See other Religion Articles
Title: The Christian Paradox
Source:
Harpers
URL Source: http://www.harpers.org/ExcerptTheChristianParadox.html
Published: Sep 28, 2005
Author: Bill McKibben
Post Date: 2005-09-28 23:36:45 by crack monkey
Keywords: Christian, Paradox
Views: 3289
Comments: 197
The Christian Paradox How a faithful nation gets Jesus wrong Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005. What it means to be Christian in America. An excerpt from this report appeared in August 2005. The complete text appears below. Originally from August 2005. By Bill McKibben. SourcesOnly 40 percent of Americans can name more than four of the Ten Commandments, and a scant half can cite any of the four authors of the Gospels. Twelve percent believe Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife. This failure to recall the specifics of our Christian heritage may be further evidence of our nation’s educational decline, but it probably doesn’t matter all that much in spiritual or political terms. Here is a statistic that does matter: Three quarters of Americans believe the Bible teaches that “God helps those who help themselves.” That is, three out of four Americans believe that this uber-American idea, a notion at the core of our current individualist politics and culture, which was in fact uttered by Ben Franklin, actually appears in Holy Scripture. The thing is, not only is Franklin’s wisdom not biblical; it’s counter-biblical. Few ideas could be further from the gospel message, with its radical summons to love of neighbor. On this essential matter, most Americans—most American Christians—are simply wrong, as if 75 percent of American scientists believed that Newton proved gravity causes apples to fly up. Asking Christians what Christ taught isn’t a trick. When we say we are a Christian nation—and, overwhelmingly, we do—it means something. People who go to church absorb lessons there and make real decisions based on those lessons; increasingly, these lessons inform their politics. (One poll found that 11 percent of U.S. churchgoers were urged by their clergy to vote in a particular way in the 2004 election, up from 6 percent in 2000.) When George Bush says that Jesus Christ is his favorite philosopher, he may or may not be sincere, but he is reflecting the sincere beliefs of the vast majority of Americans. And therein is the paradox. America is simultaneously the most professedly Christian of the developed nations and the least Christian in its behavior. That paradox—more important, perhaps, than the much touted ability of French women to stay thin on a diet of chocolate and cheese—illuminates the hollow at the core of our boastful, careening culture. * * * Ours is among the most spiritually homogenous rich nations on earth. Depending on which poll you look at and how the question is asked, somewhere around 85 percent of us call ourselves Christian. Israel, by way of comparison, is 77 percent Jewish. It is true that a smaller number of Americans—about 75 percent—claim they actually pray to God on a daily basis, and only 33 percent say they manage to get to church every week. Still, even if that 85 percent overstates actual practice, it clearly represents aspiration. In fact, there is nothing else that unites more than four fifths of America. Every other statistic one can cite about American behavior is essentially also a measure of the behavior of professed Christians. That’s what America is: a place saturated in Christian identity. But is it Christian? This is not a matter of angels dancing on the heads of pins. Christ was pretty specific about what he had in mind for his followers. What if we chose some simple criterion—say, giving aid to the poorest people—as a reasonable proxy for Christian behavior? After all, in the days before his crucifixion, when Jesus summed up his message for his disciples, he said the way you could tell the righteous from the damned was by whether they’d fed the hungry, slaked the thirsty, clothed the naked, welcomed the stranger, and visited the prisoner. What would we find then? In 2004, as a share of our economy, we ranked second to last, after Italy, among developed countries in government foreign aid. Per capita we each provide fifteen cents a day in official development assistance to poor countries. And it’s not because we were giving to private charities for relief work instead. Such funding increases our average daily donation by just six pennies, to twenty-one cents. It’s also not because Americans were too busy taking care of their own; nearly 18 percent of American children lived in poverty (compared with, say, 8 percent in Sweden). In fact, by pretty much any measure of caring for the least among us you want to propose—childhood nutrition, infant mortality, access to preschool—we come in nearly last among the rich nations, and often by a wide margin. The point is not just that (as everyone already knows) the American nation trails badly in all these categories; it’s that the overwhelmingly Christian American nation trails badly in all these categories, categories to which Jesus paid particular attention. And it’s not as if the numbers are getting better: the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported last year that the number of households that were “food insecure with hunger” had climbed more than 26 percent between 1999 and 2003. This Christian nation also tends to make personal, as opposed to political, choices that the Bible would seem to frown upon. Despite the Sixth Commandment, we are, of course, the most violent rich nation on earth, with a murder rate four or five times that of our European peers. We have prison populations greater by a factor of six or seven than other rich nations (which at least should give us plenty of opportunity for visiting the prisoners). Having been told to turn the other cheek, we’re the only Western democracy left that executes its citizens, mostly in those states where Christianity is theoretically strongest. Despite Jesus’ strong declarations against divorce, our marriages break up at a rate—just over half—that compares poorly with the European Union’s average of about four in ten. That average may be held down by the fact that Europeans marry less frequently, and by countries, like Italy, where divorce is difficult; still, compare our success with, say, that of the godless Dutch, whose divorce rate is just over 37 percent. Teenage pregnancy? We’re at the top of the charts. Personal self-discipline—like, say, keeping your weight under control? Buying on credit? Running government deficits? Do you need to ask? * * * Are Americans hypocrites? Of course they are. But most people (me, for instance) are hypocrites. The more troubling explanation for this disconnect between belief and action, I think, is that most Americans—which means most believers—have replaced the Christianity of the Bible, with its call for deep sharing and personal sacrifice, with a competing creed. In fact, there may be several competing creeds. For many Christians, deciphering a few passages of the Bible to figure out the schedule for the End Times has become a central task. You can log on to http://RaptureReady.com for a taste of how some of these believers view the world—at this writing the Rapture Index had declined three points to 152 because, despite an increase in the number of U.S. pagans, “Wal-Mart is falling behind in its plan to bar code all products with radio tags.” Other End-Timers are more interested in forcing the issue—they’re convinced that the way to coax the Lord back to earth is to “Christianize” our nation and then the world. Consider House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. At church one day he listened as the pastor, urging his flock to support the administration, declared that “the war between America and Iraq is the gateway to the Apocalypse.” DeLay rose to speak, not only to the congregation but to 225 Christian TV and radio stations. “Ladies and gentlemen,” he said, “what has been spoken here tonight is the truth of God.” The apocalyptics may not be wrong. One could make a perfectly serious argument that the policies of Tom DeLay are in fact hastening the End Times. But there’s nothing particularly Christian about this hastening. The creed of Tom DeLay—of Tim LaHaye and his Left Behind books, of Pat Robertson’s “The Antichrist is probably a Jew alive in Israel today”—ripened out of the impossibly poetic imagery of the Book of Revelation. Imagine trying to build a theory of the Constitution by obsessively reading and rereading the Twenty-fifth Amendment, and you’ll get an idea of what an odd approach this is. You might be able to spin elaborate fantasies about presidential succession, but you’d have a hard time working backwards to “We the People.” This is the contemporary version of Archbishop Ussher’s seventeenth-century calculation that the world had been created on October 23, 4004 B.C., and that the ark touched down on Mount Ararat on May 5, 2348 B.C., a Wednesday. Interesting, but a distant distraction from the gospel message. The apocalyptics, however, are the lesser problem. It is another competing (though sometimes overlapping) creed, this one straight from the sprawling megachurches of the new exurbs, that frightens me most. Its deviation is less obvious precisely because it looks so much like the rest of the culture. In fact, most of what gets preached in these palaces isn’t loony at all. It is disturbingly conventional. The pastors focus relentlessly on you and your individual needs. Their goal is to service consumers—not communities