude. We can look at this concept from its purest form. Ownership to right of ones labor. In that concept all wage earners are slaves or servants via Internal Revenue Service, for the Central bank since all payments are made to them.

See - Ronald Reagan's Grace Commission Report.
Absolute rubbish. No one owns my labor, I give it to them for a wage. Comparing that to slavery is absurd. I can quit any job I take. Are slaves afforded the same option?

Trying to legitimize the Bibles acceptence of slavery by comparing it to people who have jobs is... I really don't have a word for what that is.

[TonkaTim]

Absolute rubbish. No one owns my labor, I give it to them for a wage. Comparing that to slavery is absurd. I can quit any job I take. Are slaves afforded the same option?

Trying to legitimize the Bibles acceptence of slavery by comparing it to people who have jobs is... I really don't have a word for what that is.

I'm comparing it to the Income Taxes on your labor. Notice I said IRS.....

*sigh*

[TonkaTim]

I'm comparing it to the Income Taxes on your labor. Notice I said IRS.....

*sigh*

I used someone else's point to make an analogy relevent to our times.

[Quantrill]

You are not the first person I've ran across recently saying this. If you practice Judaism and read the Talmud I can understand your prespective in regards to the noahide laws. But if you are a believer in Christ Jesus, I'd be real interested to know which denominations are teaching Antinomianism.

You will have to explain your Antinomianism as I don't think that is what I am saying.

Quantrill

[Drawz]

I'm comparing it to the Income Taxes on your labor. Notice I said IRS.....

*sigh*

Sigh.

Income tax is comperable to slavery? You really want to stand by that comparison?

[TonkaTim]

You will have to explain your Antinomianism as I don't think that is what I am saying.

Quantrill

The doctrine or belief that the Gospel frees Christians from required obedience to the law, the antithesis of legalism.

[TonkaTim]

Sigh.

Income tax is comperable to slavery? You really want to stand by that comparison?

Yup, I really do.

[Drawz]

Yup, I really do.

Yah. When the IRS forces you to perform a job without paying you for it and beats you or kills you when you don't do that job, then I'll cede your point.

[Thor]

Israel could buy those who were not Israelites. These were slaves. God institutes slavery.

What a guy! This "loving " deity condemns people to a lifetime of bondage. And you think this being is worthy of worship?

Is it wrong, evil, immoral? No.


And I'd say you pretty much stand alone on this statement. Why don't we look in the history books and see if people who were slaves would agree that slavery is not immoral or evil?

Your scenario of grabbing someone off the street in a parking lot is not comparable. If an institution of slavery is not existant then there is nothing to govern and its just an individuals action.


It absolutely IS the same thing. What about the innocent African who was out gathering food and had slave catchers throw a net over his head, slap him in irons and drag him off? My example was simply a modern version of this scenario.

The Union had no moral ground. They had to create a facade which lives today which you are a perfect example of.


Well, if you want to insist that slavery is moral, you're right. There would be no moral high ground in fighting to end slavery.

Well, Im not concerned with what "everywhere" thinks, if what they think is contrary to God.



And thinking slavery is an unconscionable evil puts me on the opposite side of "God's" fence? In that case, your god is a being I don't want to know.

We are all subject to God, but not all are under the Mosaic Law.



Please show me where this is written.

[TonkaTim]

Yah. When the IRS forces you to perform a job without paying you for it and beats you or kills you when you don't do that job, then I'll cede your point.

Your wages are confiscated by threat of force. Refuse to submit and what is the result? Loss of freedom(imprisonment), loss of property(IRS tax seizures), by force. If you refuse you will be looking down the barrel of a gun. If you defy that, you can be tazed, shot, killed for resisting. Just simple truth, you may not like to admit it, you may refuse to admit it, but still truth.

I pay my income taxes like clockwork, the only reason is because I do not want to go to jail, have my possessions seized, or be killed for resisting.


Edit:

Your only alternative is to refuse to work, be it for wages or self-employment. End result is poverty, panhandling and homelessness. So submit or perish. I'd call "submit or perish" the ultimate definition of slavery.

[Quantrill]

What a guy! This "loving " deity condemns people to a lifetime of bondage. And you think this being is worthy of worship?



And I'd say you pretty much stand alone on this statement. Why don't we look in the history books and see if people who were slaves would agree that slavery is not immoral or evil?



It absolutely IS the same thing. What about the innocent African who was out gathering food and had slave catchers throw a net over his head, slap him in irons and drag him off? My example was simply a modern version of this scenario.



Well, if you want to insist that slavery is moral, you're right. There would be no moral high ground in fighting to end slavery.



And thinking slavery is an unconscionable evil puts me on the opposite side of "God's" fence? In that case, your god is a being I don't want to know.



Please show me where this is written.

Yes, God is worthy of worship.

Just as I do not use Science to judge Scripture neither do I consider anothers view when it is contrary to the Scripture. And alone does not bother me either.

Well, how innocent do you consider the one who Israel made a slave. Was he innocent also? That didn't stop him from being a slave. He was a slave because he was a foreigner and not of Israel.

No your scenario is not comparable. Anything can be abused. The death penalty is instituted by God. Yet some governments kill many of their own for control only. God instituted slavery under the Law and Israel was responsible to God for it. So, slavery of itself is not evil.

If you think the North was fighting to end slavery you have a lot to learn.

No, your on the opposite side of the fence with God already. You just want to comfort yourself that slavery justifies it. Thats fine. No one is trying to get you to change your mind.

Why should I show you where it is written when you don't believe it anyway? Wow.

Quantrill

[Clintville]

I think as much of the Reconstruction ammendments as I do the Reconstruction period.

So you are against ending slavery, universal suffrage, and equal protection under the law?

[Clintville]

I'm comparing it to the Income Taxes on your labor. Notice I said IRS.....

*sigh*
Comparing taxes to slavery is still pathetic.

[Clintville]

If you think the North was fighting to end slavery you have a lot to learn.

The US may have not been fighting to end slavery, but the South was fighting to keep it. And regardless of what the north was fighting for, the end of slavery was a result, so it might have well as been.

This seems a bit off topic.

So, slavery of itself is not evil.

So what kind of slavery is okay in your eyes?

No, your on the opposite side of the fence with God already. You just want to comfort yourself that slavery justifies it. Thats fine. No one is trying to get you to change your mind.
So what about a Christian who think slavery is evil (probably almost all of them)? Are they on the right fence with God?

[Quantrill]

The doctrine or belief that the Gospel frees Christians from required obedience to the law, the antithesis of legalism.

Yes, I would agree with that. This however does not mean the Chrsitian is free to sin. It means he is not under the Law. He is not answerable to God on the basis of the Law. He does not walk by the Law.

Quantrill

[TonkaTim]

Comparing taxes to slavery is still pathetic.

I'm talking about direct taxes on the product of your labor taken directly from Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. See - Ronald Reagan's Grace Commission Report. The Internal Revenue Service is the collection arm of the private Federal Reserve Bank, ie:the Fed, central bank, central economic planning. What I find even more disturbing, the Obama Admin sent croniegress a legislative proposal to turn the remaining economic regulatory authority over to the Fed.

Your wages are confiscated by threat of force. Refuse to submit and what is the result? Loss of freedom(imprisonment), loss of property(IRS tax seizures), by force. If you refuse you will be looking down the barrel of a gun. If you defy that, you can be tazed, shot, killed for resisting. Just simple truth, you may not like to admit it, you may refuse to admit it, but still truth.

I pay my income taxes like clockwork, the only reason is because I do not want to go to jail, have my possessions seized, or be killed for resisting.

Your only alternative is to refuse to work, be it for wages or self-employment. End result is poverty, panhandling and homelessness. So submit or perish. I'd call "submit or perish" the ultimate definition of slavery.

What ever words you want to call it, your most recent "pathetic", thank God you still have the right to be wrong. Denial of facts or name-calling does not prove my words wrong, only your inability to accept truth. If what I say is not so, how about you refuse paying those income taxes, then get back to me in a few years & tell me how that works out.

What I find pathetic is not ony the complete acceptence of pure communist ideologies in America, but the defense of them as well.

[Quantrill]

The US may have not been fighting to end slavery, but the South was fighting to keep it. And regardless of what the north was fighting for, the end of slavery was a result, so it might have well as been.

This seems a bit off topic.


So what kind of slavery is okay in your eyes?
So what about a Christian who think slavery is evil (probably almost all of them)? Are they on the right fence with God?

"It might as well have been" is part of the facade. No, the South was not fighting to keep slavery. The South was defending itself from the attacking North who would not allow them to secede. And the South seceeded because they could no longer enjoy the protections of the constitution while in the "Union".

If you think its off topic, then dont talk about it.

Its not a question of a kind of slavery. Its not a question of whats OK with me. Its a question of 'Did God institute slavery" and is the Bible to be blelieved because it says so.

Did I say ones view on slavery put them on one side of the fence or other?

Quantrill

[TonkaTim]

Yes, I would agree with that. This however does not mean the Chrsitian is free to sin. It means he is not under the Law. He is not answerable to God on the basis of the Law. He does not walk by the Law.

Quantrill

I definately agree that a believer is not free to sin. Which leads me to a couple questions.

Without the God's Law, how do we define sin?

What did Jesus declare about the Law?

What did the disciples teach?

Would you mind citing the scriptures that declares the Law null & void?


Quantrill, I hope you understand I ask these questons out of love for what I feel is a brother in Christ. As always I only want to present truth.

[Thor]

Yes, God is worthy of worship.


Any god that would sanction putting people into bondage where they spend their lives in misery is definitely not worthy of worship in my book.

Just as I do not use Science to judge Scripture neither do I consider anothers view when it is contrary to the Scripture. And alone does not bother me either.


How do you explain that just about every Christian and Jew would agree that slavery is immoral?

Well, how innocent do you consider the one who Israel made a slave. Was he innocent also? That didn't stop him from being a slave. He was a slave because he was a foreigner and not of Israel.


This makes no sense to me at all.

No your scenario is not comparable.

Yes, it is quite comparable. I don't know why you can't see it.

Anything can be abused. The death penalty is instituted by God. Yet some governments kill many of their own for control only.

Yeah, your god likes to see people killed for all sorts of inane reasons (working on Sunday, committing a homosexual act, worshipping other gods, if a kid is disobedient...)

God instituted slavery under the Law and Israel was responsible to God for it. So, slavery of itself is not evil.


Frederick Douglass has a differing opinion on that matter.

If you think the North was fighting to end slavery you have a lot to learn.



Slavery was the primary issue for secession. But the Union didn't make it a cause until the Emancipation Proclamation. I do know my history.

No, your on the opposite side of the fence with God already. You just want to comfort yourself that slavery justifies it.

