Today we are a society full of relativists. What!?
Relativism: the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute.
This is the whole thought behind, well everthing, but mainly Pro-Choice and relgion. But, let's take it a step further, shall we?
I steal. To me that isn't wrong, because to me everything was created for everyone. So, when I get arrested, I feel like my freedom is violated. Why do I get arrested?
My brother murders, but he says it's okay. He only murders those who are inhuman, ie "slow" people, mute people, blacks, jews, and so on. Humans are white and clean, a perfect race. So, why was we sent to death row?
Okay, so those are completely false. I don't steal, my brother isn't a murderer. BUT the thought is the same! If I did steal, or he did murder, and to us it was right, why then would we be punished? The law says a right to happiness. Well, I'm happy when I steal, he's happy when he kills.
If there is no absolute truth, aren't you saying there is a truth that there is no truth, which that would be an absolute... Yea, I don't understand that logic either.
Relativism is just plain, shall I say it? DUMB. There, I said it. Everyone knows that murder is wrong. Everyone knows that stealing is wrong. And yet... we still question ourselves on abortions? No this isn't an abortion blog, this is a blog about relativism.
Who started the philosophy of relativism anyway? And why? To make thinks logical for what is going on so that what they do isn't wrong, even though it is? I just confused myself. Let me rephrase it:
A man wanted to believe that his sexual lifestyle was okay, but everyone else said it was wrong. Even he knew it was wrong. So, he said, "but I BELIEVE it is okay, therefore it is. Just becuase you don't agree doesn't mean it's not right for me."
Still, I don't see the logic. Can someone please explain to me, WHY relativism exists and WHO started this thought!? Oh, and what do you think about it?
Again I will ask, is there an absolute truth? If you say no, you're stating an absolute truth of no truth. If you say yes, then I hope you don't agree with relativism. If you say yes and do agree, tell me why and who's truth is right?
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
because you are using what i think is called post hoc fallacy
"Pride is concerned with who is right. Humility is concerned with what is right."
Explain? I know it makes no sense, relativism doesn't! But still, please explain what you mean and yea...
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
faulty reasoning--one is this and it leads to that--this reasoning lost me after the initial whole stealing and murdering part that you used as a ploy to get me to read the blog (nice one though-it got my attention)
"Pride is concerned with who is right. Humility is concerned with what is right."
I was making a point on relativism. The blog actually makes good sense, and I think some good points. Relativism is all about: "If I think it's okay, it is. Just because you say it's wrong doesn't mean it's not wrong for me."
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
my mind could not understand your logic, would that be more easier for me say and you to make sense but i guess it is fine if other people understand where you're coming from
"Pride is concerned with who is right. Humility is concerned with what is right."
Tell me how I can make it easier for you to understand? I would be more than happy to.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
that might be why my brain isn't capable of understanding this
"Pride is concerned with who is right. Humility is concerned with what is right."
That does explain it. Hehe. Well, if you want to come back to it when you're rested, that's fine. If not, that's fine too. I just want to help you understand if you want to understand.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
it makes no more sense the second time around
and the "I think therefore I am," isn't that Descartes' saying? I am sure it is but you can check.
the one who came up with the cartesian principal...
but I don't believe that this sort of "relativism" and "i think it's right therefore it must be right," thing you're using is helping you make a case against Pro-choice or Non christians or helping us even question our own beliefs and get interested in christianity
"Pride is concerned with who is right. Humility is concerned with what is right."
"Age is an issue of mind over matter. If you don't mind, it doesn't matter." - Twain
"Anything which admits of the slightest doubt I will set aside just as if I had found it to be wholly false; and I will proceed in this way until I recognize something certain, or, if nothing else, until I at least recognize for certain that there is no certainty. Archimedes used to demand just one firm and immovable point in order to shift the entire earth; so I too can hope for great things if I manage to find just one thing, however slight, that is certain and unshakable...So after thoroughly thinking the matter through I conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, must be true whenever I assert it or think it." ~ from The Second Meditation by René Descartes.