but individuals: “seekers” is the term of art, people who feel the need for some spirituality in their (or their children’s) lives but who aren’t tightly bound to any particular denomination or school of thought. The result is often a kind of soft-focus, comfortable, suburban faith. A New York Times reporter visiting one booming megachurch outside Phoenix recently found the typical scene: a drive-through latte stand, Krispy Kreme doughnuts at every service, and sermons about “how to discipline your children, how to reach your professional goals, how to invest your money, how to reduce your debt.” On Sundays children played with church-distributed Xboxes, and many congregants had signed up for a twice-weekly aerobics class called Firm Believers. A list of bestsellers compiled monthly by the Christian Booksellers Association illuminates the creed. It includes texts like Your Best Life Now by Joel Osteen—pastor of a church so mega it recently leased a 16,000-seat sports arena in Houston for its services—which even the normally tolerant Publishers Weekly dismissed as “a treatise on how to get God to serve the demands of self-centered individuals.” Nearly as high is Beth Moore, with her Believing God—“Beth asks the tough questions concerning the fruit of our Christian lives,” such as “are we living as fully as we can?” Other titles include Humor for a Woman’s Heart, a collection of “humorous writings” designed to “lift a life above the stresses and strains of the day”; The Five Love Languages, in which Dr. Gary Chapman helps you figure out if you’re speaking in the same emotional dialect as your significant other; and Karol Ladd’s The Power of a Positive Woman. Ladd is the co-founder of USA Sonshine Girls—the “Son” in Sonshine, of course, is the son of God—and she is unremittingly upbeat in presenting her five-part plan for creating a life with “more calm, less stress.” Not that any of this is so bad in itself. We do have stressful lives, humor does help, and you should pay attention to your own needs. Comfortable suburbanites watch their parents die, their kids implode. Clearly I need help with being positive. And I have no doubt that such texts have turned people into better parents, better spouses, better bosses. It’s just that these authors, in presenting their perfectly sensible advice, somehow manage to ignore Jesus’ radical and demanding focus on others. It may, in fact, be true that “God helps those who help themselves,” both financially and emotionally. (Certainly fortune does.) But if so it’s still a subsidiary, secondary truth, more Franklinity than Christianity. You could eliminate the scriptural references in most of these bestsellers and they would still make or not make the same amount of sense. Chicken Soup for the Zoroastrian Soul. It is a perfect mirror of the secular bestseller lists, indeed of the secular culture, with its American fixation on self-improvement, on self-esteem. On self. These similarities make it difficult (although not impossible) for the televangelists to posit themselves as embattled figures in a “culture war”— they offer too uncanny a reflection of the dominant culture, a culture of unrelenting self-obsession. * * * Who am I to criticize someone else’s religion? After all, if there is anything Americans agree on, it’s that we should tolerate everyone else’s religious expression. As a Newsweek writer put it some years ago at the end of his cover story on apocalyptic visions and the Book of Revelation, “Who’s to say that John’s mythic battle between Christ and Antichrist is not a valid insight into what the history of humankind is all about?” (Not Newsweek, that’s for sure; their religious covers are guaranteed big sellers.) To that I can only answer that I’m a . . . Christian. Not a professional one; I’m an environmental writer mostly. I’ve never progressed further in the church hierarchy than Sunday school teacher at my backwoods Methodist church. But I’ve spent most of my Sunday mornings in a pew. I grew up in church youth groups and stayed active most of my adult life—started homeless shelters in church basements, served soup at the church food pantry, climbed to the top of the rickety ladder to put the star on the church Christmas tree. My work has been, at times, influenced by all that—I’ve written extensively about the Book of Job, which is to me the first great piece of nature writing in the Western tradition, and about the overlaps between Christianity and environmentalism. In fact, I imagine I’m one of a fairly small number of writers who have had cover stories in both the Christian Century, the magazine of liberal mainline Protestantism, and Christianity Today, which Billy Graham founded, not to mention articles in Sojourners, the magazine of the progressive evangelical community co-founded by Jim Wallis. Indeed, it was my work with religious environmentalists that first got me thinking along the lines of this essay. We were trying to get politicians to understand why the Bible actually mandated protecting the world around us (Noah: the first Green), work that I think is true and vital. But one day it occurred to me that the parts of the world where people actually had cut dramatically back on their carbon emissions, actually did live voluntarily in smaller homes and take public transit, were the same countries where people were giving aid to the poor and making sure everyone had health care—countries like Norway and Sweden, where religion was relatively unimportant. How could that be? For Christians there should be something at least a little scary in the notion that, absent the magical answers of religion, people might just get around to solving their problems and strengthening their communities in more straightforward ways. But for me, in any event, the European success is less interesting than the American failure. Because we’re not going to be like them. Maybe we’d be better off if we abandoned religion for secular rationality, but we’re not going to; for the foreseeable future this will be a “Christian” nation. The question is, what kind of Christian nation? * * * The tendencies I’ve been describing—toward an apocalyptic End Times faith, toward a comfort-the-comfortable, personal-empowerment faith—veil the actual, and remarkable, message of the Gospels. When one of the Pharisees asked Jesus what the core of the law was, Jesus replied: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Love your neighbor as yourself: although its rhetorical power has been dimmed by repetition, that is a radical notion, perhaps the most radical notion possible. Especially since Jesus, in all his teachings, made it very clear who the neighbor you were supposed to love was: the poor person, the sick person, the naked person, the hungry person. The last shall be made first; turn the other cheek; a rich person aiming for heaven is like a camel trying to walk through the eye of a needle. On and on and on—a call for nothing less than a radical, voluntary, and effective reordering of power relationships, based on the principle of love. I confess, even as I write these words, to a feeling close to embarrassment. Because in public we tend not to talk about such things—my theory of what Jesus mostly meant seems like it should be left in church, or confined to some religious publication. But remember the overwhelming connection between America and Christianity; what Jesus meant is the most deeply potent political, cultural, social question. To ignore it, or leave it to the bullies and the salesmen of the televangelist sects, means to walk away from a central battle over American identity. At the moment, the idea of Jesus has been hijacked by people with a series of causes that do not reflect his teachings. The Bible is a long book, and even the Gospels have plenty in them, some of it seemingly contradictory and hard to puzzle out. But love your neighbor as yourself—not do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but love your neighbor as yourself—will suffice as a gloss. There is no disputing the centrality of this message, nor is there any disputing how easy it is to ignore that message. Because it is so counterintuitive, Christians have had to keep repeating it to themselves right from the start. Consider Paul, for instance, instructing the church at Galatea: “For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment,” he wrote. “‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” American churches, by and large, have done a pretty good job of loving the neighbor in the next pew. A pastor can spend all Sunday talking about the Rapture Index, but if his congregation is thriving you can be assured he’s spending the other six days visiting people in the hospital, counseling couples, and sitting up with grieving widows. All this human connection is important. But if the theology makes it harder to love the neighbor a little farther away—particularly the poor and the weak—then it’s a problem. And the dominant theologies of the moment do just that. They undercut Jesus, muffle his hard words, deaden his call, and in the end silence him. In fact, the soft-focus consumer gospel of the suburban megachurches is a perfect match for emergent conservative economic notions about personal responsibility instead of collective action. Privatize Social Security? Keep health care for people who can afford it? File those under “God helps those who help themselves.” Take Alabama as an example. In 2002, Bob Riley was elected governor of the state, where 90 percent of residents identify themselves as Christians. Riley could safely