I do not need to "justify" anything to myself. Your god is a fiction. The fact that he would condone slavery is just evidence of that to me.

Why should I show you where it is written when you don't believe it anyway?

Because I've heard this before and no one has ever shown me where it is written.

[The Bos'un]

Not sorry for G_d. sorry that atheists are atheists..

[spinach]

There are myriad reasons not to accept the story of Noah's Ark as fact.

But, in this thread I just want to address one.

So, for those who contend that the story is true as written, I have one question:
how did the deer survive after Noah released all the animals after the Flood was over?

According to the Bible there were either two or fourteen deer on the Ark. Once they were released, along with all the carnivores, how did they mange to avoid those carnivores long enough to stay alive and maintain their species?

And if they did avoid those carnivores, then what did the meat eaters subsist on while their prey were rebuilding their population to a point where the carnivores could prey on them without killing off the species?


apparently your problem is God, not animals.
And the bible is true as is written.

[spinach]

Not sorry for G_d. sorry that atheists are atheists..

and there's no point in explaining anything to a fool.
Psalm 14

[The Bos'un]

If you want to say something, spit it out, Thor. :))

[The Bos'un]

:clap: Good comment spinach. When one has a chip on one's shoulder it is difficult for one to see or feel the real problem....

[TonkaTim]

My reply to those who reject God -

If it is not for you, so be it.
Go in peace.

[The Bos'un]

My reply to those who reject God -

If it is not for you, so be it.
Go in peace.
It is your story you can tell it any way you want to, Tonka.

go in peace, return in peace.

[Drawz]

apparently your problem is God, not animals.
And the bible is true as is written.

So... how did the deer avoid the carnivores long enough to reproduce? What did the carnivores eat in the interim?

[Quantrill]

Any god that would sanction putting people into bondage where they spend their lives in misery is definitely not worthy of worship in my book.



How do you explain that just about every Christian and Jew would agree that slavery is immoral?



This makes no sense to me at all.



Yes, it is quite comparable. I don't know why you can't see it.



Yeah, your god likes to see people killed for all sorts of inane reasons (working on Sunday, committing a homosexual act, worshipping other gods, if a kid is disobedient...)



Frederick Douglass has a differing opinion on that matter.



Slavery was the primary issue for secession. But the Union didn't make it a cause until the Emancipation Proclamation. I do know my history.



I do not need to "justify" anything to myself. Your god is a fiction. The fact that he would condone slavery is just evidence of that to me.



Because I've heard this before and no one has ever shown me where it is written.

And according to your book you can worship whatever you like. I will worship the God who wrote the Bible.

I am not answering for every other Jew or Christian. You can take that up with them.

You see, its not just slavery you have trouble with. You have trouble with many things God says in the Bible. You have trouble with God period.

Well, I don't think Frederick Douglas wrote anything in the Bible, so Im not too concerned.

No, slavery was an issue, but not the cause. And the emancipation was a joke. It freed no one. It was a political war measure. It was not a humanitarian act.

And no Christian or God needs to justify themselves to you by what God wrote.

Again, what does it matter. The Bible declares that God instituted slavery. To you it doesn't matter what else is said. Look harder.

Quantrill

[TonkaTim]

So... how did the deer avoid the carnivores long enough to reproduce? What did the carnivores eat in the interim?

Stored food? -and/or- Alot of animals reproduce at an alarming rate. Carnivores may have been quite happy eating rodents and bunnies. Noah and his sons may have had some fishing nets as well. I'm sure those big cats would have enjoyed a few large fresh tuna.

It wasn't like Noah did not have many decades to prepare...Seems quite plausable to me to build a large ship and outfit it similar to a biodome. I've read several proposals about doing the same thing for deep space travel & colonization.

[Quantrill]

I definately agree that a believer is not free to sin. Which leads me to a couple questions.

Without the God's Law, how do we define sin?

What did Jesus declare about the Law?

What did the disciples teach?

Would you mind citing the scriptures that declares the Law null & void?


Quantrill, I hope you understand I ask these questons out of love for what I feel is a brother in Christ. As always I only want to present truth.

Yes I understand and appreciate that. Im not sure that a discussion on the Law and Grace, Israel and the Church, would be appreciated here. Im sure it would be lengthy.

Why not start the topic in the Religious area. I will respond. Though maybe tomorrow.

Pleasure meeting you.

Quantrill

[Drawz]

Stored food? -and/or- Alot of animals reproduce at an alarming rate. Carnivores may have been quite happy eating rodents and bunnies. Noah and his sons may have had some fishing nets as well. I'm sure those big cats would have enjoyed a few large fresh tuna.

It wasn't like Noah did not have many decades to prepare...Seems quite plausable to me to build a large ship and outfit it similar to a biodome. I've read several proposals about doing the same thing for deep space travel & colonization.

I'm talking about after Noah released the animals.

Rats and rabbits? Two tigers would hardly be sated by two rabbits and two rats, then of course if that's what they ate right off the boat we wouldn't have any rats or rabbits would we?

[TonkaTim]

Yes I understand and appreciate that. Im not sure that a discussion on the Law and Grace, Israel and the Church, would be appreciated here. Im sure it would be lengthy.

Why not start the topic in the Religious area. I will respond. Though maybe tomorrow.

Pleasure meeting you.

Quantrill


I agree.

Very nice meeting you as well.

[TonkaTim]

I'm talking about after Noah released the animals.

Rats and rabbits? Two tigers would hardly be sated by two rabbits and two rats, then of course if that's what they ate right off the boat we wouldn't have any rats or rabbits would we?


We do know they were on the boat for a year. Going on memory here, but I believe Noah had around 100 years to prepare.... The typical gestation of rodents can be 17-45 days, Rabbits around 30 days, plus fish caught from the seas. Seems the reproduction rates may have allowed time.

We do not know how long after disembarking the animals were fully released into the wild. A logical assumption would allow for time for herds to grow and be sustainable.

But I am sure one could research the known reproduction data and come up with reasonable estimates on how long to maintain captivity to establish proper eco-conservation similar to what we do with game management.

[captusa]

We do know they were on the boat for a year. Going on memory here, but I believe Noah had around 100 years to prepare.... The typical gestation of rodents can be 17-45 days, Rabbits around 30 days, plus fish caught from the seas. Seems the reproduction rates may have allowed time.

We do not know how long after disembarking the animals were fully released into the wild. A logical assumption would allow for time for herds to grow and be sustainable.

But I am sure one could research the known reproduction data and come up with reasonable estimates on how long to maintain captivity to establish proper eco-conservation similar to what we do with game management.

The bigger problem would be how to store enough silage to feed the herbafores.
Now much hay would 5 or 6 species of rhinosauri eat in 120 days ?
At least 3 species of elephants ?
A few hundred species of deer ......

[TonkaTim]

The bigger problem would be how to store enough silage to feed the herbafores.
Now much hay would 5 or 6 species of rhinosauri eat in 120 days ?
At least 3 species of elephants ?
A few hundred species of deer ......

Now if I take the measurements from the anomoly on Mount Jhudi (AraratMountains) that Turkey claims is the hull of huge boat on that mountain. They dimensionally match the measurements of scale in the Bible. It puts it close to size of a modern oil tanker.

I know they have done alot of scientific research on the Ararat anomoly, showing it was constructed with trussed bracing & laminated timbers to make extraordinarlily large beams like they use now in modern times. The anomoly was is supposed to have slid down the mountain and mostly bured from mudslides. But the articles I've read also show that the trusses were held together with a plate rivet system made of iron & titanium alloys.

Turkey maintains a visitor center for the anomoly. They claim the size breath & depth should be more than enough for storage and life sustainment & that it has multiple levels. I do not know for a fact but just on sheer size it does sound plausible.

Given the chance I probably would have filled the top exposed deck with good soil then covered it to protect it from the rains. Once they stopped it would have had made room for a very nice garden for vegetation.

[TonkaTim]

Lots of unexplained phenomena that is accepted from the scientific community that points to a global flood. Many secular scientist have studied the concept.

They point to drop stones, Lake Tititcaca(sp?) in South America due to it being a huge lake with no source containing beast, sharks, etc. that are typical to the ocean but adapted to fresh water that they assume hapened from soil leeching the salt. Ancient underwater cities like the one off the west coast of India that was found a few years ago that was considered myth. And lava tunnels in mountain ranges such as Ararat that only occur when underwater. Lots of questions yet unanswered.

All the evidence points to a time when our coastlines looked alot different than they do now. From recent underwater archeological finds we may have had a far more advanced society than previously thought in a pre-deluge world.

[TonkaTim]

Here is a BBC article on the underwater City off the west coast of India they estimate is over 9000 years old.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1768109.stm


I thought it was neat.

[Clintville]

"It might as well have been" is part of the facade. No, the South was not fighting to keep slavery. The South was defending itself from the attacking North who would not allow them to secede. And the South seceeded because they could no longer enjoy the protections of the constitution while in the "Union".

Whatever, the South was defending secession, but it seceded because of slavery. That is undeniable.

Did I say ones view on slavery put them on one side of the fence or other?

Well, yeah, kind of. You said God thought slavery was okay. So if you don't like slavery or are against it, that would mean you disagree with God. Which is bad isn't it?

I just want to know, do you really have a problem with the Reconstruction amendments? Not the way in how they were passed, but just what they are and what they did (or tried to do, ultimately failed to be enforced in the south).

[Clintville]

You see, its not just slavery you have trouble with. You have trouble with many things God says in the Bible. You have trouble with God period.

Well he does say a lot of bizarre and contradicting stuff. According to the Bible, men shouldn't have long hair, but that is exactly what Jesus had!


No, slavery was an issue, but not the cause. And the emancipation was a joke. It freed no one. It was a political war measure. It was not a humanitarian act.

No, slavery was the cause. The south seceded because they feared Lincoln and the Republicans would ban slavery. They themselves made this clear, didn't try to make it subtle or lie. It is right in their independence declarations, they were very much about keeping white supremacy.

And no, the Emancipation Proclamation did free slaves in occupied areas, though it is true, it was mostly a political tool. But it doesn't matter, from then on it was pretty clear (and true) that the US would destroy slavery completely once the war was over.

[Thor]

and there's no point in explaining anything to a fool.
Psalm 14

Ah, yes. Atheists are "fools", "corrupt" and "do no good". The Bible says so, don't ya know!

What a shock that the people who wrote the Bible, people who want you to believe their brand of mythology, would put verses in their book saying that unbelievers are all these things.

If demanding evidence before believing incredible tales makes you a "fool", then what would you call someone who accepts the unbelievable as true?