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
thanks a lot, i knew he was somewhat if not a great genius
or that is my opinion
:) yay, he makes a really good case for his beliefs
"Pride is concerned with who is right. Humility is concerned with what is right."
http://www.progressiveu.org/231615-this-is-a-muslim-girls-plight
using this against pro choice or religion. It's just the main places relativism is used. It's used all over today. And honestly, that is how people think, "It's right for me, but not for you so that's okay. There is no absolute truth." And it's scary.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
I really think that you don't understand relativism. It doesn't say that we should let people kill randomly because they think it is right. It says, in this situation, is a certain action that is usually considered wrong acceptable.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
will people take it. That's my point.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
If you believe that it is wrong to kill, but you are justified in killing someone to save your life of someone else's life that is reletivism. That is the point of reletivism. The point is not "I think it's ok if I kill people, so I can". The point is that the moral code is flexible.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
actually that is NOT relativism.
"the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute."
Not absolute. That means, one culture can think killing is okay and fine and kill (African cultures), and another can say it's not. Then, if one from the killing culture gets in trouble with the non killing culture, there is a wrong. With relativism, law MUST be lost.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
First, your statement about African culture is narrow-minded and, for a lack of better words, stupid and disgusting. Sorry to offend.
Second, you are still missing the point. The point is that the moral code is flexible. Different societies tend to have slightly different beliefs in what is right and wrong, although most cultures have similar beliefs regarding big things, like killing.
Morality is a way of preserving a society. If a society condoned killing, it would soon stop existing. That's the way it goes.
That is the problem with what you're saying, culturally speaking. No succesful culture truly promoted anything detrimental to the survival of any large portion of the population. Thus, wandering around and killing people tends to be out, regardless of the culture.
What that idea is saying is that some cultures, for instance, may claim homosexuality is wrong. Another may claim it is right, or at least, not wrong.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
these comments are getting hard to read and i would like to add in my two cents but i can't because i have horrible eye sight and it's getting blurry by the time i reach the second sentence in those weird boxes/rectangles
"Pride is concerned with who is right. Humility is concerned with what is right."
http://www.progressiveu.org/231615-this-is-a-muslim-girls-plight
I think the whole thing with relativism is that it depends on the situation, not on the moral beliefs of the person in question.
For example, you say stealing is wrong. But is stealing still wrong when it is required to survive (such as stealing food)? Someone comes in and steals your grandmother's necklace. You see it in someone's house a few days later, sure that it's hers (say it has an engraving or something). Taking it is stealing, but is it wrong?
Or your murder example... say a man was holding a gun to your mother's head. The only way you could stop him from killing your mother is to attack him, and in the process you snap his neck. He dies. You committed murder. Is it still wrong?
Or how about prostitution. I assume you think that's wrong. What if a woman sells her body so that she can feed her child? There's no other way to feed him in the meantime, so she gets a few dollars having sex with some men. Is it still that wrong?
The thing about saying very broad statements like 'killing is wrong' or 'stealing is wrong' is that it sometimes does depend on the situation. As they say... there are exceptions to every rule.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
exceptions, but still, that does not answer relativism. My points have no exceptions, they just are what makes us happy (playing the part again). So since the law says it's illegal, but I don't believe it is, why get punished? Second, self defense still has some consequence. You pay a fine or something. But still, there is a consequence. As for prostitution. There are BETTER ways to support your child, or just put it up for adoption. So again, the law says it's wrong. But they don't believe it is, yet they'll still get punished for prostituting. Why?
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
You are contrasting relativism with absolutism. I don't think you can have absolutes, because there are exceptions to every rule. The morals of society do fluctuate, though. There's no question about that. Human sacrifice is seem as appalling now, but the Aztecs practiced it, even the Christians celebrate it. You are judging past societies based on your current moral standards.
You get punished for breaking the law because it is the law. Even if it is an unjust law, it is still a law. We have processes in this country where you can go and appeal those laws, but you still have to obey them in the meantime, because you chose to live here.
Can you give me a source that says self defense has some consequence? I mean, you probably have to go to court and all that, which may be a consequence in itself, but that's not the type of consequence you're talking.