be called a conservative—right-wing majordomo Grover Norquist gave him a Friend of the Taxpayer Award every year he was in Congress, where he’d never voted for a tax increase. But when he took over Alabama, he found himself administering a tax code that dated to 1901. The richest Alabamians paid 3 percent of their income in taxes, and the poorest paid up to 12 percent; income taxes kicked in if a family of four made $4,600 (even in Mississippi the threshold was $19,000), while out-of-state timber companies paid $1.25 an acre in property taxes. Alabama was forty-eighth in total state and local taxes, and the largest proportion of that income came from sales tax—a super-regressive tax that in some counties reached into double digits. So Riley proposed a tax hike, partly to dig the state out of a fiscal crisis and partly to put more money into the state’s school system, routinely ranked near the worst in the nation. He argued that it was Christian duty to look after the poor more carefully. Had the new law passed, the owner of a $250,000 home in Montgomery would have paid $1,432 in property taxes—we’re not talking Sweden here. But it didn’t pass. It was crushed by a factor of two to one. Sixty-eight percent of the state voted against it—meaning, of course, something like 68 percent of the Christians who voted. The opposition was led, in fact, not just by the state’s wealthiest interests but also by the Christian Coalition of Alabama. “You’ll find most Alabamians have got a charitable heart,” said John Giles, the group’s president. “They just don’t want it coming out of their pockets.” On its website, the group argued that taxing the rich at a higher rate than the poor “results in punishing success” and that “when an individual works for their income, that money belongs to the individual.” You might as well just cite chapter and verse from Poor Richard’s Almanack. And whatever the ideology, the results are clear. “I’m tired of Alabama being first in things that are bad,” said Governor Riley, “and last in things that are good.” * * * A rich man came to Jesus one day and asked what he should do to get into heaven. Jesus did not say he should invest, spend, and let the benefits trickle down; he said sell what you have, give the money to the poor, and follow me. Few plainer words have been spoken. And yet, for some reason, the Christian Coalition of America—founded in 1989 in order to “preserve, protect and defend the Judeo-Christian values that made this the greatest country in history”—proclaimed last year that its top legislative priority would be “making permanent President Bush’s 2001 federal tax cuts.” Similarly, a furor erupted last spring when it emerged that a Colorado jury had consulted the Bible before sentencing a killer to death. Experts debated whether the (Christian) jurors should have used an outside authority in their deliberations, and of course the Christian right saw it as one more sign of a secular society devaluing religion. But a more interesting question would have been why the jurors fixated on Leviticus 24, with its call for an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. They had somehow missed Jesus’ explicit refutation in the New Testament: “You have heard that it was said, ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also.” And on and on. The power of the Christian right rests largely in the fact that they boldly claim religious authority, and by their very boldness convince the rest of us that they must know what they’re talking about. They’re like the guy who gives you directions with such loud confidence that you drive on even though the road appears to be turning into a faint, rutted track. But their theology is appealing for another reason too: it coincides with what we want to believe. How nice it would be if Jesus had declared that our income was ours to keep, instead of insisting that we had to share. How satisfying it would be if we were supposed to hate our enemies. Religious conservatives will always have a comparatively easy sell. But straight is the path and narrow is the way. The gospel is too radical for any culture larger than the Amish to ever come close to realizing; in demanding a departure from selfishness it conflicts with all our current desires. Even the first time around, judging by the reaction, the Gospels were pretty unwelcome news to an awful lot of people. There is not going to be a modern-day return to the church of the early believers, holding all things in common—that’s not what I’m talking about. Taking seriously the actual message of Jesus, though, should serve at least to moderate the greed and violence that mark this culture. It’s hard to imagine a con much more audacious than making Christ the front man for a program of tax cuts for the rich or war in Iraq. If some modest part of the 85 percent of us who are Christians woke up to that fact, then the world might change. It is possible, I think. Yes, the mainline Protestant churches that supported civil rights and opposed the war in Vietnam are mostly locked in a dreary decline as their congregations dwindle and their elders argue endlessly about gay clergy and same-sex unions. And the Catholic Church, for most of its American history a sturdy exponent of a “love your neighbor” theology, has been weakened, too, its hierarchy increasingly motivated by a single-issue focus on abortion. Plenty of vital congregations are doing great good works—they’re the ones that have nurtured me—but they aren’t where the challenge will arise; they’ve grown shy about talking about Jesus, more comfortable with the language of sociology and politics. More and more it’s Bible-quoting Christians, like Wallis’s Sojourners movement and that Baptist seminary graduate Bill Moyers, who are carrying the fight. The best-selling of all Christian books in recent years, Rick Warren’s The Purpose-Driven Life, illustrates the possibilities. It has all the hallmarks of self-absorption (in one five-page chapter, I counted sixty-five uses of the word “you”), but it also makes a powerful case that we’re made for mission. What that mission is never becomes clear, but the thirst for it is real. And there’s no great need for Warren to state that purpose anyhow. For Christians, the plainspoken message of the Gospels is clear enough. If you have any doubts, read the Sermon on the Mount. Admittedly, this is hope against hope; more likely the money changers and power brokers will remain ascendant in our “spiritual” life. Since the days of Constantine, emperors and rich men have sought to co-opt the teachings of Jesus. As in so many areas of our increasingly market-tested lives, the co-opters—the TV men, the politicians, the Christian “interest groups”—have found a way to make each of us complicit in that travesty, too. They have invited us to subvert the church of Jesus even as we celebrate it. With their help we have made golden calves of ourselves—become a nation of terrified, self-obsessed idols. It works, and it may well keep working for a long time to come. When Americans hunger for selfless love and are fed only love of self, they will remain hungry, and too often hungry people just come back for more of the same. About the Author Bill McKibben, a scholar-in-residence at Middlebury College, is the author of many books, including The End of Nature and Wandering Home: A Long Walk Across America’s Most Hopeful Landscape. His last article for Harper’s Magazine, “The Cuba Diet,” appeared in the April 2005 issue.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-136) not displayed.
.
.
.
#137. To: Elliott Jackalope (#31)
The short answer is that life is liberated. This is not a literal event in the way you have asked the question. The really long answer revolves around Pascha and the Passion of Christ. I'll do my best to shorten the long answer. Before I do, I think it is important I provide a disclaimer about myself. I am not Eastern Orthodox, not yet anyway. Though I have been (practicing) it for two years. (I'll stop here as it gets complex in my life as to the whys and hows and I'd rather not go into that on a public forum at this time) This is to say I can give you a reasonable account of the Eastern Church's response to your question. Christ the Savior presented the Gospel. From this there are two choices. Believe or don't believe. There is the "Great Week". This is Christ's entrance into Jerusalem: the events of this week up to Great and Terrible Friday and the ressurection of our Lord on Sunday. Among those who did not believe Christ's message, arose people who mocked, scorned, ridiculed, hated, etc. the message of the Gospel. We see the worst of humanity: deceipt, cowardece, slander, betrayal, rejection and hostility These things became evident especially during Great Week. We see the false piousness unmasked. We see the awesome fury of evil laid bare on the cross. All of these things are rendered powerless by the love of God. Christ is victorious as death is swallowed up. As I mentioned above, we see the tombs are empited as life is liberated. Not only life of those present, but of those past and those to come. You would say death whereas I would say sleep or sometimes repose. This verse you ask of represents the victory of the saints who have triumphed over this world. If Augustine were alive and writing to you, he would probably tell you the "holy city" represents heaven. Regardless, this is about victory. The liberation of the life giving cross: the mercy of God- those kinds of things. There is much, much more I can and should add to this, but I need to go.