[natalie addict]

"It might as well have been" is part of the facade. No, the South was not fighting to keep slavery. The South was defending itself from the attacking North who would not allow them to secede. And the South seceeded because they could no longer enjoy the protections of the constitution while in the "Union".

If you think its off topic, then dont talk about it.

Its not a question of a kind of slavery. Its not a question of whats OK with me. Its a question of 'Did God institute slavery" and is the Bible to be blelieved because it says so.

Did I say ones view on slavery put them on one side of the fence or other?

Quantrill

The South fired first....
Decades of growing strife between North and South erupted in civil war on April 12, 1861, when Confederate artillery opened fire on this Federal fort in Charleston Harbor. Fort Sumter surrendered 34 hours later. Union forces would try for nearly four years to take it back.

[The Bos'un]

you said it, I did not :))

[Quantrill]

The South fired first....

Yes the South did fire first. But South Carolina seceeded which meant the Federal government must leave. The Federal govt. was now a tresspasser. They wouldn't leave Fort Sumter and were going to reinforce instead.

The South did not fire on a Federal Fort. She fired on a South Carolina fort held by tresspassers from the Federal govt.

Plus, the Federal govt, manipulated the Souths firing on Fort Sumter in order to give it the moral grounds needed to wage the coming war.

Quantrill

[Quantrill]

Well he does say a lot of bizarre and contradicting stuff. According to the Bible, men shouldn't have long hair, but that is exactly what Jesus had!


No, slavery was the cause. The south seceded because they feared Lincoln and the Republicans would ban slavery. They themselves made this clear, didn't try to make it subtle or lie. It is right in their independence declarations, they were very much about keeping white supremacy.

And no, the Emancipation Proclamation did free slaves in occupied areas, though it is true, it was mostly a political tool. But it doesn't matter, from then on it was pretty clear (and true) that the US would destroy slavery completely once the war was over.

No, slavery was not the cause. It was an issue but not the cause.

"It was not the passage of the 'personal liberty laws', it was not the circulation of incendiary documents, it was not the raid of John Brown, it was not the operation of unjust and unequal tariff laws, nor all combined, that constituted the intolerble grievance, but it was the systematic and persistent struggle to deprive the Southern states of equality in the Union-geneeally to discriminate in legislation against the interests of their people; culminating in their exclusion from the territories, the common property of the states, as well as by the infraction of their compact to promote domestic tranquillity."

"No alternative remained except to seek the security out of the Union which they had vainly tried to obtain within it. The hope of our people may be stated in a sentence. It was to escape from injury and strife in the Union, to find prosperity and peace out of it."
Jefferson Davis (Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government)

The emancipation proclamation freed no one. Abraham Lincoln did not have the authority to free slaves in the Confederacy. And he refused to free the ones in the then occupied areas of the "Union".

Abraham Lincoln emancipated those he couldnt free, and kept slaves those he could have freed. Yet he is the "great emancipator".

If slavery were the cause, then an emancipation would have been issued at the begining of the war. It wasn't issued until two years into the war. Why? Because it was not the cause. In fact the South was offered as the 13th ammendment the protection of slavery for ever in the South if they would not seceede.

Quantrill

[Quantrill]

Whatever, the South was defending secession, but it seceded because of slavery. That is undeniable.

Well, yeah, kind of. You said God thought slavery was okay. So if you don't like slavery or are against it, that would mean you disagree with God. Which is bad isn't it?

I just want to know, do you really have a problem with the Reconstruction amendments? Not the way in how they were passed, but just what they are and what they did (or tried to do, ultimately failed to be enforced in the south).

No its not undeniable as I just showed in a previous reply.

Well,no,kinda not, no. The issue of slavery does not make one a Christian or not.

Explain the Reconstructin amendment and its purpose and I will tell you if I have a problem with it.

Quantrill

[natalie addict]

Yes the South did fire first. But South Carolina seceeded which meant the Federal government must leave. The Federal govt. was now a tresspasser. They wouldn't leave Fort Sumter and were going to reinforce instead.

The South did not fire on a Federal Fort. She fired on a South Carolina fort held by tresspassers from the Federal govt.

Plus, the Federal govt, manipulated the Souths firing on Fort Sumter in order to give it the moral grounds needed to wage the coming war.

Quantrill

Nonetheless the South fired first. Itchy trigger fingers I presume. Spoiling for a fight. Ol'Abe gave them the opportunity and the South ran with it. And the rest, as they say, is history.

[mtdim]

No its not undeniable as I just showed in a previous reply.

Well,no,kinda not, no. The issue of slavery does not make one a Christian or not.

Explain the Reconstructin amendment and its purpose and I will tell you if I have a problem with it.

Quantrill

Thirteenth: abolished slavery.
Fourtheenth: Broad citizenship definition, equal protection, due process, etc.
Fifteenth: Made it illegal to deny voting rights based on race or for previously being a slave.

[Quantrill]

Thirteenth: abolished slavery.
Fourtheenth: Broad citizenship definition, equal protection, due process, etc.
Fifteenth: Made it illegal to deny voting rights based on race or for previously being a slave.

Explain the Reconstructin ammendment and its purpose?

[mtdim]

Explain the Reconstruction ammendment and its purpose?

Those three amendments (thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth) are known collectively as the "Reconstruction Amendments" since they were all passed in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War in an attempt to prevent the South from reverting to how it was before the war. The amendments abolished slavery, guaranteed citizenship and equal treatment under the law for blacks (well for everyone), and made it illegal to deny voting rights to anyone based on skin color (many southern states found ways around this, however, by using "literacy tests" and the like). Since the southern states had been defeated, they were unable to prevent the Republican dominated northern states from passing the amendments.

[Quantrill]

Those three amendments (thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth) are known collectively as the "Reconstruction Amendments" since they were all passed in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War in an attempt to prevent the South from reverting to how it was before the war. The amendments abolished slavery, guaranteed citizenship and equal treatment under the law for blacks (well for everyone), and made it illegal to deny voting rights to anyone based on skin color (many southern states found ways around this, however, by using "literacy tests" and the like). Since the southern states had been defeated, they were unable to prevent the Republican dominated northern states from passing the amendments.

Really. Did it gaurantee equal treatment for Indians?

So the Congress, which 5 years prior wanted to make slavery perpetual, now wants to abolish slavery with the 13th.

And to give voting rights to blacks, you have disenfranchisement of the Southern states , and whites in the South are disenfranchised.

Plus you didn't mention the further distruction of States rights and the expansion of the Federal govt. Or do those not matter?

The purpose of these ammendments is clear. It was to destroy politically the people of the South and replace them with another people, the negro, who would vote for the norths interests.

So no, I do not care for these ammendments.

Quantrill

[mtdim]

Really. Did it gaurantee equal treatment for Indians?

So the Congress, which 5 years prior wanted to make slavery perpetual, now wants to abolish slavery with the 13th.

Well the the sourthern states were not really represented in the Reconstruction Congress. But even those northerners who had not been against slavery recognized that it was an issue that had divided the nation for many years culminating in a long, bitter, and deadly war. The idea of allowing things to return to as they were prior to all of that was unconscionable to many, even if the notion of slavery itself was not (though to most it was, I think).


And to give voting rights to blacks, you have disenfranchisement of the Southern states , and whites in the South are disenfranchised.

Well the south as a whole was disenfranchised at the Federal level immediately following the Civil War, though it seems that in light of their rebellion it was not so unfair that this happened. However, I don't see how giving voting rights to blacks specifically has anything to do with the ability of whites to vote.


Plus you didn't mention the further distruction of States rights and the expansion of the Federal govt. Or do those not matter?

These are amendments, which means they are perfectly constitutional.


The purpose of these ammendments is clear. It was to destroy politically the people of the South and replace them with another people, the negro, who would vote for the norths interests.

The purpose was to rebuild the nation such that division in the future over racial or slavery related issues would be impossible. The last thing northerners wanted after fighting such a terrible war was for things to return to the way they were. This means that, yes, the will of southern whites was disregarded for a time. As defeated rebels, however, it was understandable that this happened.

Defeating the south and then letting them have things their own way would be like our pulling out of Iraq immediately after toppling Hussein's regime, allowing another viscious dictatorship to spring up immediately. It would have defeated the purpose of the invasion in the first place.

However the real question is, do you actually think that the content of these amendments are bad, or do you just disagree with the manner and the context in which they were passed? For example, if you could have them repealed today, would you?

[Clintville]

No, slavery was not the cause. It was an issue but not the cause.

Do you want me to show you what the states said? Slavery was the main issue. It was the main issue for the past twenty years before the war.

The emancipation proclamation freed no one. Abraham Lincoln did not have the authority to free slaves in the Confederacy. And he refused to free the ones in the then occupied areas of the "Union".

Again, it did, it freed slaves that were in Union occupied southern areas (though they were being freed anyways, so I guess it doesn't matter)

Abraham Lincoln emancipated those he couldnt free, and kept slaves those he could have freed. Yet he is the "great emancipator".

And then he helped pass the 13th Amendment, so yeah, you can still call him that.

If slavery were the cause, then an emancipation would have been issued at the begining of the war. It wasn't issued until two years into the war. Why? Because it was not the cause. In fact the South was offered as the 13th ammendment the protection of slavery for ever in the South if they would not seceede.

Again, the North wasn't going to war to end slavery, the south was seceding to keep it. I never said the United State's goal in the beginning was to end slavery.

[Clintville]

No its not undeniable as I just showed in a previous reply.

No, you didn't.


Well,no,kinda not, no. The issue of slavery does not make one a Christian or not.

I didn't say that. I said, if you think slavery is wrong, then you are disagreeing with God. That is what you said.


Explain the Reconstructin amendment and its purpose and I will tell you if I have a problem with it.

Ending slavery, giving everyone citizenship and equal protection under the law and all that, and giving everyone (just males of course, but that doesn't matter) the right to vote.

[Quantrill]

Well the the sourthern states were not really represented in the Reconstruction Congress. But even those northerners who had not been against slavery recognized that it was an issue that had divided the nation for many years culminating in a long, bitter, and deadly war. The idea of allowing things to return to as they were prior to all of that was unconscionable to many, even if the notion of slavery itself was not (though to most it was, I think).



Well the south as a whole was disenfranchised at the Federal level immediately following the Civil War, though it seems that in light of their rebellion it was not so unfair that this happened. However, I don't see how giving voting rights to blacks specifically has anything to do with the ability of whites to vote.



These are amendments, which means they are perfectly constitutional.



The purpose was to rebuild the nation such that division in the future over racial or slavery related issues would be impossible. The last thing northerners wanted after fighting such a terrible war was for things to return to the way they were. This means that, yes, the will of southern whites was disregarded for a time. As defeated rebels, however, it was understandable that this happened.