Of course there are better ways, but some women are desperate. They need the food for their child now. They don't want to give their child up for adoption, because they love their child. And I'm not thinking a baby... I'm thinking more an older child, so the child placed into an adoption home will probably not get adopted. Things aren't as black and white as they seem. And again, the simple answer is that it is against the law. But unless you get a hard ass policeman, I don't think he'd treat that woman the same as one who does it for kicks.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
Christians celebrated human sacrifices. It certainly wasn't in the OT or NT. The OT has animal sacrifices to pay for our sins, but the Jesus came. If Jesus is the human sacrifice you're talking about, he was God. He didn't die.
Second, I believe in Anarchy. Why should I follows these laws you talk of? Anarachy is right for me.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
Christians celebrate crucifixions by making those people saints.
That is the oldest heresy. And second, that's not them making human sacrifices. Those who were made saints weren't made saints by Christians, they were made saints by God.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
Bullshit my friend. The Pope and a group of Cardinals select who becomes a saint. God does not. Sorry for my blasphemy, its what i do.
That's Catholic. Do not group all Christians in Catholicism please. The only saints I know of are the ones God ordained in the Bible. I do not worship any other fucking saint and quite honestly to worship them is to worship another God which is against the commandments and against Christianity.
Please do NOT group us!
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
lol, hit a nerve I see. Um, I know that you are all not the same. You still don't realize that I used to be a Christian. There are no saints in the Bible, at least non that I seem to recall. I never said you worshipped them either.
Christians celebrate human sacrifice. God demanded that a man die in exchange for all our sins, according to Christian beliefs. The OT also has some instances of human sacrifice, but since most Christians pick and choose which instances they want to believe in the OT, I'll leave those out.
If you want anarchy, you can't live in America. We have a government. If you don't want one, go somewhere that doesn't have them. Or, you know, to the back hills of the south and/or Montana, where people don't care enough anyway.
But I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make, so I stop here.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
I never thought of that as human sacrifices, the whole God says people have to die for sins. Kinda disturbing.
where the OT says about human sacrifices. Seriously. NT Jesus, but HE DIDN'T DIE.
If you're talking about "This is my blood, drink of it..." it's not really his blood. It's wine and bread. Seriously.
So give me versus were the OT does human sacrifices. Or you're just bullshitting your thoughts.
AGAIN my dad is a pastor, I have looked at so many of his books and been with him as he studies. I ask him and he gives me answers, direct in the bible and our thoughts. Don't bring this bogus shit up about God.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
In the Bible, it is frowned upon to curse.
Yes, the sacrament. Bread represents the body. Blood represents the blood. Jesus sacrificed himself for us. Sounds like human sacrificing to me.
This is my blood wine not blood. Get your facts straight. Jesus WAS a sacrifice but he was not human, he was GOD.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
Sorry I meant wine where I put blood. If Jesus was God, the Bible still is supporting human sacrifices. But Jesus was not God, only the Bible says Jesus claimed that, there is no historical records to claim any of that. Because I'm pretty sure some records would have been written down if a man started calling himself God. Jesus really only claimed to be the messiah.
a fact cannot be changed just because other's think it's not true.
The earth has always been round, but people thought it was flat. Jesus was God. And no there is not HISTORICAL evidence but the Bible. But that's what faith and knowledge is about.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
That is what faith is about. Knowledge discounts the Bible as completely true historical evidence. Jesus being God is a fact to Christians, not to anyone else. So it is not a real fact.
You don't know it's true doesn't make it false.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
You believing its true doesn't make it true. You base all your arguement on a belief system. I base my arguement on logic.
the Bible is VERY historically accurate. Knowledge just GROWS the strength in the Bible.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
The Bible is notin anyway very historically accurate. There are clear contadiction between what is written in the bible and other non-religious accounts of history.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
No it's not, there is no historical record of Moses or Jesus. The places in the Bible were known to every civilization in the area of mesopatamia(spelling). There are inaccuracies and contradictions as well.
I ask again, show me where you completely accurate historical records are that aren't from the Bible.
there are none. But the Bible is Historically accurate. But no, things in the Bible are only mentioned in the Bible, or Qu'ran (or however you spell it).
