Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Camels? In Israel? Sorry, Bible.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • houghtam
    replied
    Originally posted by cutthemdown View Post
    What laws specifically are you upset about? Also you do support the right for a local community to make some of their own laws right? Like if they want to say no bars, no strip clubs right?

    Religion based law should not be deemed illegal if thats what the people living there want. As long as it doesn't infringe on people rights under the constitution.

    I think local communities need that power because not everyone wants to live the same way.

    Our country is fairly liberal when it comes to religion so i don't see what the problem is. You all act like you are oppressed by religion which is utter BS.
    If I start with the currently 33 states that do not allow gay marriage, do I even need to continue?

    Once again, these things don't just change on their own.

    Leave a comment:


  • cutthemdown
    replied
    Originally posted by houghtam View Post
    No.

    Religion-based legislation should, however.
    What laws specifically are you upset about? Also you do support the right for a local community to make some of their own laws right? Like if they want to say no bars, no strip clubs right?

    Religion based law should not be deemed illegal if thats what the people living there want. As long as it doesn't infringe on people rights under the constitution.

    I think local communities need that power because not everyone wants to live the same way.

    Our country is fairly liberal when it comes to religion so i don't see what the problem is. You all act like you are oppressed by religion which is utter BS.

    Leave a comment:


  • DenverBrit
    replied
    Originally posted by houghtam View Post
    No.

    Religion-based legislation should, however.
    +1

    Leave a comment:


  • houghtam
    replied
    Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
    Not sure what you're arguing here. Should religious speech against homosexuality be Federally silenced?
    No.

    Religion-based legislation should, however.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBeavis
    replied
    Originally posted by houghtam View Post
    And right on cue, if there is any doubt to the danger of biblical legislation...

    Ted Cruz Introduces Anti-Gay Marriage Bill

    "If you look at other nations that have gone down the road towards gay marriage, that’s the next step where it gets enforced," he said. "It gets enforced against Christian pastors who decline to perform gay marriages, who speak out and preach biblical truths on marriage."

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...usaolp00000592

    "Biblical truths"...huh.
    Not sure what you're arguing here. Should religious speech against homosexuality be Federally silenced?

    Leave a comment:


  • houghtam
    replied
    And right on cue, if there is any doubt to the danger of biblical legislation...

    Ted Cruz Introduces Anti-Gay Marriage Bill

    "If you look at other nations that have gone down the road towards gay marriage, that’s the next step where it gets enforced," he said. "It gets enforced against Christian pastors who decline to perform gay marriages, who speak out and preach biblical truths on marriage."

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...usaolp00000592

    "Biblical truths"...huh.

    Leave a comment:


  • houghtam
    replied
    Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
    The Marian reforms (at the end of the Republic of all things) undermining the Roman religion is a stretch at best. I'd argue that the dawn of the Imperial cult of Rome is an odd time to draw a line about the death of the Roman religion.

    Outside of that, throwing aside an old social order is not the same as discrediting a religion.
    Religion then =/= religion now, for one. In fact, there really was no "Roman religion", as we would know it today.

    For two, when that social order is based upon myth (or as you refer to it, religious beliefs), then yes, it's pretty much the exact same.

    Further, I never said nor even implied that Marius "brought about the death of the Roman religion", but he most certainly did contribute, just as many others did, including Christians.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBeavis
    replied
    Originally posted by houghtam View Post
    First, once again, you are failing to read or understand...not sure which. Once one thing is disproven, all things must be viewed with the appropriate skepticism. For instance, I have no doubt that there was a man called Jesus...I do doubt he rose from the dead three days after he was killed. My only beef is with the people like Ken Ham who regard EVERYTHING as true, even though much has been disproven, or people like barry who automatically think that if someone is skeptical of the Bible (and using it as a legislative basis), they are an atheist. Which of course, I am not.

    Okay, so, social activism...we can start with Gaius Marius, although he of course was not the first. Marius was born with a Knight (equester) status. His family was successful and rich, but he was not of the patrician class. He was blocked at every turn from advancement because of his status, patricians being able to supposedly trace their heredity back (and here's the mythology part) to Aeneas through Romulus. It wasn't until he had proven himself on the battlefield that he became a New Man (novus homo), or the first in his House to serve in the Senate. After a long and treacherous path, he eventually rose to be consul...and then an unheard of six more times.

    So what sorts of social activism was he responsible for, you ask? Well, until then only the nobility and land owners could serve in the military. He allowed all Roman citizens to enlist. He granted retirement benefits to all soldiers. He granted full citizenship to all Italians serving in the Roman military. Italians who, at the time, were looked down upon by Romans (which is why I find it hilarious that txtebow equates being Italian with Roman, but I digress). The whole time, he fought tooth and nail vs. the nobility, who referred to him as an "Italian hayseed with no Greek in him". There's that pesky mythology again.