Defeating the south and then letting them have things their own way would be like our pulling out of Iraq immediately after toppling Hussein's regime, allowing another viscious dictatorship to spring up immediately. It would have defeated the purpose of the invasion in the first place.

However the real question is, do you actually think that the content of these amendments are bad, or do you just disagree with the manner and the context in which they were passed? For example, if you could have them repealed today, would you?

Was the American Indian gauaranteed equal treatment?

The idea that congress would make a 13th ammendment perpetuating slavery forever in the South, and then 5 years later make a 13th which abolishes slavery shows that the benifit of the black man was not their concern.

The voting rights of the white Southern people had every thing to do with the blacks voting rights. The Southern states as states were forced to ratify the 13th ammendment. In other words, no say. The Fed. govt wanted the appearance of ratification but didn't want the States to be able to say no. I call that disenfranchisement of the Southern State.

Then later, the Fed Govt. proposes the 14th ammendment. Yet the Southern States are not allowed in this proposal. The Southern States had no say, or vote in this proposal. This 14th ammendment is sent to all States to be ratified. The Southern States do not ratify, except Tennessee. They reject the 14th ammendment.

The Fed. Govt. is furious and removes the Southern States from this glorious "perpetual" union. Makes them territories, disenfranchises the white Southern voter and enfranchises the blacks so that the people who will ratify the 14th will be voted in. The South is then placed under some 12 years of martial law and hell.

Do you see the connection? Yet you want to call them "perfectly constitutional".

So when you say, the South should not have its own way, then you are sayng they should not be represented or allowed the right to vote also. Correct?

Your comparison of the South with a dictatorship is laughable. The dictatorship resided in Washington under Abraham Lincoln. If anything, the South was fighting for the Constitution and the North was traitor to the Constitution.

When the South lost, America lost.

I have told you already I care nothing for these reconstruction ammendments.

Quantrill

[Clintville]

So no, I do not care for these ammendments.

Again, I said why, not how. And no, there were many in the north that did genuinely want "the negro" to become equal, or for at least the south to become more like the north.

Of course, the south couldn't accept this and overthrew the system with white supremacy anyways by using terrorism.

[Quantrill]

Do you want me to show you what the states said? Slavery was the main issue. It was the main issue for the past twenty years before the war.

Again, it did, it freed slaves that were in Union occupied southern areas (though they were being freed anyways, so I guess it doesn't matter)

And then he helped pass the 13th Amendment, so yeah, you can still call him that.

Again, the North wasn't going to war to end slavery, the south was seceding to keep it. I never said the United State's goal in the beginning was to end slavery.

Abraham Lincoln was dead by the time of the 13 ammendment. Andrew Johnson was then president.

If the goal of the North was not to end slavery then how can you accuse the South of fighting to keep slavery? I showed you already the explantion from Jeff Davis what the reason for secession was. That is what the South was fighting for.

Quantrill

[Clintville]

Was the American Indian gauaranteed equal treatment?

The ones that were citizens, de jure, yes.

The idea that congress would make a 13th ammendment perpetuating slavery forever in the South, and then 5 years later make a 13th which abolishes slavery shows that the benifit of the black man was not their concern.

No, it shows they didn't want the south to secede. And what are you talking about exactly? If it is the Crittenden Compomise, that was defeated by Lincoln and the Republican congress. It was proposed by Democrats. If fact, the rejection of it probably made the southern states more likely to secede.


The voting rights of the white Southern people had every thing to do with the blacks voting rights. The Southern states as states were forced to ratify the 13th ammendment. In other words, no say. The Fed. govt wanted the appearance of ratification but didn't want the States to be able to say no. I call that disenfranchisement of the Southern State.

Well, the should not have seceded.



I have told you already I care nothing for these reconstruction ammendments.

Just answer the question. Not how, but what say in writing. Are you against that?

[Quantrill]

Again, I said why, not how. And no, there were many in the north that did genuinely want "the negro" to become equal, or for at least the south to become more like the north.

Of course, the south couldn't accept this and overthrew the system with white supremacy anyways by using terrorism.

So, you don't like terrorism. Explain to me how John Browns murderous attacks upon the Southern people was not terrorism. Or did you forget about that?

You want the South to be like the North? Does that mean you want us to start the slave trade and then profit from it, and then sell our slaves South, and then get on our moral high horse and cry for abolition. That frugal north. Is that the North you want us to be like?

Oh, you forgot about that, right.

Quantrill

[Clintville]

Abraham Lincoln was dead by the time of the 13 ammendment. Andrew Johnson was then president.

He was alive when it was proposed and he approved of it.


If the goal of the North was not to end slavery then how can you accuse the South of fighting to keep slavery? I showed you already the explantion from Jeff Davis what the reason for secession was. That is what the South was fighting for.

The South seceded over slavery. That was the main issue, states rights was also an issue, but the states rights issues all regarded slavery. The South was fighting to defend its secession, which, again, regarded slavery.

One of South Carolina secession documents was titled "The Address of the people of South Carolina, assembled in Convention, to the people of the Slaveholding States of the United States", and called for other slave holding states to secede as well. (South Carolina was also very wrong it how it thought of states rights, it quoted the Declaration of Independence as if it was a constitution). Here is an excerpt from a different document:

"The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. "

Also, there is this:

"A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction."

Do you want me to pull up the rest of the states? Because I am pretty sure there are more that are much more explicit and racist. Slavery was the reason the seceded. If there wasn't slavery, there would be no secession crisis.

[Clintville]

So, you don't like terrorism. Explain to me how John Browns murderous attacks upon the Southern people was not terrorism. Or did you forget about that?

When did I say that was good? Next you'll be saying I liked Nat Turner. But of course, his reasons for what he did and who he did it to were kind of better than the Klan or the redeemers, you cannot disagree with that.

And of course, it wasn't only the anti slavery militias that conducted violence during Bleeding Kansas.


You want the South to be like the North? Does that mean you want us to start the slave trade and then profit from it, and then sell our slaves South, and then get on our moral high horse and cry for abolition. That frugal north. Is that the North you want us to be like?

Oh, you forgot about that, right.


The Northern states abolished slavery and the Atlantic slave trade a generation before the Civil War. Many never had legalized slavery.

[mtdim]

Was the American Indian gauaranteed equal treatment?

In practice, probably not, unfortunately. Treatment of American Indians has never been a highlight of our nation's history.


The idea that congress would make a 13th ammendment perpetuating slavery forever in the South, and then 5 years later make a 13th which abolishes slavery shows that the benifit of the black man was not their concern.

Ending slavery was a huge concern because said slavery had just caused a long and gruesome war. For some people it was about the benefits of blacks, for some it was about national stability. None of that changes my opinion of the amendment though; slavery is bad, and I'm glad it could never become the law of the land again.


The voting rights of the white Southern people had every thing to do with the blacks voting rights. The Southern states as states were forced to ratify the 13th ammendment. In other words, no say. The Fed. govt wanted the appearance of ratification but didn't want the States to be able to say no. I call that disenfranchisement of the Southern State.

The victorious Union government had the greatest influence in determining the terms of the Confederacy's surrender because they won the war. That's how war usually works.


Then later, the Fed Govt. proposes the 14th ammendment. Yet the Southern States are not allowed in this proposal. The Southern States had no say, or vote in this proposal. This 14th ammendment is sent to all States to be ratified. The Southern States do not ratify, except Tennessee. They reject the 14th ammendment.

The Southern states gave up their say when they rebelled against the United States of America. They got their influence back after a few much needed changes had been made; namely, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments.


The Fed. Govt. is furious and removes the Southern States from this glorious "perpetual" union. Makes them territories, disenfranchises the white Southern voter and enfranchises the blacks so that the people who will ratify the 14th will be voted in. The South is then placed under some 12 years of martial law and hell.

The new amendments needed to be enforced. If you think they would have been enforced in the absence of Federal oversight, you're dreaming. In fact, when the feds finally left the south in 1877 the amendments were, for the most part, ignored. If that doesn't demonstrate why a Federal presence was necessary, I don't know what would.


Do you see the connection? Yet you want to call them "perfectly constitutional".

So when you say, the South should not have its own way, then you are sayng they should not be represented or allowed the right to vote also. Correct?

Absolutely, when the southern states were in the midst of an open act of rebellion against the United States it was right that they didn't have any representation. Can you imagine fighting a war where you give your enemies votes in your own legislative body? The very notion is absurd.


Your comparison of the South with a dictatorship is laughable. The dictatorship resided in Washington under Abraham Lincoln. If anything, the South was fighting for the Constitution and the North was traitor to the Constitution.

I didn't compare the south with a dictatorship, I compared the act of the Union army leaving the south immediately after victory to the act of leaving Iraq immediately after defeating Hussein. It would have been foolish in either case to do so. Ultimately, the feds leaving the south in 1877 led to a hundred years of persecution and misery for blacks in the south. I think the Compromise of 1877 was one of the worst things to happen in our nation's history; it just about undid all the good the Civil War had done for blacks in the south.


I have told you already I care nothing for these reconstruction ammendments.


Well I understand you don't like how the south was treated during Reconstruction, but ignoring the context in which the amendments were passed, do you seriously not like them? Do you think a state should be allowed to permit slavery if it so chooses? Do you think states should be able to arbitrarily deny a certain race of people the right to vote? Do you think a state should have the right to treat people of different races unequally under the law?

[Quantrill]

The ones that were citizens, de jure, yes.

Well, according to you the Indians would be citizens once these ammendments passed. Were they?

No, it shows they didn't want the south to secede. And what are you talking about exactly? If it is the Crittenden Compomise, that was defeated by Lincoln and the Republican congress. It was proposed by Democrats. If fact, the rejection of it probably made the southern states more likely to secede.


Well, the should not have seceded.




Just answer the question. Not how, but what say in writing. Are you against that?

I am talking about the proposal of the 13th ammendment which would perpetuate slavery forever in the South. It was offered to the seceeding states and they refused. That shows also that slavery was not the reason for the secession. Just as it shows that the benefit of the negro was not the concern.

No, the South was right in seceeding. And the kangaroo methods and disregard for the Constitution by the North are plain to see.

So, with such a disregard for "constitution" why should I be for these reconstruction ammendments.

Quantrill

[Clintville]

I am talking about the proposal of the 13th ammendment which would perpetuate slavery forever in the South. It was offered to the seceeding states and they refused. That shows also that slavery was not the reason for the secession. Just as it shows that the benefit of the negro was not the concern.

Could you please give me a link to this? I am sure Wikipedia has it. I already stated that the US Congress rejected the Crittenden Compromise which would protect slavery and reinstate the Missouri Compromise.