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
You position portrays an utterly lack of intellectual honesty. This is why we're giving you a hard time. In order to be afforded credibility in this kind of discussion, one has to acknowledge the difference between what one can prove to be true and what one merely believes to be true. If you can't tell the difference, or more likely are simply unwilling to admit to it, then you will inevitably be categorized as either a nut-job or a liar (respectively). If your beliefs really are true, then you shouldn't have to be so utterly unreasonable in order to defend them.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
I am not a nut-job or a liar. It is just plain there. Just because I can't prove it DOESN'T meant it's not true.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
You are making the assertion that the bible is historically accurate. When asked to back up this assertion, you admit that the evidence points against its truth. Then you reaffirm the fact that it is true. You don't say that you believe it is true. You simply say that it is, period, end of story,, all the while admitting that there is nothing to back up that statement.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
evidence points against the fact? The Bible IS historically accurate. And there ARE historic records from OTHER places OTHER than the Bible that talk about Jesus dying and rising from the dead. I'll find them for you.
Look around you. I do say that's enough. And did you not read my blog Southern Heat? I've experienced more than most do in a lifetime. And it has to do with this.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
I will post at the end so it can be read.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
Give me where the OT says about human sacrifices
percivale did it quite nicely for me. I could've only come up with a couple instances.
NT Jesus, but HE DIDN'T DIE.
If you're talking about "This is my blood, drink of it..." it's not really his blood. It's wine and bread. Seriously.
Actually, he did die. He couldn't have been raised from the dead if he didn't die in the first place. There would be no need to bury his body if he didn't die. According to your own beliefs, God demanded that Jesus die in order to purify you for your sins. That's human sacrifice as long as you consider Jesus a man (which you've made quite clear... he's 100% man and 100% god according to you). And no, I wasn't talking about communion.
AGAIN my dad is a pastor, I have looked at so many of his books and been with him as he studies. I ask him and he gives me answers, direct in the bible and our thoughts. Don't bring this bogus shit up about God.
Your appeal to authority (the fact that your dad is a pastor and your mom is a nurse) is really getting annoying, because we've shown you time and time again that you don't know everything of what you're talking about. I have studied religion first hand, and I'm telling you what I have learned.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
Ok, you want proof, here's your proof.
"Judges 11:31-40
31. Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering. 32. So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the Lord delivered them into his hands. 33. And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, [even] twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel. 34. And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she [was his] only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter. 35. And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and I cannot go back. 36. And she said unto him, My father, [if] thou hast opened thy mouth unto the Lord, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the Lord hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, [even] of the children of Ammon. 37. And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows. 38. And he said, Go. And he sent her away [for] two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains. 39. And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her [according] to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel, 40. [That] the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year. "
There is your proof from the Old Testament.
Here's what you believe as a Christian, you want New Testament. Jesus was your human sacrifice. This below is from Wikipedia.
"The beliefs of most denominations of Christianity hinge upon a single, specific human sacrifice: that of the Christ"
This is not bogus shit, here are two examples of human sacrifices.
explained this answer below. If you would read it you'd see why it's not human sacrifice.
And again, Jesus was God too. You fail to see that it's not a human sacrifice. It's a sacrifice oh himself. God kills himself, so to speak.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
It is a human sacrifice. Most Bible scholars say OT say that it was a human sacrifice. Even your Bible scholars are against you.
Jesus was not God. All you have to rely on is the Bible which is very biased and most people don't accept the Bible at face value. There is little evidence of Jesus outside of holy writings. But none of them outside of it, ever have him professing to be more than a teacher.
All you're doing here is using circular logic, you have no way to explain Jesus being God, so you're going in circles.
I have no way to explain him being God, but he Was and Is. That fact that truth.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
No he wasn't. Thats not fact or truth. It is a Christian fact and truth, but not REAL fact or truth. No one else believes that at all. Not even Mohammad was God incarnate, and the messiah in the OT isn't God incarnate either. It is just Christian dogma.
Jesus was God and Man. Fact. Just because no one else believes it or whatever doesn't make it false. We will all find the truth when we die. Let's leave it at that.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
Jesus was God and Man. Fact. Just because no one else believes it or whatever doesn't make it false. We will all find the truth when we die. Let's leave it at that. Plus he said I am God. So there.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
If I say I am God, will you believe me? You have about as much proof that Jesus was God.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
...but an appeal to "fact" implies a measure of objective evidence that your position does not contain in the least. That's where you keep running headlong into the wall of reason. It isn't a "fact" unless you can prove that it is.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
To start with, you might want to read Exodus 13:2, Leviticus 27:28-29, Deuteronomy 13:12-18, Judges 11:29-40, Joshua 7:15, 2 Kings 23:20-25 and Ezekiel 21:33-37. If you're catholic, add Wisdom 3:5-7 and Wisdom 14:21-23 to your reading list.
