Bloody hell! Who'd want to marry a virgin? This is the part of Christianity I never understood (the whole taboo on sex thing, and inexperience being a virtue).

You have to really dense to realize that the cup was not filled with blood. It had wine that represented Jesus spilled blood from the ransom sacrifice. They were consuming the sacrifice benefiting from it as it payed the wage of sin, that they themselves could not pay if not with their own death.

I don't hate the Amish, I just don't believe that they are doing the right things...



Its a command from God. Sex was part of the institution of marriage, therefore sex begins and ends in marriage, and institution created by God for men.

More or less, yeah. And also using the Bible to show he's not crazy like those crazy Amish.

I wasn't talking to you.

He's lucky the Amish don't believe in using computers, one might out-preach him.

Its 2 Samuel 23:8... had you read a couple of passages down and you'd have seen it. That site uses the king james bible.

Then why are you literally outraged by them?

Excuse me, I am using an electronic bible, I see only the verse I am looking for. Much faster than going through a lot of old bilbles that are washed out and missing pages and covers. I need to really update my library.


Regarding the whole child same sex relationship, the Centurion said in verse 8:

But the centurion said, "Lord, I am not worthy for You to come under my roof, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed.

Let us continue with Verse 9 and ten

For I also am a man under (C)authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, 'Go!' and he goes, and to another, 'Come!' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this!' and he does it.

Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled and said to those who were following, "Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel.


Whether or not the slave was used for sexual purposes I cannot determine right now. I will look into that later. This is my last post of the day, I am going to retire now. Catch up on sleep.

But to conclude, you're missing the point here: The man went to Jesus with faith in him, that he could he heal his servant, probably and most likely repent of his sins and as humble as one could be. We also do not know what the master and his servant did after the fact. Condemn the master servant relationship? There was nothing wrong or uncommon for a man to have servants slaves at that time, unless he treated his servant inhuman like or ungodly. There is a part in the bible where masters are instructed on how to treat their slaves.

However in the Kingdom of God, such situations will no longer exist. Thats another thing in it self.

I can go on, but I really need to get going. I'll see you later.



I just imagined my self in an Amish lifestyle and it was just too shocking for me. Culture shock!

hit that nail right on the head.

Seriously Gold: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

Also, I guess nobody told you, but the 144,000 that get into heaven are going to be virgin men:

Revelation 14:1-4 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

Revelation 14

1And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.

2And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:

3And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.

4These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

And apparently Solomon and his followers were bat**** crazy:

2 Chronicles 7:5-9 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

5And king Solomon offered a sacrifice of twenty and two thousand oxen, and an hundred and twenty thousand sheep: so the king and all the people dedicated the house of God.

6And the priests waited on their offices: the Levites also with instruments of musick of the LORD, which David the king had made to praise the LORD, because his mercy endureth for ever, when David praised by their ministry; and the priests sounded trumpets before them, and all Israel stood.

7Moreover Solomon hallowed the middle of the court that was before the house of the LORD: for there he offered burnt offerings, and the fat of the peace offerings, because the brasen altar which Solomon had made was not able to receive the burnt offerings, and the meat offerings, and the fat.

8Also at the same time Solomon kept the feast seven days, and all Israel with him, a very great congregation, from the entering in of Hamath unto the river of Egypt.

9And in the eighth day they made a solemn assembly: for they kept the dedication of the altar seven days, and the feast seven days.

If you do the math, Solomon sacrificed 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep in one week. This is 845+ animals per hour, 14+ animals per minute, for seven days straight.

Also my favorite, Unicorns are real!

Job 39:9-11 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

9Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?

10Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

11Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?

Oh, hey! Another stab at Catholics and another INTERPRETATION. Jesus said it was his blood, it was his blood. If he turned water to wine, he could turn that wine into his blood.

Therefore, our religions are both equally

religion...

....i just lol'd myself.... srsly

Michael 7:23

Thou shalt not have any god before walrus.

I'm sure this thread is exactly why the Amish don't have internets.

I've heard they use some electricity, like refrigerators and heaters for their barns so their livestock doesn't freeze to death in the winter. But avoiding cars keeps them from running over haters, which, you know, is a sin.

You stepped into negative integrity when you advocated using the King James Bible, THE WORST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE EVER CREATED, A TRANSLATION WRITTEN IN PURPOSELY ARCHAIC ENGLISH.