No, the South was right in seceeding. And the kangaroo methods and disregard for the Constitution by the North are plain to see.

So they were right in protecting slavery? You cannot deny this further, I've proved that they were very much seceding over slavery, they said it themselves when they did.


So, with such a disregard for "constitution" why should I be for these reconstruction ammendments.

Because slavery and denying people rights because of how they look is wrong. Please tell me you agree with that statement.

[Quantrill]

He was alive when it was proposed and he approved of it.


The South seceded over slavery. That was the main issue, states rights was also an issue, but the states rights issues all regarded slavery. The South was fighting to defend its secession, which, again, regarded slavery.

One of South Carolina secession documents was titled "The Address of the people of South Carolina, assembled in Convention, to the people of the Slaveholding States of the United States", and called for other slave holding states to secede as well. (South Carolina was also very wrong it how it thought of states rights, it quoted the Declaration of Independence as if it was a constitution). Here is an excerpt from a different document:

"The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. "

Also, there is this:

"A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction."

Do you want me to pull up the rest of the states? Because I am pretty sure there are more that are much more explicit and racist. Slavery was the reason the seceded. If there wasn't slavery, there would be no secession crisis.

As to the "emancipation proclamation", it freed no one. They were several years apart. The emancipation proclamation was a war measure as I already said. Lincoln cared nothing about the negro other than the contention it caused.

He should never be known as "the great emancipator".

Your not listening to what I said. No one denies that slavery existed. But the North dispised it, not for humanitarian reasons, but for political reasons. It gave more representation. It bolstered the Southern economy. And the Souths interests were completely different than the Norths.

But, they (the north) would use the humanitarian excuses as to build a facade over their real reasons. Becasue these would appeal more to the people.

But, pull up what ever you like.

Quantrill

[Clintville]

As to the "emancipation proclamation", it freed no one. They were several years apart. The emancipation proclamation was a war measure as I already said. Lincoln cared nothing about the negro other than the contention it caused.

He should never be known as "the great emancipator".

Again, yes it did officially emancipate slaves held in Union occupied areas. And again, Lincoln did approve of the 13th Amendment.

But, they (the north) would use the humanitarian excuses as to build a facade over their real reasons. Becasue these would appeal more to the people.

But, pull up what ever you like.

Quantrill
Uh, so are you still denying that the South was not seceding over slavery (as you have).

And no, there were many northerners that were very much against slavery. And technically, free slaves would give the south more representative power if they continued to live in the south, as they were only counted as three fifths of a person.

[Drawz]

I am talking about the proposal of the 13th ammendment which would perpetuate slavery forever in the South. It was offered to the seceeding states and they refused. That shows also that slavery was not the reason for the secession. Just as it shows that the benefit of the negro was not the concern.

No, the South was right in seceeding. And the kangaroo methods and disregard for the Constitution by the North are plain to see.

So, with such a disregard for "constitution" why should I be for these reconstruction ammendments.

Quantrill
Your repeated defense of the institution of slavery is appalling.

[Samm]

Did somebody change the thread title? :eh:


Nope... still says Noah's Ark... :neutral:

[Quantrill]

When did I say that was good? Next you'll be saying I liked Nat Turner. But of course, his reasons for what he did and who he did it to were kind of better than the Klan or the redeemers, you cannot disagree with that.

And of course, it wasn't only the anti slavery militias that conducted violence during Bleeding Kansas.


The Northern states abolished slavery and the Atlantic slave trade a generation before the Civil War. Many never had legalized slavery.

Well it seems that the North began the terrorism first with John Brown, and then made him a saint and martyr. Just think, a murderer being glorified by the North. But it must be all right you say because he did it for a good reason.

The North allowed slavery to go by the wayside once they saw it was no longer profitable. And many of those were sold to the South. And the Northern slave holders would be recompensed by the government for their slaves.


Well, most in the South didn't have slaves either. So what?

Quantrill

[Quantrill]

your repeated defense of the institution of slavery is appalling.

ok.

[Drawz]

Did somebody change the thread title? :eh:


Nope... still says Noah's Ark... :neutral:

:lol:
I don't mind a tangent if that's where the conversation leads.
Besides, no one seems to be able to come up with a credible response to my question, so we might as well move on to slavery and the Civil War.

[Clintville]

Well it seems that the North began the terrorism first with John Brown, and then made him a saint and martyr. Just think, a murderer being glorified by the North. But it must be all right you say because he did it for a good reason.

Uh, no they didn't begin the terrorism first, Bleeding Kansas was a fight between both sides. And again, I didn't say what John Brown did was right, I just said it was for a better reason (if you disagree, you're an evil person). And it isn't like they were connected, what the Klan and the Southerners did was not a retaliation or anything. It was just them trying to reinstate white supremacy by intimidating people they disagreed with (and by "disagree with", I mostly mean "people who looked different").




Well, most in the South didn't have slaves either. So what?


Uh, yeah, so what? I don't get what you are saying. Southerners not having slaves doesn't mean they didn't support slavery, and it certainly doesn't mean the secession wasn't about slavery.

[Samm]

:lol:
I don't mind a tangent if that's where the conversation leads.
Besides, no one seems to be able to come up with a credible response to my question, so we might as well move on to slavery and the Civil War.

The rules of this Forum call that hijacking... you are supposed to start a new thread for your new subject when you find yourself so far off topic rather than take over an existing one. Occasional posts on subjects adjacent to the OP topic are fine, but the Civil War and Slavery? All of you guys... give us a break! If you haven't got anything to add to the OP subject, let the thread die.

[Quantrill]

Could you please give me a link to this? I am sure Wikipedia has it. I already stated that the US Congress rejected the Crittenden Compromise which would protect slavery and reinstate the Missouri Compromise.

So they were right in protecting slavery? You cannot deny this further, I've proved that they were very much seceding over slavery, they said it themselves when they did.


Because slavery and denying people rights because of how they look is wrong. Please tell me you agree with that statement.

No, I don't have a link. Just type it in Im sure you can find it.

You haven't proved anything of your claim of secession. I gave you Jeff Davis reason for the secession. Why don't you listen?

In fact, if you would look a little more, you would see that it was the coastal southern states that seceeded first, for the reasons given by Jeff Davis. The upper southern States such as Virginia, Tenn. etc., would not seceede until Abraham Lincoln tried to get from them troops to go down and force by war the other States back into the Union.

The South did not seceede to keep slavery. It seceeded because it could no longer expect equal protection under the constitution that the North was disregarding.

Quantrill

[Quantrill]

Again, yes it did officially emancipate slaves held in Union occupied areas. And again, Lincoln did approve of the 13th Amendment.

Uh, so are you still denying that the South was not seceding over slavery (as you have).

And no, there were many northerners that were very much against slavery. And technically, free slaves would give the south more representative power if they continued to live in the south, as they were only counted as three fifths of a person.

You need to find the emancipation proclamation and read it. Then tell me the slaves were freed in the union occupied areas.

Quantrill

[Clintville]

No, I don't have a link. Just type it in Im sure you can find it.

Type what in? You didn't give me a name. Again, the US rejected any proposed amendments to protect slavery.
You haven't proved anything of your claim of secession. I gave you Jeff Davis reason for the secession. Why don't you listen?

In fact, if you would look a little more, you would see that it was the coastal southern states that seceeded first, for the reasons given by Jeff Davis. The upper southern States such as Virginia, Tenn. etc., would not seceede until Abraham Lincoln tried to get from them troops to go down and force by war the other States back into the Union.

The South did not seceede to keep slavery. It seceeded because it could no longer expect equal protection under the constitution that the North was disregarding.

Quantrill

Uh, I gave you the damn state declarations of secession. They literally said that the main reason they are seceding is over slavery. And even if states rights was the main issue, those issues were over slavery.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

[Drawz]

The rules of this Forum call that hijacking... you are supposed to start a new thread for your new subject when you find yourself so far off topic rather than take over an existing one. Occasional posts on subjects adjacent to the OP topic are fine, but the Civil War and Slavery? All of you guys... give us a break! If you haven't got anything to add to the OP subject, let the thread die.

Fair enough.

[Clintville]

You need to find the emancipation proclamation and read it. Then tell me the slaves were freed in the union occupied areas.

Quantrill
It freed slaves in the rebelling states. There were areas of the rebelling states that were under Union control. So, yes, it did free those slaves. Again, they were being freed already under the whole contraband of war thing, but this made it official. It also made it pretty clear that slavery would be abolished There would be no point in after the war, they would stop slavery in most of the south but allow it in the few slave holding states that remained loyal.

I know it was just a war measure and a political tool, but it did officially free at least twenty thousand slaves.

And again, Lincoln was involved in the 13th Amendment.

[Quantrill]

Uh, no they didn't begin the terrorism first, Bleeding Kansas was a fight between both sides. And again, I didn't say what John Brown did was right, I just said it was for a better reason (if you disagree, you're an evil person). And it isn't like they were connected, what the Klan and the Southerners did was not a retaliation or anything. It was just them trying to reinstate white supremacy by intimidating people they disagreed with (and by "disagree with", I mostly mean "people who looked different").






Uh, yeah, so what? I don't get what you are saying. Southerners not having slaves doesn't mean they didn't support slavery, and it certainly doesn't mean the secession wasn't about slavery.

Ok, you say John Brown had a better reason. Well the North thought so too which is why they allowed him to continue. But, John Browns attack on Harpers ferry was an attack on a Federal arsenal and should have been dealt with by the Fed. Govt. but instead they leave it to Virginia. Why? Because they approved of his actions.

Then Brown the murderer is made a martyr and saint and the North sings of him "glory glory Halleiujah.

So you see why the South recognized they had no protection in the Union.

If you have been paying attention you would see clearly that the Klans action would be a retaliation to what was taking place. Your statement makes no sense.

Well, if the Klan was trying to reinstate white supremacy, then the Fed. govt. must have been trying to install black supremacy in giving them the vote but taking away the white Southernors vote. Is that what you are for, black supremacy.

Quantrill

[Quantrill]

It freed slaves in the rebelling states. There were areas of the rebelling states that were under Union control. So, yes, it did free those slaves. Again, they were being freed already under the whole contraband of war thing, but this made it official. It also made it pretty clear that slavery would be abolished There would be no point in after the war, they would stop slavery in most of the south but allow it in the few slave holding states that remained loyal.

I know it was just a war measure and a political tool, but it did officially free at least twenty thousand slaves.

And again, Lincoln was involved in the 13th Amendment.

William Seward Secretary of State said of Lincolns emancipation, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them, and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."