This is my favorite, though...
And, behold, there came a man of God out of Judah by the word of the LORD unto Bethel: and Jeroboam stood by the altar to burn incense. And he cried against the altar in the word of the LORD, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the LORD; Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men’s bones shall be burnt upon thee. (1 Kings 13:1-2)
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Did you look all those up from the Bible or did you use the internet? Either way that took awhile but, it clearly shows that human sacrificing was thought of as ok.
I was raised in a conservative, very religious family and attended a religious private middle and high school. I have read the bible (several versions) from cover to cover many, many times. In this case, I used a couple of online bibles since I don't have my hard copy books here with me at work. There are a wealth of online sources to help look up specific topics in the bible, and I use them liberally when engaging in casual debates of this sort. There is just too much material to be thorough when you are working from nothing but memory.
Here are the electronic versions that I use most often...
King James Version
New American Bible
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Cool, I'm still being raised in one, lol. I just fear to tell my parents that I don't believe what they believe.
Exodus 13:2 -- this is not human sacrifices. This is where God is telling Moses what to say to Pharaoh to let the Jews out of Egypt. He is saying, "If you do not let my people out all your first born will die." This isn't a sacrifice, it is a consequence.
Leviticus 27:28-29 -- They are not talking of human sacrifices "29 No one doomed to death [under the claim of divine justice], who is to be completely destroyed from among me, shall be ransomed [from suffering the death penalty]; he shall surely be put to death" It is talking of the death penalty not sacrifices.
Deuteronomy 13:12-18 -- Again, not sacrifices. This here is talking of people like Sodom and Gomorrah. It is not a sacrifice, it is a punishment for doing ill deeds. "18 If you obey the voice of the lord your God, to keep all His commandments which I command you this day, to do what is right in the eyes of the Lord your God." It is talking of commandments and not following them means punishment and death, that is not a sacrifice.
Judges 11:29-40 -- You fail to see the twist. And personally, I see this as a fable not of what happened. Jephthah is being brought to fight a war. "9 Jephthah said to the elders of Gilead, If you bring me home again to fight against the Ammonites and the Lord gives them over to me, [understand that] I will be your head. ... 11 So Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead, and the people made him head and leader over them. And Jephthah repeated all he had promised before the Lord at Mizpah." First he was thrown out of his village, so now he is brought back. He is making a promise to the Lord that if all goes well I will kill whoever. God kept him to that promise. Sacrifice is not oaky because further on you have Noah going to kill his son because the Lord said so, but then the Lord stopped him. It was a test. This story is a story to show that you must do what you promise God, and if it be killing you will have a huge sacrifice of your own to make.
Joshua 7:15 -- Again, not sacrifices but consequence of sin and not obeying. "1 But the Israelites committed a trespass in regard to the devoted things; for Achan son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took some of the things devoted [for destruction]. And the anger of the Lord burned against Israel."
2 Kings 23:20-25 -- This is talking of someone, again, who went against God. He is doing wrong as we see in later verses. "26 Still the Lord did not turn from the fierceness of His great wrath, kindled against Judah because of all the provocations with which Manasseh ha provoked Him. 27 And the Lord said, I will remove Judah also out of My sight as I have removed Israel, and will cast off this city, Jerusalem, which I have chosen, and the house, of which I said, My Name [and the pledge of My presence] shall be there. 28 The rest of the acts of Josiah, all that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of Judah's Kings? 29 In his days Pharaoh Necho king of Egypt went up against the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates. King Josiah went out against him, but he slew Josiah at Megiddo when he saw him. 30 Josiah's servants carried him dead in a chariot from Megiddo, brought to Jerusalem, and buried him in his own tomb. The people of the land anointed Jehoahaz son of Josiah king in his stead. 31 Jehoahaz was twenty-three years old when he began his three-month reigh in Jerusalem. His mother was Hamutal daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah. 32 He did evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all [the evil] his forefathers had done." According to all the evil his forefathers had done, meaning Josiah who was killed. Your actions of consequences, just as this is showing.