They have diesel powered stuff that they can use, you're probably thinking of that.

Diesel powered generators create electricity.

Not if they aren't generators? There's more than one way to make heat and cold.

They might generate electricity and then use that...if that's the case, then wow, stupid.

The KJV uses an archaic version of our language. That's not to helpful when it comes to communicating ideas.



None of those verses at all support your claims. You threw out a bunch of verses about God and creation, but none of them say anything about Christ being created. All that proves is that Christ is the son of God, and that God was there at creation. You just took a bunch of verses and made totally erroneous claim.



Yes all those things describe angles. So?



No it's not, it could be any angle. The Bible puts very little emphasis on angles, and we don't know much about them. They are merely mentioned as asides from time to time.



It's likely that "The angel of the LORD" is God, especially given that he speaks as God, but where do you get that he is Michael? You posted some random appearances of some other and then this. That doesn't follow, at all.



That's one crazy logical leap. Are you making this up as you go?




That shows that at some point Michael rules on earth, but it's nothing like Christ's first coming. It sounds like he, in one sense or another, has charge at the very end times.



So Michael is mentioned where?



What?! Where do you get Michael in those verses?

Maybe if by "widely recognized as Jesus", you mean "widely recognized as Jesus among JWs". The truth is, I think you'd be hard pressed to really come up with a conclusive case for the identity of "one [l]like a[/i] son of man." Especially when you realize that every time Jesus is called Son of Man, he's called "THE Son of Man."


Not really. He could just as easily have been sent down to collect him specially or something. Your grasping at straws.



Well obviously, just because the archangel had authority over the angles doesn't mean Jesus wouldn't. They don't necessarily have to be the same person.


It says "with the voice of" not the Michael himself. It's probably just trying to communicate how it will be loud and authoritative. If Christ was Michael this sentence would be really stupid.



"However, only an archangel can call with an archangel’s voice!" Says who? God's omniscient remember? If it was an archangel speaking right here it would be redundant to say that he spoke with an archangel's voice.

Also where did "(en pho·ne′ arkh·ag·ge′lou)" come from? How much of this post did you rip off of a web site?


Satan was cast out of heaven before the creation of the world remember? Getting cast out and being finally destroyed are two totally different things.

The appearance of the name Michael, instead of Jesus, in Revelation chapter 12 draws our attention to the prophecy considered earlier in Daniel chapter 12. In Daniel we read of Michael’s standing up. (Daniel 12:1) In Revelation chapter 12, Michael acts like a conquering monarch throwing Satan down to the earth. The result: “Woe for the earth and for the sea.”—Revelation 12:12.[/quote]

Again, this is far different than the final blow Christ will give to Satan.



v17 a few verses away: "17And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together." You're not really getting anywhere with all this proof texting.

True, the apostle Paul wrote to the Hebrews:



Well he certainly didn't have equal status when he was on earth was he? This is talking about his triumph and victory over sin. Besides, your forgetting that the whole purpose of creation and salvation is to glorify God. If Jesus is not God, than God is giving all his praise and Glory to a creation.

sigh, this is again proof that you are hopeless. this is clearly not your own writing. i think you stole this whole "proof" from a website, and maybe added a word here or there. in fact, i know you did. . http://en.allexperts.com/q/Jehovah-s-Witness-1617/doctrine.htm. look familiar?

god, come on goldg. i bet you dont even know what the hell you just 'typed'. "why did i have to pick that translation"? you didn't pick it. "it took me 3 hours to write this entire section"??? wow, blatant lie. next time, try interpreting the bible yourself or at least write your own ****, because you sound like an idiot when you plagiarize, then have nothing to back it up.

edit: also, you suck. there is no logic in your cut-and-paste 'writing'.

NO.

Michael is simply the Archangel, just as the scripture says he is. Your problem is that you're trying to creatively exegete scripture to support your points, rather than taking it for what it says.


1. John the Baptist identified Jesus as the Christ in John 1:27-29, and it was Jesus who received the Holy Spirit in John 1:32 (and referenced in Acts 10:38)

----------------------------------
2. Paul Confessed Christ alone to be his savior (Romans 9:5) and then again in Colossians 2:9 ("In Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form")

I don't see Michael being mentioned. To try and lump Christ and Michael together when the scripture merely says "Christ" makes no sense since great measures are taken to separate the two:


------------------------------
3. Hebrews 1:7-8: "Of the angels he says,
He makes his angels winds,
and his ministers a flame of fire.