I'd rather not get into personalities, but you have made that unavoidable, haven't you. Truly, I don't know that I have ever encountered someone as stubborn and stupid as you are. You've been told and shown Ezekiel did not eat dung, and yet you persist in your cyber tantrum. You don't seem to have either the mental acuity or the attention span to figure this out on your own. Here then is Ezekiel 4 from "The Message" translation. It's not a very accurate translation, but then it will do all your thinking for you: 4"Next lie on your left side and place the sin of the family of Israel on yourself. You will bear their sin for as many days as you lie on your side. 5The number of days you bear their sin will match the number of years of their sin, namely, 390. For 390 days you will bear the sin of the family of Israel. 6"Then, after you have done this, turn over and lie down on your right side and bear the sin of the family of Judah. Your assignment this time is to lie there for forty days, a day for each year of their sin. 7Look straight at the siege of Jerusalem. Roll up your sleeve, shake your bare arm, and preach against her. 8"I will tie you up with ropes, tie you so you can't move or turn over until you have finished the days of the siege. 9"Next I want you to take wheat and barley, beans and lentils, dried millet and spelt, and mix them in a bowl to make a flat bread. This is your food ration for the 390 days you lie on your side. 10Measure out about half a pound for each day and eat it on schedule. 11Also measure out your daily ration of about a pint of water and drink it on schedule. 12Eat the bread as you would a muffin. Bake the muffins out in the open where everyone can see you, using dried human dung for fuel." 13GOD said, "This is what the people of Israel are going to do: Among the pagan nations where I will drive them, they will eat foods that are strictly taboo to a holy people." 14I said, "GOD, my Master! Never! I've never contaminated myself with food like that. Since my youth I've never eaten anything forbidden by law, nothing found dead or violated by wild animals. I've never taken a single bite of forbidden food." 15"All right," he said. "I'll let you bake your bread over cow dung instead of human dung." 16Then he said to me, "Son of man, I'm going to cut off all food from Jerusalem. The people will live on starvation rations, worrying where the next meal's coming from, scrounging for the next drink of water. 17Famine conditions. People will look at one another, see nothing but skin and bones, and shake their heads. This is what sin does." No doubt after my placating your clamor for attention, you'll indignantly demand that someone explain to you why God had Ezekiel do this. Continuing then to think and research for you, here then is Henry's commentary on Ezekiel 4:9-17: Your immaturity on this thread stands in stark contrast to your pretensions to debate scripture, creation, salvation, or frankly any topic requiring more than a 6th grade education and a modicum of honesty. If you want your posts to be respected as an adult, then behave and think like an adult.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
what he was saying was that he didn't eat animals that died by themselves.....nor did he eat ones that had been killed by other animals.....NOR did he eat abominable flesh, i.e., pigs and other unclean animals.
Nope Ezekiels response explained thusly doesn't stand to reason if all God was asking was for him to eat cakes composed of the following: (from Starvind's translation) Next I want you to take wheat and barley, beans and lentils, dried millet and spelt, and mix them in a bowl to make a flat bread. This is your food ration for the 390 days you lie on your side. 10Measure out about half a pound for each day and eat it on schedule. Except for the last ingredient noted later (If dung were the only fuel available, the lord wouldn't need to make special mention of it. It would go without saying) there's nothing that would prompt that response from Zeke out of the blue about a totally different topic altogether (preparing Kosher by Rowdee's interpretation) What gives?
Read 138--several times if need be. Read beyond just the selected words you are choosing to challenge or make an issue of. It doesn't matter if there were even natural gas or electricity available at the time for fuel. Ezekiel's God had told him to use dung, human dung later changed to cow dung--and there was a purpose behind it. Starwind's comments will tell you a bit about camp cleanliness rules/regs/statutes. Just for the record with others who are reading and not responding. God had all these prohibitions, etc., for a purpose. Not because he was trying to lord (pardon the pun) it over everyone. But back then, they didn't have a lot of medical understanding, diseases, etc. If you put yourself back in those days, in their shoes so to speak, while at the back of your mind knowing what we do about trichomoniasis (sp ?), dysentery, etc. God was protecting the people he has chosen to use as an example to the rest of the world. Meanwhile..... When you first started this business about what Ezekiel was eating, I honestly thought you were confused as it regarded what he ate, because I've just recently finished reading, I believe it was Kings, where Ezekiel had taken off to the southern kingdom (Judah) to avoid Jezebel's desire to have him killed. God had told him to camp out some place by a brook and that ravens would bring him food, and the brook would provide water. From there he went to Horeb and was given more directions by God. I've not done study in the book of Ezekiel yet. But just from what I've studied to date, especially through the Pentateuch, it was obvious that Ezekiel was saying that he hadn't broken any of God's commandments and statutes regarding foodstuffs (eating an animal found dead, or one killed by predators or other animals, or eating ones forbidden such as pigs, camels, etc. He was not saying he was a vegetarian or a shit-eater!
What gives is your continued stubborn stupidity. I gave you the answer in #138. To: Moldi-Box (#136) to your own question: And I quoted the entire chapt 4 of Ezekial 4 and provide a commentary on Eze 4: 9-17 in an apparently futile attempt to show you dung was never eaten anywhere by anyone. It was used as fuel for the cooking fire. Rowdee gave you the answer in #139. To: Moldi-Box (#135) to your own question: Ezekiel 4:14 Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth. You asked about Eze 4:14 and you highlighted neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth. To which rowdee corectly answered #139. To: Moldi-Box (#135) And not only was rowdee's answer correct, but the same explanation is given in Henry's commentary which I posted to you post #138: But in yet another stunning display of stupidity, you demonstrate: You've been given the correct answer that 'Ezekiel did not eat dung' three times and what 'abominable flesh' is twice. Clearly, not eating dung is a concept well beyond your understanding. The only one eating dung on this thread is you.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Quick joke: What's brown and sounds like a bell? Dung. Sorry, just felt the need to insert a quick pun. We now return to our regularly scheduled theology discussion.
What do you think of Matthew 27:52-53, where it says "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." Do you believe that happened? Because that's a really tough act to ignore. Walking resurrected saints would tend to make quite an impact on a society, yet nobody else reported that happening. Not even the other authors of the gospels. Doesn't that make you wonder just a bit?
#138. To: Moldi-Box (#136)
Nice, but why did Ezekiel have to eat the dookie, Starwind?
http:// bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Eze%204&version=65 Ezekiel 4
This Is What Sin Does
1"Now, son of man, take a brick and place it before you. Draw a picture of the city Jerusalem on it. 2Then make a model of a military siege against the brick: Build siege walls, construct a ramp, set up army camps, lay in battering rams around it. 3Then get an iron skillet and place it upright between you and the city--an iron wall. Face the model: The city shall be under siege and you shall be the besieger. This is a sign to the family of Israel.