    I can go on. I could talk about the brothers Gracchi and I could talk about Christians like you were trying to get me to ()... But instead I'll talk about today. Since we realize that much of the bible is a complete and utter crock, we need people like the (for the time) liberal Marius to rise up and stand against the conservative leadership who base their theories and governance entirely on a book which isn't true and constantly contradicts even itself.

    Anything else?
    The Marian reforms (at the end of the Republic of all things) undermining the Roman religion is a stretch at best. I'd argue that the dawn of the Imperial cult of Rome is an odd time to draw a line about the death of the Roman religion.

    Outside of that, throwing aside an old social order is not the same as discrediting a religion.

    Leave a comment:


  • houghtam
    replied
    Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
    I won't dispute most of what you say, but the analogy now becomes, who, due to his mythological references, disputes every account of Tacitus until otherwise proven by the archaeological record?

    Or put another way, what exactly is the point of this thread? Not even getting into the fact that this study does basically nothing to establish what is being heralded throughout the secularist media. It's comical how little they understand.

    Oh and since you said it takes social activism to put an end to these kinds of mythologies, which social activist was it that made Classical Rome suddenly realize that their myths were just myths?
    First, once again, you are failing to read or understand...not sure which. Once one thing is disproven, all things must be viewed with the appropriate skepticism. For instance, I have no doubt that there was a man called Jesus...I do doubt he rose from the dead three days after he was killed. My only beef is with the people like Ken Ham who regard EVERYTHING as true, even though much has been disproven, or people like barry who automatically think that if someone is skeptical of the Bible (and using it as a legislative basis), they are an atheist. Which of course, I am not.

    Okay, so, social activism...we can start with Gaius Marius, although he of course was not the first. Marius was born with a Knight (equester) status. His family was successful and rich, but he was not of the patrician class. He was blocked at every turn from advancement because of his status, patricians being able to supposedly trace their heredity back (and here's the mythology part) to Aeneas through Romulus. It wasn't until he had proven himself on the battlefield that he became a New Man (novus homo), or the first in his House to serve in the Senate. After a long and treacherous path, he eventually rose to be consul...and then an unheard of six more times.

    So what sorts of social activism was he responsible for, you ask? Well, until then only the nobility and land owners could serve in the military. He allowed all Roman citizens to enlist. He granted retirement benefits to all soldiers. He granted full citizenship to all Italians serving in the Roman military. Italians who, at the time, were looked down upon by Romans (which is why I find it hilarious that txtebow equates being Italian with Roman, but I digress). The whole time, he fought tooth and nail vs. the nobility, who referred to him as an "Italian hayseed with no Greek in him". There's that pesky mythology again.

    I can go on. I could talk about the brothers Gracchi and I could talk about Christians like you were trying to get me to ()... But instead I'll talk about today. Since we realize that much of the bible is a complete and utter crock, we need people like the (for the time) liberal Marius to rise up and stand against the conservative leadership who base their theories and governance entirely on a book which isn't true and constantly contradicts even itself.

    Anything else?
    Last edited by houghtam; 02-14-2014, 11:08 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBeavis
    replied
    Originally posted by houghtam View Post
    I once again encourage you to take a classical literature or mythology course (or ten) and you'll discover that by the time of Tacitus, Romans already disbelieved the she-wolf story (much like the Bible, it had been oral tradition looong before Tacitus). Fast forward to today, and literally NO ONE says "Rome was founded by Romulus and Remus!"
    I won't dispute most of what you say, but the analogy now becomes, who, due to his mythological references, disputes every account of Tacitus until otherwise proven by the archaeological record?

    Or put another way, what exactly is the point of this thread? Not even getting into the fact that this study does basically nothing to establish what is being heralded throughout the secularist media. It's comical how little they understand.

    Oh and since you said it takes social activism to put an end to these kinds of mythologies, which social activist was it that made Classical Rome suddenly realize that their myths were just myths?

    Leave a comment:


  • houghtam
    replied
    Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
    As most archaeologists have come to realize, you need to separate in your mind that which is provable from that which is not. The funny thing is, as I alluded to before, these ancient texts guide archaeologists. They're essentially blind without them. Archaeology would know little about ancient Israel if not for the bible. Both because it serves as their starting point and their frame of reference.

    Just digging holes in a bunch of places and guessing at what things are would get you next to nowhere. The archaeologist works between his physical discoveries and the written history. In Israel's case, the Bible is the real history of record. Nobody (other than maybe Mr. St Nick was a Turk) could argue otherwise.