8. But of the Son he says,
Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom."

Notice how Christ and the angels are addressed separately?

---------------------
4. It gets even better:

Hebrews 1:13: And to which of the angels has he ever said,
Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet?

Christ currently sits by the right hand of God (Mark 16:19, Hebrews 12:2) , so that completely nullifies your claim.

Hebrews 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?

Angels are here to minister to the believers, not to rule.
---------------------------

Regarding your argument that Jesus is a created thing, you must understand that it was only His body that was a created thing. (Phillipians 2:7-8) Christ was in the beginning with God (John 1:2) and is the Word of God that John spoke of (Revelation 19:13)

This is all I have time for right now, I'll get to any other things later.

That's what all people do.

Maybe you should read the Bible as the interpretive document that it is?

Oh, and you can pretty much throw out the Old Testament. Even when I was Catholic I didn't believe a lick of that thing.

This is what set Joseph Smith apart from the other revivalist crackpots. He stressed to the elders of the LDS Church that it was important that they realize that scripture could be read from many points of view, figurative and literal. He did, of course, teach that he had divine truths being revealed to him, that aided in the reading of the Bible.

But Mormons are not the same as Jehova's Witnesses. JWs try to wrestle the Bible into their beliefs, whereas Mormons believe they have more revlatiaon that clarifies said scripture. Thats a whole different kind of crackpottery. Harrder to argue with though.

Most people just take their version of god (you know, the one that hates all the same people they do) and try to cram scripture into that worldview.

The Old Testament still has a purpose; it contains a record of the promises that God made to Israel. However, many people try to erroneously apply these promises to the church, with disasterous results.

Regarding the Amish, they are simply living out several verses that advocate the separation of the believer from the rest of the world:

1. Be not yoked with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?" (II Corinthians 6:14)

2. "Come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord." (II Corinthians 6:17)

3. “And be ye not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” (Romans 12:2)

Most believers interpret these verses as a calling to separate themselves from the things of the world that unbelievers indulge in (such as excessive drinking, gambling, etc). Christians are to live in the world but not be a part of it, since in spirit we have died to the things of this world that we were once a part of. The Amish simply take this further than everyone else, although by separating themselves so far they tend to govern themselves with statutes and legalism not found in scripture.

I don't see anything wrong with Amishism. They're just holding to an old way of life, that most of us see as out-dated as backwards.

When an Amish youth becomes a certain age, they're encouraged to go out into the world and live as "normal" people do. This is their chance to go crazy. If they choose to stay in the world, they can and are permitted to do so.

But most of them choose to return to the Amish lifestyle.

So... obviously being Amish doesn't suck that much.

seriously now don't be thick. the bible makes numerous references to blood being the source of life, and that is in fact one of the reasons it gives for not CONSUMING it. since your taking great liberty here with wacky interpretations, why not make a more logical guess. blood is the source of life. another human freely gives his blood, his life source if you will, to help you out. if blood transfusions existed back in those days Jesus probably would have been all for them.

They save lives at no permanent cost to the donor, of course he would be all for them.

This thread went from being :downs: to :downs: versus :downs: versus :downs:.

One of the biggest mistake detractors of Christianity makes, is underestimating the vast intellectual intelligentsia of modern theologians. You think you can find "inconsistencies" with a cursory read of a translation of the original texts. This is grossly insufficient, and to mount a reasonable argument for any inconsistencies, you'd have to find an Anti-Christan scholar who had spent just as much time studying the Bible as Christan scholar. But even then it would be doomed to failure, because they simply don't exist.




As for bats, you are holding an ancient civilization to a modern classification system. It's just a classification system, none of them are wrong per se. Our is obviously more sophisticated or precise.

As for the birds and locusts, it's possible that the jews had different ideas as to what constituted a foot. eg, they didn't consider the back legs actual legs because they looked different and seemed to perform slightly different functions. The Hebrew word used in fowl doesn't necessarily mean bird, in this case, but rather winged thing. In context it's probably referring back to the insects. Again, this is probably just a cultural difference. It's not like the writer was going to make a mistake about a staple of his culture's diet that they see and eat every day. It would be like a a dairy farmer thinking that cows had eight legs. It's obviously just a difference in classification.