http:// www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1128386743-4952.html 3. For the dressing of it, he must bake it with a man's dung (v. 12); that must be dried, and serve for fuel to heat his oven with. The thought of it would almost turn one's stomach; yet the coarse bread, thus baked, he must eat as barley-cakes, as freely as if it were the same bread he had been used to. This nauseous piece of cookery he must exercise publicly in their sight, that they might be the more affected with the calamity approaching, which was signified by it, that in the extremity of the famine they should not only have nothing that was dainty, but nothing that was cleanly, about them; they must take up with what they could get. To the hungry soul every bitter thing is sweet. This circumstance of the sign, the baking of his bread with man's dung, the prophet with submission humbly desired might be dispensed with (v. 14); it seemed to have in it something of a ceremonial pollution, for there was a law that man's dung should be covered with earth, that God might see no unclean thing in their camp, Deu. 23:13, 14. And must he go and gather a thing so offensive, and use it in the dressing of his meat in the sight of the people? "Ah! Lord God," says he, "behold, my soul has not been polluted, and I am afraid lest by this it be polluted." Note, The pollution of the soul by sin is what good people dread more than any thing; and yet sometimes tender consciences fear it without cause, and perplex themselves with scruples about lawful things, as the prophet here, who had not yet learned that it is not that which goes into the mouth that defiles the man, Mt. 15:11. But observe he does not plead, "Lord, from my youth I have been brought up delicately and have never been used to any thing but what was clean and nice" (and there were those who were so brought up, who in the siege of Jerusalem did embrace dunghills, Lam. 4:5), but that he had been brought up conscientiously, and had never eaten any thing that was forbidden by the law, that died of itself or was torn in pieces; and therefore, "Lord, do not put this upon me now." Thus Peter pleaded (Acts 10:14), Lord, I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. Note, it will be comfortable to us, when we are reduced to hardships, if our hearts can witness for us that we have always been careful to abstain from sin, even from little sins, and the appearances of evil. Whatever God commands us, we may be sure, is good; but, if we be put upon any thing that we apprehend to be evil, we should argue against it, from this consideration, that hitherto we have preserved our purity - and shall we lose it now? Now, because Ezekiel with a manifest tenderness of conscience made this scruple, God dispensed with him in this matter. Note, Those who have power in their hands should not be rigorous in pressing their commands upon those that are dissatisfied concerning them, yea, though their dissatisfactions be groundless or arising from education and long usage, but should recede from them rather than grieve or offend the weak, or put a stumbling-block before them, in conformity to the example of God's condescension to Ezekiel, though we are sure his authority is incontestable and all his commands are wise and good. God allowed Ezekiel to use cow's dung instead of man's dung, v. 15. This is a tacit reflection upon man, as intimating that he being polluted with sin his filthiness is more nauseous and odious than that of any other creature. How much more abominable and filthy is man! Job 15:16.
I'm sorry there aren't any pictures.
#139. To: Moldi-Box (#135)
#140. To: rowdee, Starwind (#139)
what he was saying was that he didn't eat animals that died by themselves.....nor did he eat ones that had been killed by other animals.....NOR did he eat abominable flesh, i.e., pigs and other unclean animals.
#141. To: Moldi-Box (#140)
#142. To: Moldi-Box, rowdee (#140)
What gives?
Nice, but why did Ezekiel have to eat the dookie, Starwind?
Why else would Ezekiel have said this in the next passage:
what he was saying was that he didn't eat animals that died by themselves..... nor did he eat ones that had been killed by other animals.....NOR did he eat abominable flesh, i.e., pigs and other unclean animals.
and had never eaten any thing that was forbidden by the law, that died of itself or was torn in pieces;
You were told twice what the answer was before you posted your asinine response. But you didn't read it or didn't comprehend it.
You can't read, you can't distinguish different numbers like post #136 vs post #135 or Eze 4:12 vs Eze 4:14, and you refuse to think.
#143. To: Starwind (#142)
 | Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#144. To: Elliott Jackalope (#143)
No problem. It was a much needed humor break, 'cause the rest of this dung ain't funny.
Sorry, just felt the need to insert a quick pun.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#145. To: Elliott Jackalope (#143)
hahahahaha :P
#146. To: rowdee (#141)
But in the context of the chosen passages it is a non-sequitur. to paraphrase: God: Make cakes of barley and beans and such and bake it over doo-doo. Zeke: But Lord, I've never eaten anything freak-nasty. If it makes sense to you that's fine. But it's one of inordinate points that make no sense in contemporary understanding. To use your example of trichinosis, what was God trying to do? Protect people? He didn't have to invent the affliction if that were so. Or, like sin is it something that entered the world against his will? Or maybe he made pigs just to hate on them. I know, you can't claim to know the mind of God. But we aren't discussing the mind of God, rather the minds of paranoid Asiatic tribesmen as they defined God. Why else would he put forth creatures to multiply in Eden without regard to Malthusian considerations? Or curse the ground, all flora and fauna because man fucked up? or threaten to lay the hurt down on Egyptian gods? Or make a mistake by creating imperfect man and drown the rest of earthly creation as a result? Or create a dozen or so test-runs of hominid man before humans who never get discussed relative to the creation story? Or have an attitude adjustment between Testaments where he no longer makes personal appearances, gives bread-baking or tabernacle making instructions and becomes perfect compassion even though just prior to this he enjoyed sacrificial offerings and smiting the enemies of his people (sic)? I suppose it is antagonistic to demonstrate point by point how one's religion is fantasy, just like showing a D&D geek how their level 26 half-elf Ranger has no life in the real world. But as long as we're all acting like mini-Voltaires and respecting one anothers viewpoints, I would note this is how my journey is unfolding. I seek answers and don't pull punches when I come across bullshit. If Starvind's gets sand in his vagina as a result, so be it.
that Ezekiel was saying that he hadn't broken any of God's commandments and statutes regarding foodstuffs (eating an animal found dead, or one killed by predators or other animals, or eating ones forbidden such as pigs, camels, etc.
#147. To: Moldi-Box, rowdee, Starwind (#140)
Moldi's posts are the typical crying out of one for an immaculate secular proof of the existence of the Biblical God so that there'll be hope of something on the other side of a miserable existence (which I infer from the nasty attitude, correct me if I'm wrong...) other than extinction and rotting in mud or possible damnation. It's not as if any of us who number among believers are going to have a crisis of faith from the ramblings, particularly ones so poorly executed, disingenuous, and bereft of logic (ironic, coming from someone who touts "science" and "rationality" as their foundation to boot...). Moldi, you need to get a life, and as my 93 year old grandfather would say, regardless of your current spiritual underpinnings, DON'T take the mark! When that comes along, there's no going back after that.
Government blows, and that which governs least blows least...
#148. To: Starwind (#142)
Again, as I pointed out to the other guy
In the context of the chosen passages it is a non-sequitur.
to paraphrase:
God: Make cakes of barley and beans and such and bake it over doo-doo.
Zeke: But Lord, I've never eaten anything freak-nasty.
It's a given that they used dung for fuel all the time. Why then would these simple barley & bean cake instructions be so shocking to Zeke?
#149. To: Moldi-Box, rowdee (#146)
As I predicted in my post #138: And here you go: And the answer you still haven't read (again from my #138): http:// >http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1128386743-4952.html This nauseous piece of cookery he must exercise publicly in their sight, that they might be the more affected with the calamity approaching, which was signified by it, that in the extremity of the famine they should not only have nothing that was dainty, but nothing that was cleanly, about them; they must take up with what they could get. To the hungry soul every bitter thing is sweet. This circumstance of the sign, the baking of his bread with man's dung, the prophet with submission humbly desired might be dispensed with (v. 14); it seemed to have in it something of a ceremonial pollution, for there was a law that man's dung should be covered with earth, that God might see no unclean thing in their camp, Deu. 23:13, 14 God allowed Ezekiel to use cow's dung instead of man's dung, v. 15. This is a tacit reflection upon man, as intimating that he being polluted with sin his filthiness is more nauseous and odious than that of any other creature. How much more abominable and filthy is man! Job 15:16. No doubt after my placating your clamor for attention, you'll indignantly demand that someone explain to you why God had Ezekiel do this.
But in the context of the chosen passages it is a non-sequitur.
to paraphrase:
God: Make cakes of barley and beans and such and bake it over doo-doo. Zeke: But Lord, I've never eaten anything freak-nasty.
If it makes sense to you that's fine. But it's one of inordinate points that make no sense in contemporary understanding. To use your example of trichinosis, what was God trying to do? Protect people? He didn't have to invent the affliction if that were so. Or, like sin is it something that entered the world against his will? Or maybe he made pigs just to hate on them.
I know, you can't claim to know the mind of God. But we aren't discussing the mind of God, rather the minds of paranoid Asiatic tribesmen as they defined God.