Ezekiel 21:33-37 -- This does not exist. Ezekiel 21 ends at verse 32. Did you type wrong?
1 Kings 13:1-2 -- You misread. Go on to the next verses "4 When King Jeroboam heard the words the man of God cried against eh altar in Bethel, he thrust out his hand, saying, Lay hold on him! And his hand which he put forth against him dried up, so that he could not draw it to him again. 5 The altar also was split and the ashes poured out from the altar according to the sign which the man of God had given by the word of the Lord. 6 And the king said to the man of God, Entreat now the favor of the Lord your God and pray of me, that my hand may be restored to me. And the man of God entreated the Lord, and the king's hand was restored and became as it was before." Again not a sacrifice but they thought he was a sinner and blah blah blah, I'm not going over it again.
Now who's cutting and pasting to their desire?
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
...of human sacrifice. I also find in interesting that those verses that are not so easy to reinterpret are conveniently re-categorized by you as "fables." But, I grant that some of the verses I listed are open to interpretation. However, the practice of human sacrifice is well documented in these cultures and several of these verses are quite plain about that. A lot of effort is put into obscuring this fact in biblical apologetics, but the acts are clearly described both in the bible and in other similar texts from these ancient periods.
I also noticed that you avoided the two passages from the Book of Wisdom completely. Here is one of them in a little more detail...
Chastised a little, they shall be greatly blessed, because God tried them and found them worthy of himself. As gold in the furnace, he proved them, and as sacrificial offerings he took them to himself. In the time of their visitation they shall shine, and shall dart about as sparks through stubble; (Wisdom 3:5-7)
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
I'm not Catholic. Second, book of wisdom is a sham. Third, they're not sacrifices. Fourth, I only said the first one was a fable. Human sacrifices was a big no no to God, still is. These show you the consequences of that. They also show you that if you promise God something, he will hold you to it. Oh, and it shows you that God tests you.
Oh, and you didn't tell me about Ezekiel. 33-37 does not exists in the Bible. So did you make a typo?
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
Who gives you the right to say what is right and wrong?! I'm tired of this. You do not know everything. The Catholic Church was the first church to follow Jesus. It is more right than your denomination. For all you know the Book Of Wisdom could be real. Until you give me proof that it is a sham, then I will back off on it. They're sacrifices, you are using circular logic because you have no answer except your faith. Logic overides faith.
But you have no right to judge which religion is right. Because all religions are based off of animism. They are all based off the same story just with different names. Gilgamesh is just like the beginning and describes the flood. It shows that there is possibly a God, but it is a deistic God, not a personal God that only, ONLY Christians believe in.
Because you do not have any idea about what God would want, you have no place to claim something as false, for you have no knowledge except from the Bible which as I have pointed out is biased.
God that was tiring. I'm not trying to say that there isn't a God, but I'm trying to give you another view, like my blogs I've written. Ignorance is not bliss.
JUDAISM was the first to follow Jesus. Until he freaking died! Catholics have a lost sense of Christianity. And was a sect of Judaism. Praying to saints is not anywhere in the Bible, NOR is purgatory.
Second, I have a right because it is the knowledge that God gave us. And no, Christianity is NOT based of animism. That's just fallacy.
I do have an Idea because of the Bible. Yes it's biased, because it is the right religion.
The Book of Wisdom has been found by MANY religious scholars to be a Gnostic book, and Gnostics are written at least a hundred years AFTER the fact, not before or close after. The closer a book was written, the more reliable it is.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
Judaism never followed Jesus, they thought Jesus was a magician and possibly a teacher. The Catholic Church was founded by the apostles. For the daughter of a pastor, you know very little about your own religion.
All religion has animism as a foundation. That is not a fallacy. Tell me what animism is?
Christianity is not the right religion. Show me where God told you that it is the right religion, show me where Jesus said this. You can't because it's not right.