As far as the pi = 3 thing goes, the measurements were along the outside of the bowl, and and diameter from the inside to the inside. Measured from the out side to the out side the diameter would be closer to 3.14. Even so look at the accuracy to the units they are using. Even if this wasn't the case, technically according to sig. figs. it would be accurate to say that 10 and 30 cubits.

And the two genealogies were because one was through Joseph his Jesus's legal father, and the other through Mary. But, because all Jewish blood lines were taken through through the males, They went from Joseph to Joseph's father in law and down. The Jew's were meticulous keepers of genealogies. Such a major discrepancy in the genealogies would have been instantly noticed by everyone especially in such early writings.

The JW's stance on blood transfusions arbitraily takes sections of the Old Testament ceremonial law, which even at that time would not have prohibited blood transfusions if they were available.

Oh, so because the detractors have not studied the Bible as much (according to you), are not "scholars", they must be wrong? This is an appeal to authority argument.

I see you doing this all the time. You post that same rubbish instead of actually countering the points said detractors make.

This is probably because they have read the Bible more than you have.

Get out.

But maybe his mama is an authority on the bible!

I didn't say that that's why their wrong, I'm saying that their efforts to prove them wrong are very poor because they really can't equal the vast amount of time and effort put in to studying the Bible put into it by Christians. Compare it to creationist scientists. Any efforts to try to disprove hundreds or thousands of years of study by a few people who haven't even dedicated their whole lives to it, is pretty much doomed to failure from the get go, provided the field is reasonably complex.

Also, I didn't say that they weren't scholars, I simply said that they weren't scholars in that field.


Besides how does this sound like an appeal to authority to you?

Try reading next time. I guess it's easier to be dismissive if you don't sweat comprehension.

Christians who spend their life studying the Bible, which is supposed to be the word of their supreme deity, aren't what you'd call biased?

Seriously, any time someone links to a page discussing inconsistencies in the Bible, you write it off because they can't compare to Christian scholars. You don't even attempt to read or comprehend the arguments, let alone rebut them. I hypothesize that this is your way of getting around such inconsistencies, because they are so obvious, you write them off as too deep for us to understand. It makes it easier for you to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, because you can't seem to cope with the idea that it was written by men and has mistakes in it.

Someone could write a fictional book, let's call it something other than the Bible so that I can pretend i'm not attacking religion, let's call it the "Boble".

I could spend my entire life studying this book, trying to come up with reasons why it is true or represents the truth and let's be honest I could probably come up with some damn compelling arguments. It's really easy to justify almost any argument if you spend enough time trying to think it up. Anyone who doesn't know this clearly hasn't seen some young go-getter convince their bosses to go for a really bad idea despite some obvious flaws that anyone with half a brain can spot once they actually stop and think.

So we have this entirely fictional Boble and i've now come up with arguments why it's not fictional, in fact i've spent decades coming up with these arguments. According to Obi_Kwiet it is now impossible for anybody to argue against me because nobody will have spent the same amount of time invested in coming up with a counter-argument, mostly because there's no bloody point, it's a complete waste of the one chance they'll get at life.

Apparantly regardless of how easy it is to find the very obvious flaws in my argument such an attempt is never valid because it didn't take as long as my original argument.

For crying out loud, do you even think about what you're saying as you say it? An education in theology means bugger all when it comes having a valid argument. I have a Masters degree in Computer Science from a top university on an international level and I bet there are loads of you who are still in High School who know more about computer science than me. All an education shows is a commitment to being educated, it doesn't show that you actually know anything.

The thing I don't understand about unbelievers is not why you are so quick to dismiss scripture, but why you even bother to attack it. Scripture is not written for the benefit of the unbeliever, but is rather a source of guidance for Christians. The very same things that have been revealed to us have been closed to you; the Bible itself says that the things of God are foolishness to the unbeliever. Therefore, why should you, as an unbeliever, care at all what it has to say?

There is nothing it can do for you unless God calls you to newness of life first. An unbeliever may study the Bible endlessly, but the most they can do is understand it as raw data in a purely academic manner, which would be pointless. Without the Holy Spirit, that person will be unable to truly understand it and realize how it is applied to the life of a believer.

Because people try to use it to justify their absurd beliefs as if having it written in and old book it somehow makes their beliefs valid. (argumentum ad antiquitatem)