Continuing then to think and research for you, here then is Henry's commentary on Ezekiel 4:9-17:
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#150. To: Axenolith (#147)
the typical crying out of one for an immaculate secular proof of the existence of the Biblical God That's a far more noble pursuit than you might realize. At least grant that. so that there'll be hope of something on the other side of a miserable existence Actually, that's where Christianity started. Miserable slaves who needed hope of something better. Jesus taught reward was in the next life, not this one. Anyone who lives in luxury in this life should have no expectation of reward in the hereafter. Now think about your & my standard of living versus even kings of those days. We have it pretty good, did we forfeit our reward by so doing? Are you one of those folks with the Shiny new chromed Toyota Sequoia with the Jesus fish on it, just assuming the salvation applies to you. After all it only applies to 144,000 people in all human history (if we are to believe Revelations). (which I infer from the nasty attitude, correct me if I'm wrong...) other than extinction and rotting in mud or possible damnation. Damnation is not a part of my system of beliefs. It's too miserable a creed, but some of you like to make threats of such when ridiculed. I picture Jesus the same way too, btw. It's not as if any of us who number among believers are going to have a crisis of faith from the ramblings, particularly ones so poorly executed, disingenuous, and bereft of logic (ironic, coming from someone who touts "science" and "rationality" as their foundation to boot...). If I was getting my ass handed to me like you said earlier then you and your clique would be enjoying this and having a good old time. The way I see it, someone's getting rubbed the wrong way. What really bothers you? Should I have phrased my questions more cordially? Fine, then why, sir did bloody warring animals, insects and organisms precede man if the concept of original sin is correct and applicable? (Badeye would say it's too late, can't answer, we already got off on the wrong foot)
#151. To: Moldi-Box, axenolith, rowdee (#150)
You might at read the entire answers, and think. I'm done with this moron.
Should I have phrased my questions more cordially?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#152. To: Starwind (#149)
This nauseous piece of cookery he must exercise publicly in their sight, that they might be the more affected with the calamity approaching, which was signified by it But we've already established this was standard fare, doo-doo was used for cooking throughout the region for lack of wood. Ezekiel was taken aback by something. Surely not by a request to use standard fuel! it seemed to have in it something of a ceremonial pollution No shit. :) God allowed Ezekiel to use cow's dung instead of man's dung, v. 15. This is a tacit reflection upon man, as intimating that he being polluted with sin his filthiness is more nauseous and odious than that of any other creature. But before relenting, it was God's idea to use human dung. Ah yes, let's toss in another point for failure and redemption. It's a statement about humanity. That's it. If this is such a vile request, what does that say about the scatalogical almighty? Would it honestly have made a difference what sort of doo-doo was cooking the food if none got included in the recipe? How much more abominable and filthy is man! Job 15:16. Okay, then I'd take issue with the manufacturer.
#153. To: Starwind (#151)
Don't be mad. WWJD?
I'm done with this moron.
#154. To: Elliott Jackalope (#143)
Dung. Sorry, just felt the need to insert a quick pun. HA! So glad you spared us the "Dong" joke! TIA
Quick joke: What's brown and sounds like a bell?
#155. To: Moldi-Box (#146)
Well, naturally. Half-elf rangers are limited to level 16 (assuming normal prime requisites.)
just like showing a D&D geek how their level 26 half-elf Ranger has no life in the real world.
You can purchase first and second trust deeds. Think of the foreclosures! Bonds! Chattels! Dividends! Shares! Bankruptcies! Debtor sales! Opportunities! All manner of private enterprise! Shipyards! The mercantile! Collieries! Tanneries! Incorporations! Amalgamations! Banks! You see, Michael, Tuppence, patiently, cautiously, trustingly invested In the, to be specific, In the Dawes, Tomes, Mousely, Grubbs Fidelity Fiduciary Bank!
#156. To: Axenolith (#147)
But.. Think of the tax advantages. (sarcasum tag needed, I did not think so)
and as my 93 year old grandfather would say, regardless of your current spiritual underpinnings, DON'T take the mark! When that comes along, there's no going back after that.
#157. To: Tauzero, all (#155)
Ah, well I was assuming some special dork-modifiers. And maybe monetary tribute to the proper dieties (oops) But getting back to topic, AFAIC human doo-doo and cow doo-doo are nasty on an equal scale. Any perfect, beautiful, eloquent Almigthy that needs to illustrate the point of human frailty vis-a-vis butt mud has a barbaric, uncouth following that I need to part of.
Well, naturally. Half-elf rangers are limited to level 16 (assuming normal prime requisites.)
#158. To: tom007 (#156)
And savings on car insurance!
Think of the tax advantages.
You can purchase first and second trust deeds. Think of the foreclosures! Bonds! Chattels! Dividends! Shares! Bankruptcies! Debtor sales! Opportunities! All manner of private enterprise! Shipyards! The mercantile! Collieries! Tanneries! Incorporations! Amalgamations! Banks! You see, Michael, Tuppence, patiently, cautiously, trustingly invested In the, to be specific, In the Dawes, Tomes, Mousely, Grubbs Fidelity Fiduciary Bank!
#159. To: Moldi-Box (#157)
My theory on the dung thing is fecal vitamins. Works for rats...
You can purchase first and second trust deeds. Think of the foreclosures! Bonds! Chattels! Dividends! Shares! Bankruptcies! Debtor sales! Opportunities! All manner of private enterprise! Shipyards! The mercantile! Collieries! Tanneries! Incorporations! Amalgamations! Banks! You see, Michael, Tuppence, patiently, cautiously, trustingly invested In the, to be specific, In the Dawes, Tomes, Mousely, Grubbs Fidelity Fiduciary Bank!
#160. To: Moldi-Box, Starwind (#152)
Okay, then I'd take issue with the manufacturer. GAD as usual, I lost my reciept!! GEEEZ I hate it when that happens. (I think the book of Job is the most ancient writings of the Bible, and came from todays's Yemen, and has characteristics of Arabic origin).
How much more abominable and filthy is man! Job 15:16.
#161. To: tom007 (#160)
Any more receipts are rarely necessary, but in this case the guys at the customer service desk are getting mighty pissy towards me. I recommend you just go with the program...
GAD as usual, I lost my reciept!! GEEEZ I hate it when that happens.
#162. To: Elliott Jackalope (#143)
Very good...........LOL
#163. To: Moldi-Box, Starwind (#146)
When you're ready to be grown up on a thread like this, I'll be happy to continue to respond to you as best I can. I'm still working on trying to have the patience of Job; Starwind seems to be there.....but me.....I'm tired of biting my tart tongue! Good evening.......and good wishes.
#164. To: Starwind (#149)
Are you Job?
#165. To: Moldi-Box (#150)
Actually, this type of thread isn't a "having a good old time" thread for me, and I couldn't care less if you think you're "winning". Your debate style proved your credibility was near zero. Starwind actually took the time and effort to meticulously respond to you, and you were, to put it coarsely, a dick. As I stated early on, I personally don't see the Genesis story absolutely precluding the pre-existence of some prior world construct. Similarly, while many Christians fret and worry over timing of the return of Christ, AFAIK, that could be at the heat death of the universe. I'm thoroughly convinced of the life, death and ressurection of Christ as the redeemer of man. Any other of the details I can sort out by study, or they'll reveal in time. What does what Badeye think have to do with the price of tea in China? Did he chase you off of LP?
If I was getting my ass handed to me like you said earlier then you and your clique would be enjoying this and having a good old time. The way I see it, someone's getting rubbed the wrong way. What really bothers you?
Fine, then why, sir did bloody warring animals, insects and organisms precede man if the concept of original sin is correct and applicable?
Government blows, and that which governs least blows least...