This is from the book "Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men" by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel p.210

Quantrill

[Quantrill]

The rules of this Forum call that hijacking... you are supposed to start a new thread for your new subject when you find yourself so far off topic rather than take over an existing one. Occasional posts on subjects adjacent to the OP topic are fine, but the Civil War and Slavery? All of you guys... give us a break! If you haven't got anything to add to the OP subject, let the thread die.

My apologies . I will respond only if another thread is started.

Quantrill

[Clintville]

Ok, you say John Brown had a better reason. Well the North thought so too which is why they allowed him to continue. But, John Browns attack on Harpers ferry was an attack on a Federal arsenal and should have been dealt with by the Fed. Govt. but instead they leave it to Virginia. Why? Because they approved of his actions.

John Brown was captured by the US Marines.


If you have been paying attention you would see clearly that the Klans action would be a retaliation to what was taking place. Your statement makes no sense.

Are you saying the Klan was retaliating against what John Brown did. Because that would be retarded.

Well, if the Klan was trying to reinstate white supremacy, then the Fed. govt. must have been trying to install black supremacy in giving them the vote but taking away the white Southernors vote. Is that what you are for, black supremacy.

Except that the southerners were given the right to vote. The Klan (which you cannot deny was trying to establish white supremacy, if that is what you were saying) was trying to disenfranchise blacks in the south.

[captusa]

Again, yes it did officially emancipate slaves held in Union occupied areas. And again, Lincoln did approve of the 13th Amendment.
Quantrill is right about a few things.
The Emancipation Proclamation freed only the slaves in the states that had succeded and would not take effect if a slave state voluntarily returned to the Union.
The North did not occupy most (if any) of the states effected by the proclamation.
Also Lincoln was dead before the 13th Amendment was written.

Uh, so are you still denying that the South was not seceding over slavery (as you have).
Successoin was not that simple.
The first major attempt to succeed was by South Carolina and was successfully opposed by Andrew Jackson. No enemy of slavery.

And no, there were many northerners that were very much against slavery. And technically, free slaves would give the south more representative power if they continued to live in the south, as they were only counted as three fifths of a person.

The 3/5 compromise was to prevent the South from counting slaves as part of the population for representation.
The Northern states presumed that only free men should be counted.
The compromise placated the South.
I believe that white indentured servants were also counted as 3/5.

[Clintville]

William Seward Secretary of State said of Lincolns emancipation, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them, and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."

This is from the book "Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men" by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel p.210

Quantrill
Again, twenty thousand were freed in areas held by the Union, millions more were freed later as the Union advanced on the south, and all were freed by the 13th Amendment, which Lincoln approved.

So even if Lincoln had no problems with slavery, he had no problems with destroying it.

[Clintville]

Quantrill is right about a few things.
The Emancipation Proclamation freed only the slaves in the states that had succeded and would not take effect if a slave state voluntarily returned to the Union.

Yes but he is wrong that it didn't free any slaves and wrong that it didn't eventually free most of the slaves.

Successin was not that simple.
The first major attempt to succeed was by South Carolina and was successfully opposed by Andrew Jackson. No enemy of slavery.

That was thirty years before the Civil War.


The 3/5 compromise was to prevent the South from counting slaves as part of the population for representation.
The Northern states presumed that only free men should be counted.
The compromise placated the South.
I believe that white indentured servants were also counted as 3/5.
Yes?

[captusa]

Again, twenty thousand were freed in areas held by the Union, millions more were freed later as the Union advanced on the south, and all were freed by the 13th Amendment, which Lincoln approved.

So even if Lincoln had no problems with slavery, he had no problems with destroying it.

In a handwritten preface to the Emancipation Proclaimation, Lincoln regretted that he did not have the authority to free the slaves in the states that were loyal to the Union.

[biggles53]

Ummmm....what happened to the debunking of that leaky ol' barge.....?

[captusa]

Yes but he is wrong that it didn't free any slaves and wrong that it didn't eventually free most of the slaves.
I said some things.
That was thirty years before the Civil War.
But the issue was states' rights then and states' rights when South Carolina succeeded (They were the first)
Lincoln's personal view of slavery was a catalyst but the Republican platform that Lincoln ran on stated that they would not free any slave presently in servitude.

[Samm]

Ummmm....what happened to the debunking of that leaky ol' barge.....?

Apparently it was caught in a crossfire between the Monitor and the Merrimack. :neutral:

[Clintville]

But the issue was states' rights then and states' rights when South Carolina succeeded (They were the first)
Yes, but the issues of states' rights were different. The first was about tariffs, the second was regarding slavery.

[Clintville]

Ummmm....what happened to the debunking of that leaky ol' barge.....?
A boat commanded by one family held every single species that ever existed (that is in the millions), and since there is no belief in evolution of species by people that do believe in Noah, there is no way they could say the creatures in the boat somehow split into the current species.

Just explaining the story debunks it.

[Greyclouds]

Drawz,
The word you are using for rape in Deuteronomy 22:28 is - שכב - the transliteration is shakab which is a word with multiple meanings, our modern definition of rape is not one of them. The context of the passage means to "lie with (sexually)". For many years it was commonly accepted, I think the term is called "shotgun wedding".
Deuteronomy 22:28 - "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;"

Then it is both a problem with the English Translation (God failed to police our interpretation of the word) and with the original Hebrew used to write it (the human author lacked the words or failed to interpret God's words sufficiently so that future generations could understand the meaning).


The meaning of Deuteronomy 22:5 - God intended for the sexes to be distinct and we are commanded not to masculinize women or feminize men by appearence.
- Deuteronomy 22:5 - "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

As far as women wearing pants, it is not relevent as long as women are present themselves as feminine, unless you are proposing that we dress like the ancients did. I would not be particularly fond of wearing a robe myself, back then both men and women wore robes and pantaloons (pants) as undergarments. So the context is easily understood.

Funny that God would be so offended by such things though... sounds more like a human concern.


Twisting words & meaning, taking words & phrases out of context is not intellectually honest.

The context, in the modern vernacular of the English language, is correct. As for the ancient times, yes, the context was different.

This raises more questions about the "timelessness" of the Bible as a textual source of morality though. In such regard, I find that some of its moral teachings can easily be discarded as impractical, unethical or otherwise culturally absurd.

[Greyclouds]

Stored food? -and/or- Alot of animals reproduce at an alarming rate. Carnivores may have been quite happy eating rodents and bunnies. Noah and his sons may have had some fishing nets as well. I'm sure those big cats would have enjoyed a few large fresh tuna.

The herbivores would have had to survive off of ALOT of stored vegetation while Noah was busy planting seeds. Consider that many herbivorous species (such as Geese) lack sybiotic microbes that are capable of degrading lignins and cellulose polymers, so they must consume a large percentage of their body weight every day to gain enough calories to survive.

Recreating a sustainable ecosystem from absolute saltwater desolation with only two of each species is so improbable as to approach a possibility of zero.


It wasn't like Noah did not have many decades to prepare...Seems quite plausable to me to build a large ship and outfit it similar to a biodome. I've read several proposals about doing the same thing for deep space travel & colonization.

Well, Noah's supposed technological capabilities would be far under the requirements to do so in antiquity.

The only way that you could ever believe this story, when confronted with the logistical facts, is to suspend reality and believe that God intervened in a way to preserve noah and the animals.

If you believe that, then why did God preserve everything in the most inefficient way possible?

I mean, he's God, right? Is he limited to making the "firmament" open up and flooding everything? Why can't he snap his fingers, kill all the humans, and start again? Is he really that impotent, in your opinion?

[Greyclouds]

A boat commanded by one family held every single species that ever existed (that is in the millions), and since there is no belief in evolution of species by people that do believe in Noah, there is no way they could say the creatures in the boat somehow split into the current species.

Just explaining the story debunks it.

There are some other problems that I have yet to see explained. If a literalist believer would be so kind to explain the following:


1. The absence of a firmament in the sky (or its physical remnants).
2. The presence of freshwater fish/plants.
3. The presence of Galapagos island species.
4. The lack of a genetic bottleneck in all species that would have resulted from the flood story as literally told.

[Marleysdaddy]

I'm not Jewish, but deer are clean....they "chew the cud", etc.

uh, but they have "cloven hooves", right? They're in Artiodactyla...

[Marleysdaddy]

Why wasnt this posted in the religion forum?

Im betting I know why.

Because as soon as the first scientific comment was made, it would be moved to the GI anyway, so why not save a mod the trouble?

[Marleysdaddy]

Salt water has a higher specific gravity (weighs more) than fresh water does so salt water would stay lower and fresh water would float above. For the same reason ice floats.

Salinity has nothing to do with why ice floats
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryfaqs/f/icefloats.htm

[Marleysdaddy]

Originally Posted by Greyclouds
Are Christians the exclusive owners of this portion of the Torah?

Also, are all Christians literal believers of this story?

Where did I claim they were?

Where did Greyclouds say that you claimed they were? I only see him asking you two questions. :think:

[BillyBobUSA]

While there is like some truth in the core of the Global Flood story, the vast majority of Christians around the world consider it a myth that contains truth and not to be taken literally, word-for-word.

To many ancient cultures, the use of suymbolic imagery, numbers and conventions that they understood in ways lost to us the main point was the moral lesson and not some modernists concept of scientific truth.

The secularists usually dont bother to read much on the prevalent Christian interpretation of the Flood story and are quite happy to let Biblical literalists do all the talking from our side.

Sort of a stacked deck method to create a straw man argument.

[Marleysdaddy]

The secularists usually dont bother to read much on the prevalent Christian interpretation of the Flood story and are quite happy to let Biblical literalists do all the talking from our side.


Non-Christians should probably never let Biblical literalists do all the talking from the Christian side ;) I don't think that minority provides anything near a reasonable image of most Christians' views.

[BillyBobUSA]

Non-Christians should probably never let Biblical literalists do all the talking from the Christian side ;) I don't think that minority provides anything near a reasonable image of most Christians' views.


LOL, by 'let Biblical literalists do allt he talking' I mean when they present their distorted representation, but I guess you knew that.

The Bible is a collection of books from various times and places for the purpose of maintaining religious and cultural values.

It was never conceived of as some kind of preModern scientific manual and it seems absurd to me to try and interpret it in that manner.

But still, I think there is some kernel of Truth to the Great Flood story. These stories are all over the glboe and have common elements. Maybe flooding at the end of the previous glacial cycle inspired them? I dunno, and dont need to.

[Greyclouds]

LOL, by 'let Biblical literalists do allt he talking' I mean when they present their distorted representation, but I guess you knew that.

The Bible is a collection of books from various times and places for the purpose of maintaining religious and cultural values.

It was never conceived of as some kind of preModern scientific manual and it seems absurd to me to try and interpret it in that manner.

Agreed.