The Gospels were written 30 to 40 years after Jesus died. Man decided that Jesus was God, decided the trinity, the books of the Bible. God never did, thus man made God.
The JEWS were the chosen people. Jesus was a JEW. Catholicism separated. Why? Because after Jesus died the JEWS said he was nothing. But JESUS WAS A JEW and they followed him to a point. I know more about my religion than you think.
Oh, and egyptians weren't a one god religion. There was Ra, Ka, Talmut Horris and so on.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
Oh, and egyptians weren't a one god religion. There was Ra, Ka, Talmut Horris and so on.
The Egyptians had the same idea you have. All gods (and goddesses) were a manifestation of the ONE god Amun. But each had a specific task on earth. Horus was the Pharoah, born from Osiris, the god of the flood, and Isis, the 'mother goddess'. But they were all the same god. Surely you, as a Christian that believe Jesus was both man and God, separate but the same as the Father, can see that.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
So not the same. Jesus, Holy Spirit, And God were the same. There was no difference they were all GOD. It's hard to explain. So no, that's not the same. Because we don't ahve 3 gods in one, we have one GOD
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
That is so the same. Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God are all three different things combined as one. It's really not hard to explain, religious dogma says it is, but it is very easy. Christianity is just like the Egyptians religion.
Not the same. And I'm done.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
The Jewish people are still the chosen people. Haven't you read Revelations? It talks about the 12 tribes of Israel, not the 12 tribes of Christianity. Jews did not follow Jesus, some did who became Catholics, but the majority of Jews believed Jesus to be a magician.
The Egyptians, like Hindu's believe in multiple incarnations of the one God, each attributing to the one Gods many sides. Just like Christians have three different incarnations of the one God.
and we are the Jews. We are all tribes of them AND the word is for even the Gentiles now, which is still us.
And no, they are not different SIDES of God, they ARE GOD
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
You can't be Jews and Gentiles, it's not possible. Jews don't believe what you as Gentiles believe. The Jews are still chosen.
I never said there are different sides. Just like the Egyptians and Hindus, you beleive that there is one God who is the mutual indwelling of three persons. Those three make up the one God, just like the Egyptians and Hindus lesser Gods and Goddesses make up their one true God.
1) Some Jews followed Jesus. Those were the Jews that believed he was a Messiah. Then his followers said that Jesus was the son of god and the Jews said that was a no-go, so they let Judaism. Most Jews did not follow Jesus. Today, no Jews follow Jesus. (Jews for Jesus is just another sales tactic)
2) Catholics don't agree with what you consider to be Christianity. Just because you can think doesn't mean you have the right to say Catholics are wrong, therefore they are wrong.
3)an·i·mism –noun 1. the belief that natural objects, natural phenomena, and the universe itself possess souls.
2. the belief that natural objects have souls that may exist apart from their material bodies.
3. the doctrine that the soul is the principle of life and health.
4. belief in spiritual beings or agencies.
Sounds like Christianity to me.
5)You think that the bible is correct. Unless you have some proof of this, I suggest that you don't make definitive statements.
6)Your own, 'reliable' books have plenty of contradictions. (Like the day of the last supper) Who knows? Maybe records were kept and then written into the book of wisdom.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
I'm not sure which Bible you're using, but I found them just fine...
33. And you, son of man, prophesy and say; So said the Lord God concerning the children of Ammon and concerning their blasphemy, and you shall say; A sword, a drawn sword, furbished for slaughter, to consume in order to glitter.
34. When you prophesy vanity for yourself, when you divine lies for yourself, to place you with the necks of the slain of the wicked, whose day has come at the time of the final iniquity.
35. It has been returned to its sheath; in the place you were created, in the land of your dwelling, I shall judge you.
36. I shall pour out My fury upon you; with the fire of My wrath I shall blow upon you and deliver you into the hand of brutish men, craftsmen of destruction.
37. You shall be fuel for the fire; your blood shall be in the midst of the land; you shall not be remembered, for I, the Lord, have spoken."
http://www.chabad.org/library/article.htm/aid/16119/jewish/Chapter-21.ht...
I make no claim this far in the Bible... I'm still reading Deuteronomy.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
I found it in the NIV, but chapter 21 ends at 32, but it says everything above. Its numbered differently.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117