#166. To: Tauzero, Moldi-Box (#159)
Are you Chinese by chance? The reason I ask is that several years ago I received a book from the now deceased Dr. Ensminger, who was a prominent professional in the field of agriculture, teaching, as well as an author of numerous books. Dr. Ensminger had received the ok from the Chinese government to visit China to view, review, and study their agriculture industry. In this book, he and his wife wrote about what all they had found. One item of note was a 'stacked' system of cages with beast or fowl in each level. And they only fed the ones in the top cage; the rest of the cages below ate what fell their way--perhaps a bite of grain that fell out of the upper feed tray....but mostly it was the dung from the previous layer. Amazingly, all the animals were healthy and grew well. And even the lowest level of critter's dung was of value..........it was all washed out and down to ponds which contained fish. And if I recall correctly (its been some 15 years since I read the book) the mulberry trees used by silk worms received nutrients from the water of the pond.
My theory on the dung thing is fecal vitamins.
#167. To: rowdee (#166)
Yeah -- Riley is my slave name. (I'm Irish.) It wasn't intended as a serious answer. For all I know it's a cosmic inside joke. Besides, there are much worse things in the OT than this bit about dung. I dunno why someone would harp on it, unless they just like running their mouth.
Are you Chinese by chance?
New Orleans. Bridge. Liquor Store! Say it with me!
-- Dora the Looter
#168. To: Axenolith (#165)
Starwind actually took the time and effort to meticulously respond to you, and you were, to put it coarsely, a dick. All Starwind ever does for the first 3 or so posts is put up a link and tell you to read it. Bullshit. I don't link to http://athiests.org to refute anyones point. And then if they don't read it I start calling them an idiot. I break it down in pithy, readable points. I play on my terms. I know that makes me a dick and I give no apologies. As I stated early on, I personally don't see the Genesis story absolutely precluding the pre-existence of some prior world construct. And this interested me. Prior to original sin, everything was in harmony. Green Herbs were as meat unto all creatures. Notwithstanding the Malthusian problems of creatures that go forth and multiply and never die, fight or kill in a finite space (the borders of Eden are referenced in Gen), the point is man (which "man" btw, Sapiens who are the dozenth type of hominid) created the dischord and thereby cursed everything. So if this pre-existence did contain warring creatures then the world wasn't so perfect and original sin doesn't hold water. Unless someone can reconcile it for me. I'm thoroughly convinced of the life, death and ressurection of Christ as the redeemer of man. Good for you. I was once thoroughly convinced of the existence of Santa Claus until my intellect developed and could sort out the problems of one man delivering goodies to all of humanity (roughly Jesus' gig too, btw). What does what Badeye think have to do with the price of tea in China? Did he chase you off of LP? Because a number of 4umers were acting like textbooks bots: they see a buddy under fire, drop in and deliver a few blows on his behalf and leave. You are the only one, Starvind included who has even attempted to address the "Original Sin" point and I'm still waiting for that reconciliation that has you convinced. Out of curiousity.
#169. To: Moldi-Box, Axenolith, rowdee (#168)
But given the links, you still nonetheless claim to have read them (repeatedly) and then you lie about what is or is not at a link, but even when it is broken down into "pithy, readable points" 2 or 3 times for you, you still don't read it! LOL! The problem is not that you're an admitted dick who plays by his own terms, the problem is you're an illiterate, lying admitted dick who plays by his own terms. And since your terms preclude reading more than 2 or 3 pithy points in front of your nose (and being honest about what you've read), your whining isn't taken seriously. You've demonstrated you're simply sucking bandwidth and trolling for a flame war.
All Starwind ever does for the first 3 or so posts is put up a link and tell you to read it. Bullshit. I don't link to http://athiests.org to refute anyones point. And then if they don't read it I start calling them an idiot. I break it down in pithy, readable points. I play on my terms. I know that makes me a dick and I give no apologies.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#170. To: Starwind (#169)
Not true. I have read and absorbed your last link and deduced that when one "snaps a brown-eye" then one should listen carefully for the voice of God. For this is one vehicle in which he's chosen to teach the faithful. That's the purpose behind the whole "human poo vs. cow poo cooking fuel" parable, correct? And nothing but the poo-challenge would have driven the point home.
But given the links, you still nonetheless claim to have read them (repeatedly) and then you lie about what is or is not at a link
#171. To: Starwind (#169)
Well....at least your new 'friend' has given up on eating shit and is concentrating on the area of original sin. :) The internet highway would end before his every question, objection or complaint could be answered--I was going to say satisfactorily, but that would be when Hades goes into its glacial period.
#172. To: Starwind (#169)
Opps! I spoke too soon, it seems! LOL.
#173. To: rowdee (#171)
and is concentrating on the area of original sin. Well it is arguably the most important tenants of Christianity and nobody seems to know what to make of the fact that evidence disputes it. has given up on eating shit None of my spiritual/philosophically-based texts even make reference to poo, but if it works for you, more power to ya.
#174. To: Moldi-Box (#170)
You lied in your post #34: You lied again in your post #40 Then in post #91 your were given 1 pithy, readable proof that you had misread Ezekiel, but you ignored it. Then in your post #92 you lied about what Ezekiel said. You ignored again the 1 pithy readable correction in post #95. Then in your posts #135 & #136 you continue to ignore those 1 pithy readable corrections. You ignored the entire chapter and commentary in post #138. You were given another 1 pithy readable explanation in post #139 which you again ignored in your post #140. And in your post #148 you ignored having all that laid again for you in post #142. Your ignore or distort the answers you'r given and then you lie about it. e It wasn't until your post #152 that you finally gave up and stopped denying that Ezekiel wasn't eating dung. No. You still don't get it. God isn't using Ezekiel to teach the faithful. God is using Ezekeiel to warn the faithless.
But given the links, you still nonetheless claim to have read them (repeatedly) and then you lie about what is or is not at a link
Not true.
Liar. You can read about it here at God's Signature of Authenticity.