But still, I think there is some kernel of Truth to the Great Flood story. These stories are all over the glboe and have common elements. Maybe flooding at the end of the previous glacial cycle inspired them? I dunno, and dont need to.

It could just be the common phenomenon of flooding itself that prompted such a story.

[Marleysdaddy]

I dunno, and dont need to.

Unfortunately, there are some people that aren't comfortable with saying those last 4 words...

[TonkaTim]

Greycloud,

It appears you have alot of questions for God.
Why not just ask him instead?

[Drawz]

Greycloud,

It appears you have alot of questions for God.
Why not just ask him instead?

I don't know about Grey but I've asked many questions and not just to your God but to several others as well. Still waiting for an answer.

[BillyBobUSA]

I don't know about Grey but I've asked many questions and not just to your God but to several others as well. Still waiting for an answer.

Then you arent listening.

[Drawz]

Then you arent listening.

No, I am most certainly listening.

[Greyclouds]

Greycloud,

It appears you have alot of questions for God.
Why not just ask him instead?

I have, and I have spent more than enough time listening as well (meditation, in particular), yet I have not received answers.

My conclusion is that if there is a monotheistic God, then it does not act on this world, lest it actually is a malevolent trickster god.

Quick question for you: how do you know that God is a male? You use "him" as a pronoun, yes?

[BillyBobUSA]

No, I am most certainly listening.

Well then you should understand that sometimes you have to put some effort into it.

I can walk out my back door right now and try to listen for a woodpecker that lives in our neighborhood, but I wont hear him. I rarely ever hear him.

But I know he is there even when I dont.

Then there are some birds I have never heard at all. And yet I do not doubt that they exist.

I do not doubt that black holes exist, though we might not understand them perfectly and have no photos of one.

But if you are trying to get to the Truth of the matter, instead of just posturing as though you are, I have no doubt that you will find Him and hear His voice.

I simply doubt that you are genuinely making the effort because God speaks to me and almost everyone I know all the time.

:lol:

[Drawz]

Well then you should understand that sometimes you have to put some effort into it.

I can walk out my back door right now and try to listen for a woodpecker that lives in our neighborhood, but I wont hear him. I rarely ever hear him.

But I know he is there even when I dont.

Then there are some birds I have never heard at all. And yet I do not doubt that they exist.

I do not doubt that black holes exist, though we might not understand them perfectly and have no photos of one.

But if you are trying to get to the Truth of the matter, instead of just posturing as though you are, I have no doubt that you will find Him and hear His voice.

I simply doubt that you are genuinely making the effort because God speaks to me and almost everyone I know all the time.

:lol:

The conceit involved in you telling me (a person you know almost nothing about) that I'm not trying hard enough or that my effort is not genuine is staggering.
I was born and raised Catholic, baptized, confirmed and attended mass every Sunday until I was 17.
Religion is one of the most important things in my mothers life and me being a good Catholic was extremely important to her. I would do almost anything for her, so suggesting that I was not making a genuine effort is rubbish.
My father on the other hand, attended seminary with the intent of joining the priesthood (I don't know how much more genuine an effort you can make) and reached the same agnostic position that I hold. Something I never new until I was almost 20, as he did not want to influence my own relationship with the Church.

[Greyclouds]

Well then you should understand that sometimes you have to put some effort into it.

I can walk out my back door right now and try to listen for a woodpecker that lives in our neighborhood, but I wont hear him. I rarely ever hear him.

But I know he is there even when I dont.

Then there are some birds I have never heard at all. And yet I do not doubt that they exist.

I do not doubt that black holes exist, though we might not understand them perfectly and have no photos of one.

But if you are trying to get to the Truth of the matter, instead of just posturing as though you are, I have no doubt that you will find Him and hear His voice.

I simply doubt that you are genuinely making the effort because God speaks to me and almost everyone I know all the time.

:lol:

See, the anecdote about the woodpecker is flawed because you can actually see physical evidence of the woodpecker and show it to other people.

I also don't see how you can take your personal experience, pigeon-hole everyone with a different experience into being lazy/incompetant, and still have time to make a flawed analogy!

[notluzn]

It didnt happen. Nice story about local flooding in that area at that time.

[captusa]

I have, and I have spent more than enough time listening as well (meditation, in particular), yet I have not received answers.

My conclusion is that if there is a monotheistic God, then it does not act on this world, lest it actually is a malevolent trickster god.

Quick question for you: how do you know that God is a male? You use "him" as a pronoun, yes?

Did you get the idea of a omnipotent malevolent Deity from Bertrum Russell ?
I posted my version quite a while ago.
My original addition was a play on the statement:

"Satan's greatest achievement was convince the world that he didn't exist."

My conjecture was:

"Satan's greatest achievement might have been convincing the world that GOD did exist."

[Greyclouds]

Did you get the idea of a omnipotent malevolent Deity from Bertrum Russell ?
I posted my version quite a while ago.
My original addition was a play on the statement:

"Satan's greatest achievement was convince the world that he didn't exist."

My conjecture was:

"Satan's greatest achievement might have been convincing the world that GOD did exist."

A very interesting conjecture!

[Marleysdaddy]

Then there are some birds I have never heard at all. And yet I do not doubt that they exist.
You may not have heard them, but if NO ONE has ever heard them, it would behoove you to doubt that they exist.
I do not doubt that black holes exist, though we might not understand them perfectly and have no photos of one.

And here you've made a very common straw man leap - no one said that they didn't believe that there was a god because we don't understand that entity "perfectly"...perfect understanding is not a requirement for belief in the existence of something...but usually, some sort of phenomenal datum is.

And we have quite a lot of phenomenal data concerning the existence of black holes.

[Marleysdaddy]

See, the anecdote about the woodpecker is flawed because you can actually see physical evidence of the woodpecker and show it to other people.

I also don't see how you can take your personal experience, pigeon-hole everyone with a different experience into being lazy/incompetant, and still have time to make a flawed analogy!

The best argument for something invisible is always "You're just not looking hard enough" :think:

[Samm]

Salinity has nothing to do with why ice floats
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryfaqs/f/icefloats.htm

The key words in Gene's post (which you must have missed) were "specific gravity." Ice floats because it has a lower specific gravity than water and fresh water will "float" on saline water because it has a lower specific gravity. i.e. they both float for the same reason.

[Marleysdaddy]

The key words in Gene's post (which you must have missed) were "specific gravity." Ice floats because it has a lower specific gravity than water and fresh water will "float" on saline water because it has a lower specific gravity. i.e. they both float for the same reason.

I didn't miss them...Gene's post was as clear as mud - it confused the other scientists who read it as well.
http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=60570541&postcount=26

I understand now what he meant, but it's still hooey...antifreeze is more dense than water. Pour an ounce of it in a gallon of water and see if it all sinks to the bottom of the container.

Gene's hypothesis completely ignores solubility
http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=60570061&postcount=22

[Samm]

The conceit involved in you telling me (a person you know almost nothing about) that I'm not trying hard enough or that my effort is not genuine is staggering.
I was born and raised Catholic, baptized, confirmed and attended mass every Sunday until I was 17.
Religion is one of the most important things in my mothers life and me being a good Catholic was extremely important to her. I would do almost anything for her, so suggesting that I was not making a genuine effort is rubbish.
My father on the other hand, attended seminary with the intent of joining the priesthood (I don't know how much more genuine an effort you can make) and reached the same agnostic position that I hold. Something I never new until I was almost 20, as he did not want to influence my own relationship with the Church.

Interesting... my story is very similar, even in that my father was predestined (by family tradition) to become a priest (but never attended the seminary,) except the religion (my mother's choice) was Catholicism "lite" (Lutheran). Sometimes it is the very act of indoctrination in the faith that causes one to reject it... as Martin Luther said... logic is the bane of faith.

It was during my Confirmation schooling that my Ministers strict adherence to "the truth" of such myths as the Creation and The Flood that convinced me that the whole thing was made up. The man actually told me (in exasperation of being unable to answer my questions) "believe it all or believe nothing." Not a good move for someone attempting to cement my faith. ;)

The Flood is almost certainly based on stories of an actual event told and passed down through the ages until finally recorded in writing, but far more clear is that it never occurred on the grand scale of the Biblical Flood.

[captusa]

uh, but they have "cloven hooves", right? They're in Artiodactyla...

Deer definitely clean and kosher if killed properly.

[Samm]

I didn't miss them...Gene's post was as clear as mud - it confused the other scientists who read it as well.
http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=60570541&postcount=26

I understand now what he meant, but it's still hooey...antifreeze is more dense than water. Pour an ounce of it in a gallon of water and see if it all sinks to the bottom of the container.

Gene's hypothesis completely ignores solubility
http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=60570061&postcount=22

Gene's post was perfectly clear to me... but then I know a thing or two about ice. ;)

Gene's hypothesis (to use your word) is completely sound... fresh water in sufficient quantity (like the mythical flood) will form a thick layer atop saline water. I gave the example of sailors of old filling buckets with fresh water - fresh enough to drink - while far out to sea off the mouth of the Amazon. The same thing occurs in the Arctic to the extent that it can weaken and even (theoretically) stop the density mechanism that drives the oceanic currents. Yes there will be diffusion and eventually the salinity will contaminate the fresh water, but the rate of diffusion is slow if the water is calm.

Your antifreeze example is incorrectly performed... it is quite possible to float water on top of antifreeze. When you put the heavier liquid on top it mixes as it sinks greatly speeding up the diffusion. When you put the lighter liquid on top, it floats and diffuses slowly only at the interface. If this were not true your bartender could not build you a Zombie. ;)

[BillyBobUSA]

The conceit involved in you telling me (a person you know almost nothing about) that I'm not trying hard enough or that my effort is not genuine is staggering.
I was born and raised Catholic, baptized, confirmed and attended mass every Sunday until I was 17.
Religion is one of the most important things in my mothers life and me being a good Catholic was extremely important to her. I would do almost anything for her, so suggesting that I was not making a genuine effort is rubbish.
My father on the other hand, attended seminary with the intent of joining the priesthood (I don't know how much more genuine an effort you can make) and reached the same agnostic position that I hold. Something I never new until I was almost 20, as he did not want to influence my own relationship with the Church.


So, then you are familiar with the arguments in favor of God, the Messianic prophecies, the historical record on the Bible, etc?

I somehow doub that.

[BillyBobUSA]

You may not have heard them, but if NO ONE has ever heard them, it would behoove you to doubt that they exist.

But some people say they have heard woodpeckers and some say that they have heard God.

So whats your point?


And here you've made a very common straw man leap - no one said that they didn't believe that there was a god because we don't understand that entity "perfectly"...perfect understanding is not a requirement for belief in the existence of something...but usually, some sort of phenomenal datum is.