    Now that's not to say there are elements laced in many histories that aren't beyond archaeology or even reason. Whether you allow for faith in those elements or not is your own choice.

    But the corresponding strategy of discounting the entire book because you believe the more supernatural elements to be apocryphal is a definite double standard. You would struggle to make any sense of any Roman or Greek history at all if you avoided all historians who blended mythology (especially religious) into their work.

    Tacitus wrote that the infant founders of Rome were suckled by a she-wolf. Herodotus wrote about gods literally speaking to the Greeks through their oracles.

    Yet much less would be known of either Roman or Greek history without either of their contributions. Archaeology could do little on its own to fill in those gaps.
    Two things:

    No one said anything about discounting the entire book, they simply said using it as a 100% truth (a la Ken Ham and people like him) is discounted. If you believe it as 100% literal, the moment one thing is proven untrue, that by definition brings into question everything else. That is why you have people claiming cavemen rode dinosaurs, because they simply cannot reconcile the fact that the Bible isn't entirely word for word the truth. Is this camel discovery a smoking gun? Not at all, just another nail in the coffin, just like the idea that we all came from two people, talking snakes, burning bushes that can talk, arks that can hold every species, people turning into pillars of salt, and on and on and on.

    Secondly, You're right about Tacitus and Herodotus and what they wrote. What you're absolutely wrong about is how seriously people took them. I once again encourage you to take a classical literature or mythology course (or ten) and you'll discover that by the time of Tacitus, Romans already disbelieved the she-wolf story (much like the Bible, it had been oral tradition looong before Tacitus). Fast forward to today, and literally NO ONE says "Rome was founded by Romulus and Remus!"

    In a few hundred years, I can only hope the same will be said for the Bible. A book with great wisdom and beautiful language? Yes. A decent guide for how to live your life? Sure, if you leave out large portions of it.

    The complete truth? Um, no.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBeavis
    replied
    Originally posted by Fedaykin View Post
    Gaps? More like a complete absence of any evidence. Sure there's some verifiable things like places, nations, etc. But the Bible provides exactly zero evidence of its claims. Believing in the Christian religion because the Bible mentions some historical facts is akin to believing in vampires and that Lincoln was a vampire Hunter because Abraham Lincoln vampire Hunter is steeped in verifiable historical events places and people. Complete absurdity.
    As most archaeologists have come to realize, you need to separate in your mind that which is provable from that which is not. The funny thing is, as I alluded to before, these ancient texts guide archaeologists. They're essentially blind without them. Archaeology would know little about ancient Israel if not for the bible. Both because it serves as their starting point and their frame of reference.

    Just digging holes in a bunch of places and guessing at what things are would get you next to nowhere. The archaeologist works between his physical discoveries and the written history. In Israel's case, the Bible is the real history of record. Nobody (other than maybe Mr. St Nick was a Turk) could argue otherwise.

    Now that's not to say there are elements laced in many histories that aren't beyond archaeology or even reason. Whether you allow for faith in those elements or not is your own choice.

    But the corresponding strategy of discounting the entire book because you believe the more supernatural elements to be apocryphal is a definite double standard. You would struggle to make any sense of any Roman or Greek history at all if you avoided all historians who blended mythology (especially religious) into their work.

    Tacitus wrote that the infant founders of Rome were suckled by a she-wolf. Herodotus wrote about gods literally speaking to the Greeks through their oracles.

    Yet much less would be known of either Roman or Greek history without either of their contributions. Archaeology could do little on its own to fill in those gaps.

    Leave a comment:


  • barryr
    replied
    , yep, it had been awhile for such a thread. It's either threads justifying the killing of babies on a whim, gay marriage, everybody not a democrat is a racist, or support for atheism. These are always the main topics for liberals. Fun people.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fedaykin
    replied
    Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
    Look, there are many ways to take on the historicity of the Bible. Especially the Old Testament.

    Often though the game is played by denouncing the bold claims of the Biblical account by simply pointing at any evidence gaps as definitive evidence in Ana of itself.
    Gaps? More like a complete absence of any evidence. Sure there's some verifiable things like places, nations, etc. But the Bible provides exactly zero evidence of its claims. Believing in the Christian religion because the Bible mentions some historical facts is akin to believing in vampires and that Lincoln was a vampire Hunter because Abraham Lincoln vampire Hunter is steeped in verifiable historical events places and people. Complete absurdity.
    Last edited by Fedaykin; 02-14-2014, 04:56 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • houghtam
    replied
    Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
    Sounds like pretty much all of your arguments.
    What, me laughing at your "logic" and suppositions based on a complete and total lack of understanding and education on various subjects?

    You got it.

    Nail. Head.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X