The only thing I saw on that link was you tap-dancing around legitimate questions that hoist doubt onto the creation story. If all things which creepeth upon the earth were brought before Adam to be named, do you suppose Neanderthals and other primitive hominids were among them? How about dinosaurs? Did bloody strife among animals precede "original sin" wrought by man (which presumably is Sapiens)? Yes it did. Uh oh. That's a big f**cking problem. I read more of the link and if I were you I wouldn't draw attention to it beacuse you got owned. One poster brought up repeated questions about the creation
For this is one vehicle in which he's chosen to teach the faithful. That's the purpose behind the whole "human poo vs. cow poo cooking fuel" parable, correct?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#175. To: Starwind (#174)
Schroeder is an unmitigated quack, let link to reviews of his works at http://infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/review-s.html Schroeder claims that Genesis 1:1 refers to the era prior to quark confinement, i.e., the first hundred-thousandth second of the universe; and he claims that this era precedes the first day of Genesis. Moreover, he claims that the line which says that the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters (RSV) refers to the inflationary expansion of the universe prior to the era of quark confinement. The interpretative links here are incredibly tenuous: any one-time phenomenon which occurs before the era of quark confinement could, with equal plausibility--or better, with equal implausibility--be taken to be under description: for example, according to standard theory, at the end of the Planck era, gravitational radiation comes out of thermal equilibrium with the rest of the universe; and there is also a symmetry-breaking phase which shatters the electroweak force well before the era of quark confinement. (Of course, there are also delicate questions about the correct translation of the original texts which need to be discussed: if--as my RSV version of the Bible has it--Genesis 1:1 is committed to the existence of water in the earliest phase of the universe, then there is no question of trying to reconcile this with Big Bang cosmology. Given the role that water played in other early cosmological myths and speculations, it seems very plausible to suppose that the references to water in Genesis 1:1 and 1:6-1:7 are intended literally. A similar problem arises with the very first sentence of Genesis: if heaven and earth really are created in the beginning--i.e., in the era prior to quark confinement--then they exist at that time. On p. 8, Schroeder reads the opening sentence in a way which makes it clear that he takes 'the earth' here to refer to our planet. Yet later, when he gives the mapping onto Big Bang cosmology, it is clear that he can't understand the reference to 'the earth' in the opening sentence in this way. If you allow yourself unconstrained and inconsistent interpretation of a text, you can read anything you like into it.) Schroeder claims that Genesis 1:11 tells us (correctly) that life appeared immediately after the appearance of liquid water. (The most recent evidence is that life appeared 3.8 billion years ago, almost immediately at the time that liquid water appeared.) Even by his lights, this claim must surely appear dishonest. After all, it does not say in the account of the third day that God made vegetation immediately after he made the dry land appear; all that we are given is a list of things in the order in which they were done on the third day. On his account, the third day covers a time span of 2 billion years; as far as I can see, his interpretation leaves it open that vegetation could have appeared at any time in that 2 billion year period. Note, in particular, that there is just as much reason to hold that God made the birds--or, as Schroeder would have it, the flying insects--immediately after he made the sea creatures on day four--but that is in sharp disagreement with the evidence. (The same point also applies to the creation of man on day five; that it would be inconsistent with other aspects of Schroeder's interpretation to say that God made man immediately after he made the other animals is surely evidence that he should not say that Genesis 1:11 tells us that life appeared immediately after the appearance of liquid water.) Schroeder claims that dinosaurs are mentioned in Genesis 1:21, since there is a reference there to big reptiles. (The RSV says 'great sea monsters,' but I'm prepared to accept that Schroeder has the translation right.) How is this a reference to dinosaurs? Well, "the biggest reptiles were the dinosaurs"! This is pretty dire. Why not argue as follows: there are references in Genesis to animals; dinosaurs were animals; so there are references to dinosaurs in the Bible?! Or as follows: throughout the Bible, there are references to the things of this world; dinosaurs are among the things of this world (in the relevant atemporal sense); so these are references to dinosaurs in the Bible?! (Surely it is far more plausible to think that the 'big reptiles' which the writers of this text had in mind are crocodiles, large lizards, and the like! Indeed, a list which seems to say exactly this is given in Leviticus 11:30.) Schroeder's claim that archaeopteryx is mentioned at Leviticus 11:18 and Leviticus 11:30 is no more plausible, but also for a different reason: why on earth would anyone bother to proscribe the eating of something which had been extinct for around 150 million years? Schroeder claims that prehuman hominids are referred to--or, at any rate, alluded to--in several places in the Bible. Questions about interpretation come up in every case. At Genesis 12:5, Schroeder takes "Abraham took ... the souls they had made..." to entail that possession of a soul requires belief in a universal, noncorporeal God. (Why not just read it as "Abraham took ... the people they had converted..."? This is much closer to the RSV version, and would surely fit within permissible bounds of translation.) Schroeder notes that Genesis 1:26 talks about 'making' mankind, whereas Genesis 1:27 says that God 'created' man, and insists that, since both verbs characterize our origins, there must be an essential difference in their import. (But why not think that the words are interchangeable, and chosen for purely stylistic reasons, or for no reason at all? After all, it is not unusual for many words to be interchangeable in a given context.) Schroeder notes that an exact translation of Genesis 2:7 would give "man became to a living soul," and then observes that Nahmanides speculated that the redundant 'to' might indicate that the addition of soul transforms one kind of complete creature into a quite different kind of complete creature. (But why rest weight on Nahmanides opinion? There are, after all, other possible explanations of the origins of that redundant 'to' during early transcriptions of the text. Why suppose that it has any significance at all?) Schroeder claims that a careful reading of Genesis 4:25 and Genesis 5:3 reveals that there was a period in which Adam had sexual relations with nonhuman creatures. The allegedly crucial point is the appearance of the word 'again' in Genesis 4:25: "Adam knew his wife again and she bore a son." Isn't the "again" superfluous, and doesn't it tell us that Adam had been playing the field? (I can't see it. We might just as well infer that they'd been struggling for 130 years to have a child to replace the one they had lost. They tried yet again.) And so on. It is very hard to resist the conclusion that Schroeder is trying desperately hard to find anything at all which can be twisted to support the case that he wants to make. So much for the kinds of questions which I might raise about Biblical interpretation. Since I have no claims to expertise on these matters, I shall not put any more weight upon them. At the very least, I think that it is clear that many of Schroeder's claims stretch credulity--and also that it is hard to find a good motivation for them. Given the concession that the text cannot be given a straightforward literal interpretation--not least because, as Schroeder points out (pp. 10-11), it is multiply inconsistent--what harm could there be in supposing that much of it is best interpreted as myth? Reconciling science and Bible does not require finding science in the Bible; rather, it requires reading the Bible in ways which generate no inconsistencies with the well-established teachings of science. Moreover, this position is consistent with--though it does not require--the further claim that the teachings of the Bible are morally authoritative. (Schroeder assumes without argument that morality must have a Biblical foundation--see, e.g., pp. 1, 2, 4, 18, 40, 81-2, 137. This seems to me quite wrong; but I shan't try to dispute it here.) No. You still don't get it. God isn't using Ezekiel to teach the faithful. God is using Ezekeiel to warn the faithless. Through the vehicle of filth and in a way that certainly could have been done in a more eloquent manner. But then, look at the types this mythology appeals to.
You can read about it here at God's Signature of Authenticity.
#176. To: Moldi-Box (#175)
Proof that you are a moron and don't read a link and continue to lie about it. No where on this thread did I mention Schroeder or his writing about Genesis, nor did I offer that in my first post to you. I offered an essay about a verifiable prophecy of Jesus Christ: Here's something for you to think about. The Bible contains a prophecy given from God and written over 500 years in advance that foretold of the Messiah Prince that would come 483 years following a decree to rebuild Jerusalem, a Messiah who would then be "cut off" and have nothing. That 500+ year-old prophecy was fufilled with the baptism of Jesus Christ in 26 AD (exactly 483 years after Artaxerxes I decreed in 458 BC that Jerusalem be rebuilt) and with His subsequent crucifixion (being cut off and having nothing). And unlike fictional literature, it is true and verifiable. You can read about it here at God's Signature of Authenticity. (The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news) Starwind posted on 2005-09-30 21:20:48 ET Reply Trace Private Reply Schroeder is an unmitigated quack, let link to reviews of his works at http:/ /infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/review-s.html
#27. To: Moldi-Box (#21)
Something to think about.
You lied in your posts #34 & #40 that you had read the link I gave you. You're still lying.
The proof of your lies are in your above post #175 wherein you erroneously refute work done by Gerald Schroeder. But nowhere in the link I gave you is either Schroeder's work discussed, nor anywhere in that essay nor it's sublinks, but that hasn't stopped your fixation on Schroeder and Genesis and your blind arrogance.
Had you actually read God's Signature of Authenticity and the thread, you'd know that. But like the liar you are, you're just blowing more smoke and hoping no one will notice.
You have assumed God's Signature of Authenticity is about something else. You have assumed (without checking your facts, as you inevitably forego) that my link was something about Schroeder's work on Genesis 1. when in fact (had you checked) my link was about Dan 9:25-26.
The Daniel 9 prophecy about the Messiah is not the Genesis 1 account of the 6- day creation.
And this is now the 3rd time that has been pointed out in several pithy readable posts (which you claim is all you need, on your terms no less - lol).
You lie and you're too incompetant to recognize the difference between words like Daniel and Genesis or Prophecy and Creation, and you're too lazy to read, think or even do a simple search to see what is or isn't on a thread.
You are a lying, illiterate, admitted dick.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
.
.
.
Comments (177 - 197) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest