Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: ATHEIST on June 04, 2010, 02:27:13 PM
-
do we know who they are?
did any of the deciples write any of the books?
-
Hi ATHEIST... Good to see you!
Matthew, John and Peter were apostles, and James and Jude are said to have been Jesus' brothers. Also, Paul had "met" and spoke w/Jesus on the road to Damascus.
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy = Moses - 1400 B.C.
Joshua = Joshua - 1350 B.C.
Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel = Samuel/Nathan/Gad - 1000 - 900 B.C.
1 Kings, 2 Kings = Jeremiah - 600 B.C.
1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah = Ezra - 450 B.C.
Esther = Mordecai - 400 B.C.
Job = Moses - 1400 B.C.
Psalms = several different authors, mostly David - 1000 - 400 B.C.
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon = Solomon - 900 B.C.
Isaiah = Isaiah - 700 B.C.
Jeremiah, Lamentations = Jeremiah - 600 B.C.
Ezekiel = Ezekiel - 550 B.C.
Daniel = Daniel - 550 B.C.
Hosea = Hosea - 750 B.C.
Joel = Joel - 850 B.C.
Amos = Amos - 750 B.C.
Obadiah = Obadiah - 600 B.C.
Jonah = Jonah - 700 B.C.
Micah = Micah - 700 B.C.
Nahum = Nahum - 650 B.C.
Habakkuk = Habakkuk - 600 B.C.
Zephaniah = Zephaniah - 650 B.C.
Haggai = Haggai - 520 B.C.
Zechariah = Zechariah - 500 B.C.
Malachi = Malachi - 430 B.C.
Matthew = Matthew - A.D. 55
Mark = John Mark - A.D. 50
Luke = Luke - A.D. 60
John = John - A.D. 90
Acts = Luke - A.D. 65
Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon = Paul - A.D. 50-70
Hebrews = unknown, mostly likely Paul, Luke, Barnabas, or Apollos - A.D. 65
James = James - A.D. 45
1 Peter, 2 Peter = Peter - A.D. 60
1 John, 2 John, 3 John = John - A.D. 90
Jude = Jude - A.D. 60
Revelation = John - A.D. 90
-
Hello STELLA and thank you!
-
wow Stella you know your stuff for sure
-
Hello STELLA and thank you!
:)
wow Stella you know your stuff for sure
The list of authors I copied and pasted from some site!
-
:)
The list of authors I copied and pasted from some site!
well lets see what happens tonight..hope the roof dont cave in
-
then it was rewritten, censored and bastardized by the peeps after them
-
well lets see what happens tonight..hope the roof dont cave in
How'd it go?
then it was rewritten, censored and bastardized by the peeps after them
what choo talkin' bout Migs
-
How'd it go?
amazing and put alot of things into perspective
-
amazing and put alot of things into perspective
:D
-
if youre a Christian, do you need to believe homosexuality is a choice?
Im not gay, I just have liberal views when it comes to gender issues and find it funny some Christians can be so selfrighteous regarding this subject.
-
How'd it go?
what choo talkin' bout Migs
i think lots of the bible is missing or changed to fit the needs of the times. satories created to give hope or to explain what they couldn't explain previously
-
The authors of the manuscripts contained in the bible are anonymous. Names have been assigned. On a side note, it is believed that Genesis, Exodus and possibly a few others had more than one author. Scholars have named some for example "J" and "E" as one author refers to God as Jehovah and the other Elohim. It kind of clears up the inconsistancies in the creation story and flood when you realize it is two different writers combined to tell the story. Moses, the alleged author of Exodus, apparently wrote about his own death after the fact, which would cause a reasonable person some doubt as to if he really wrote it... that is if the parting of the seas, burning bush, the killing of all the cattle several times over during the plagues and 50 other outrageous claims didn't derail you first..
-
The authors of the manuscripts contained in the bible are anonymous. Names have been assigned. On a side note, it is believed that Genesis, Exodus and possibly a few others had more than one author. Scholars have named some for example "J" and "E" as one author refers to God as Jehovah and the other Elohim. It kind of clears up the inconsistancies in the creation story and flood when you realize it is two different writers combined to tell the story. Moses, the alleged author of Exodus, apparently wrote about his own death after the fact, which would cause a reasonable person some doubt as to if he really wrote it... that is if the parting of the seas, burning bush, the killing of all the cattle several times over during the plagues and 50 other outrageous claims didn't derail you first..
The authors are hardly anonymous. STella's list is prett much on the money. As for the Moses, that's no big issue, either. The only part that talks about his death is the tail end of Deuteronomy. Since Moses passed the books down to his successors, the short answer is that one of them completed the Pentateuch after Moses' death. Plus, several other Biblical authors cite MOSES as the author of those first books of Scripture.
The JEDP stuff is litte more than skeptic fodder, as is the claim of the alleged inconsistencies of the Gen. 1 and 2, with regards to the Creation account.
-
The authors are hardly anonymous. STella's list is prett much on the money. As for the Moses, that's no big issue, either. The only part that talks about his death is the tail end of Deuteronomy. Since Moses passed the books down to his successors, the short answer is that one of them completed the Pentateuch after Moses' death. Plus, several other Biblical authors cite MOSES as the author of those first books of Scripture.
The JEDP stuff is litte more than skeptic fodder, as is the claim of the alleged inconsistencies of the Gen. 1 and 2, with regards to the Creation account.
Well thank you, that explains it... except... that when I read Genesis, it was pretty obvious it was at least 2 different authors. And when I read Mathew, Mark, Luke and John it seemed apparent to me that "Matthew" had access to "Mark" because some passages were verbatim, unlike 2 individuals who were allegedly telling a an eyewitness account from their own perspectives. I'm curious as to what you think might be the reason?