So you have phenominal datum on the Pythagorean Theorem?

You have phenomenal dataum on the value people place in sentimental heirlooms?

You have phenomenal datum on how the human mind can shift its focus from one stimulus to another and entirely ignore still more?

And how often is the phenomenal datum misinterpretted so that one year we have prominent studies saying, for example, that eating oatmeal reduces cholesterol and the next year the dataum do not support that view?

Your datum are only as useful as the people utilizing it to test or support some preconception, which is not nearly so good as faith in an eternal being.


And we have quite a lot of phenomenal data concerning the existence of black holes.

But no direct observations?

Show me a telescope photo of a black hole.

[BillyBobUSA]

The best argument for something invisible is always "You're just not looking hard enough" :think:


If it is in fact invisible, then one simply *must* look harder for it by definition, no?

So whats the point of your comment?

Was that sarcasm?

[Drawz]

So, then you are familiar with the arguments in favor of God, the Messianic prophecies, the historical record on the Bible, etc?

I somehow doub that.

Which arguments in favor of God are you refering too?

In my opinion, most of the Messianic prophecies are bunk, in that the folks who wrote the NT had a vested interest in those prophecies being true.

The fact that many of the books of the Bible contain historically verifiable facts in no way adds credibility to the religious claims made therein.
Many contemporary fictional novels include factual details, does that make Creighton's, King's or Clancey's fictional works any more real? ...no.

[Drawz]

So, then you are familiar with the arguments in favor of God, the Messianic prophecies, the historical record on the Bible, etc?

I somehow doub that.

Now that I read your post again, I have another question.
"I somehow doub [sic] that."
Are you calling me a liar?

And what exactly does any of that knowledge have to do with whether or not I've ever experienced God answering questions I've asked him?

[Clintville]

Sort of a stacked deck method to create a straw man argument.
Not really, we are only arguing with actual people that do actually believe the literal story.

[mtdim]

But no direct observations?

Show me a telescope photo of a black hole.


I remember reading in Hawking's Theory of Everything that he's not sure about the existence of black holes (at the time of that publication, anyway). There is evidence for their existence, but (again, at the time of that publication) nothing entirely convincing. To me, that is the correct way to approach these types of questions. Even though Hawking spent a huge portion of his life studying black holes, he was able to be honest with himself about the existing evidence.

I'm not sure how convincing many religious claims would be if we were to apply the same standard of evidentiary support that Hawking applies to his life's work

[BillyBobUSA]

Which arguments in favor of God are you refering too?

In my opinion, most of the Messianic prophecies are bunk, in that the folks who wrote the NT had a vested interest in those prophecies being true.

The fact that many of the books of the Bible contain historically verifiable facts in no way adds credibility to the religious claims made therein.
Many contemporary fictional novels include factual details, does that make Creighton's, King's or Clancey's fictional works any more real? ...no.


LOL, now your comparing the Bible to literary works of fiction.

Obviously you have not studied the subject much at all.

[BillyBobUSA]

Not really, we are only arguing with actual people that do actually believe the literal story.

Since those people are like 5% of Christians world wide, why do you bother?

[BillyBobUSA]

I remember reading in Hawking's Theory of Everything that he's not sure about the existence of black holes (at the time of that publication, anyway). There is evidence for their existence, but (again, at the time of that publication) nothing entirely convincing. To me, that is the correct way to approach these types of questions. Even though Hawking spent a huge portion of his life studying black holes, he was able to be honest with himself about the existing evidence.

I'm not sure how convincing many religious claims would be if we were to apply the same standard of evidentiary support that Hawking applies to his life's work


Why should anyone apply the standards and methodology of one field of knowledge to another field of knowledge?

What peer review did the VMA use to confirm that Miss Swifts female video was the best for last year?

That is as absurd as it is to use science to confirm matters of faith.

[mtdim]

Why should anyone apply the standards and methodology of one field of knowledge to another field of knowledge?

The bible makes claims that have historical and scientific implications. So why not use the methodology of those fields to examine those claims? What methodology to you prefer to use when examining the bible?


What peer review did the VMA use to confirm that Miss Swifts female video was the best for last year?

I heard from a very reliable and stand up source that Beyonce's video was better. :D

Opinions and facts are different things. No one is stating that, factually speaking, Taylor Swift's video was the best. So it is not comparable to the claims of religion or science, which both attempt to make objective statements about the world we live in.


That is as absurd as it is to use science to confirm matters of faith.

How is the story of Noah's ark not a matter of biology/archaeology/geology? Unless you're going to interpret the story metaphorically, all of these fields of study can tell us things about the plausibility of the story.

If you are going to treat the story as a metaphor, then you're correct; science doesn't really come into it.

[mtdim]

LOL, now your comparing the Bible to literary works of fiction.

Obviously you have not studied the subject much at all.

I think his point is that just because the bible might contain some true historical facts, it doesn't mean claims about virgin births, or resurrections, or other miracles are any more likely to be true.

[Clintville]

Since those people are like 5% of Christians world wide, why do you bother?
I am sure it is more that that of the country. At least on the Hannity forums.

[BillyBobUSA]

The bible makes claims that have historical and scientific implications. So why not use the methodology of those fields to examine those claims? What methodology to you prefer to use when examining the bible?

Hermeneutic methods and processes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_hermeneutics#Roman_Catholic_principles_of _hermeneutics

Roman Catholic principles of hermeneutics
The Catholic Encyclopedia lists a number of principles guiding Roman Catholic hermeneutics in the article on Exegesis:

Historico-grammatical interpretation - The meaning of the literary expression of the Bible is best learned by a thorough knowledge of the languages in which the original text of Scripture was written, and by acquaintance with the Scriptural way of speaking, including the various customs, laws, habits and national prejudices which influenced the inspired writers as they composed their respective books. John Paul II (http://forums.hannity.com/wiki/John_Paul_II) said that: "A second conclusion is that the very nature of biblical texts means that interpreting them will require continued use of the historical-critical method, at least in its principal procedures. The Bible, in effect, does not present itself as a direct revelation of timeless truths but as the written testimony to a series of interventions in which God reveals himself in human history. In a way that differs from tenets of other religions [such as Islam, for instance], the message of the Bible is solidly grounded in history.[3] (http://forums.hannity.com/#cite_note-Pontifical_Biblical_Commission--Interpretation_of_the_Bible-2)
Catholic interpretation - Because the Catholic Church is, according to Catholics, the official custodian and interpreter of the Bible, Catholicism's teaching concerning the Sacred Scriptures and their genuine sense must be the supreme guide of the commentator. The Catholic commentator is bound to adhere to the interpretation of texts which the Church has defined either expressly or implicitly. Since the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is impossible that any legitimate teaching can be at variance with the latter.
Reverence - Since the Bible is God's own book, its study must be begun and prosecuted with a spirit of reverence and prayer (http://forums.hannity.com/wiki/Christian_Prayers).
Inerrancy - Since God is the principal Author of Sacred Scripture, it can be claimed to contain no error, no self-contradiction, nothing contrary to scientific or historical truth (when the original authors intended historical or scientific truth to be portrayed). Minor contradictions are due to copyist errors in the codex or the translation. Catholics believe the Scripture is God's message put in words by men, with the imperfections this very fact necessarily implies. That's why it becomes self-contradictory to hold biblical interpretation to be 'historico-grammatical' and treat the Bible's own words — which aren't but human — as error-free. Catholic hermeneutics strongly supports inerrancy when it comes to principles but not, for example, when dealing with Evangelists' orthographic mistakes. According to Pope John Paul II, "Addressing men and women, from the beginnings of the Old Testament onward, God made use of all the possibilities of human language, while at the same time accepting that his word be subject to the constraints caused by the limitations of this language. Proper respect for inspired Scripture requires undertaking all the labors necessary to gain a thorough grasp of its meaning.[3] (http://forums.hannity.com/#cite_note-Pontifical_Biblical_Commission--Interpretation_of_the_Bible-2)
Patristics - The Holy Fathers are of supreme authority whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith.


I heard from a very reliable and stand up source that Beyonce's video was better. :D

Well, I am sure that was peer reviewed as well.


Opinions and facts are different things. No one is stating that, factually speaking, Taylor Swift's video was the best. So it is not comparable to the claims of religion or science, which both attempt to make objective statements about the world we live in.

Art does make statements of Truth about the world but relies on a resonance with the experince and thinking of the hearer to establish validation.

It either rings true and relevant to you or it fails to.

Faith also brings us Truth, but from a different and equally valid method as science but about the moral universe we inhabit.

How is the story of Noah's ark not a matter of biology/archaeology/geology? Unless you're going to interpret the story metaphorically, all of these fields of study can tell us things about the plausibility of the story.

It is a myth, which means that it has a core of Truth but it is not to be taken as a scientific observation. Given the primitive backgrounds of most of its authors that is a ridiculous expectation.

If you are going to treat the story as a metaphor, then you're correct; science doesn't really come into it.

I dont think a myth counts as a metaphor, though I sometimes use that word as shorthand to avoid explaining the difference.

[BillyBobUSA]

I am sure it is more that that of the country. At least on the Hannity forums.


So your not really interested in Christianity as a subject, just using it to bait posters here on Hannity, is that right?

[BillyBobUSA]

Well, since I risk a permanent ban for discussing religion outside of RF, the above are my last comments on the matter.

[Clintville]

So your not really interested in Christianity as a subject, just using it to bait posters here on Hannity, is that right?
I don't know, I didn't make this thread. I was just arguing against people that were trying to argue for it. Well, mostly I was talking about slavery and Civil War for some reason.

[Drawz]

LOL, now your comparing the Bible to literary works of fiction.

Obviously you have not studied the subject much at all.

It's fine if you can't answer my questions, but attacking my knowledge of the subject instead of responding just makes you look silly.

[Drawz]

I think his point is that just because the bible might contain some true historical facts, it doesn't mean claims about virgin births, or resurrections, or other miracles are any more likely to be true.

Yup. But I suspect that Billy knows that already.

[Drawz]

Well, since I risk a permanent ban for discussing religion outside of RF, the above are my last comments on the matter.

Yah. I'm not a Mod but I'm pretty sure you can't get a Perm-ban for discussing religion outside the RF, otherwise you and I (and many other posters here) would already be gone.
If you're done with the topic just say so, don't hide behind some imaginary danger of being banned.

[BillyBobUSA]

Yah. I'm not a Mod but I'm pretty sure you can't get a Perm-ban for discussing religion outside the RF, otherwise you and I (and many other posters here) would already be gone.
If you're done with the topic just say so, don't hide behind some imaginary danger of being banned.

I could explain but its not that simple and I could get banned for even explaining it, I think anyway.

Its all very confusing to me.