-
Well thank you, that explains it... except... that when I read Genesis, it was pretty obvious it was at least 2 different authors. And when I read Mathew, Mark, Luke and John it seemed apparent to me that "Matthew" had access to "Mark" because some passages were verbatim, unlike 2 individuals who were allegedly telling a an eyewitness account from their own perspectives. I'm curious as to what you think might be the reason?
Mark isn't an eyewitness account, as STella mentioned earlier. Per traditional Biblical scholars, the two eyewitness accounts are Matthew and John.
-
But why does Matthew and Mark match up verbatim in many passages, yet Matthew seems to embelish on Marks original writings..
-
But why does Matthew and Mark match up verbatim in many passages, yet Matthew seems to embelish on Marks original writings..
One, if you're quoting someone, you tend to so vertabim.
Two, there's no embellishing involved. Each Gospel gives unique details that the others don't. Now, if ALL FOUR GOSPELS matched up vertabim (outside of the quotes), that'd be a different story altogether.
-
But why does Matthew and Mark match up verbatim in many passages, yet Matthew seems to embelish on Marks original writings..
And this alleged embellishment would be.......
-
"Matthew" isnt qouting anyone, he is telling it as if it were his own.. I'll get some examples of verbatim and embellishments for you..
-
"The Synoptic Problem, simply put, is the close interrelations and dissimilarities of the first three gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke (or Luke-Acts). As soon as early scholars began to harmonize these three gospels (place them side-by-side in three rows in order to compare what each says about the same event in the narrative) they realized that there seems to be close literary agreement between them. This has led to the natural question of who came first and who relied upon whom when composing his own gospel. Did Mark really abbreviate Matthew as Saint Augustine suggested? Or did Matthew come later and have a copy of Mark at his elbow while composing his own gospel? These are the questions which scholars ask when attempting to reach a solution to the Synoptic Problem. There is one other aspect to the Synoptic problem which I have hinted at already, that being the mysterious Q gospel. There are about fifty instances in Matthew and Luke where each parallel the other very closely, word-for-word in some places and yet these parallels are absent from Mark. Form critics of the nineteenth-century suggested that both Matthew and Luke must have used a similar source and incorporated this source's material into their own gospel. This source is called Q. The theory that Matthew and Luke used Mark and Q is called the Two-Source Hypothesis (pictured below). One should keep in mind that Q is a hypothesis, not an extant text. However, it is a very sound hypothesis and should be taken seriously; the evidence seems to support it very well as I shall argue. Before addressing Q however, I'd like to support the argument for the priority of Mark, since Glenn and I disagree on this point. For those interested in Glenn's viewpoint, the best source to turn to is William Farmer's The Synoptic Problem. "
The above paragraph was written by James Still. It is a very small extrapolation from a large amount of literature that addresses the Gospels. There is a lot that is written about who wrote them, when they wrote them, who wrote theirs first, etc etc. It's been about 5 yrs since I have seriously studied the information, having come to my personal opinion on it based on what I read at the time. To adjust my original comment, after reviewing quickly some material, it appears Luke and Matthew share more of the identical verbiage than does Matthew and Mark.
-
if youre a Christian, do you need to believe homosexuality is a choice?
Im not gay, I just have liberal views when it comes to gender issues and find it funny some Christians can be so selfrighteous regarding this subject.
I don't think a Christian "needs to believe homosexuality is a choice."
No one should be "self-righteous" regarding any subject, including this one.
Don't listen to those Westboro Baptist jack legs...God loves everyone :) He may not love what we do (and each and every one of us sins), but He loves us.
-
God loves everyone :)
thank goodness for that
-
thank goodness for that
I know!....I am very grateful :)
-
I don't think a Christian "needs to believe homosexuality is a choice." I agree!
No one should be "self-righteous" regarding any subject, including this one. I agree!
Stella I don't know if I agree with this statement, ...God loves everyone
. See Romans 9:13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." He may not love what we do (and each and every one of us sins), but He loves us.
Can you or anyone else answer what God meant in Romans 9:13?
-
. See Romans 9:13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." He may not love what we do (and each and every one of us sins), but He loves us.
Can you or anyone else answer what God meant in Romans 9:13?
It would appear from that text that God does hate some people, Esau at least. But in context, God loving Jacob and hating Esau has nothing to do with the emotions of love and hate. It just means that God chose Jacob and his descendants(Israelis) to be God's chosen people and rejected Esau and his descendants(Edomites). Clearly from Genesis 36:6-8, we see that God did bless Esau too:
Genesis 36:6-8 (New International Version)
"Esau took his wives and sons and daughters and all the members of his household, as well as his livestock and all his other animals and all the goods he had acquired in Canaan, and moved to a land some distance from his brother Jacob. 7 Their possessions were too great for them to remain together; the land where they were staying could not support them both because of their livestock. 8 So Esau (that is, Edom) settled in the hill country of Seir."
-
I don't think a Christian "needs to believe homosexuality is a choice."
whats the Bible stance on honosexuality exactly?
‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads" Lev 20:13
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders" 1Cor 6:9
the wicked will NOT inherit the Kingdom of God, meaning they wont be going to heaven. this is what I have a problem with, many liberal Christians say its open to interpretation, but it isnt.
-
The authors of the manuscripts contained in the bible are anonymous. Names have been assigned.
thats what I thought. where can I reference this?
-
It would appear from that text that God does hate some people, Esau at least. But in context, God loving Jacob and hating Esau has nothing to do with the emotions of love and hate. It just means that God chose Jacob and his descendants(Israelis) to be God's chosen people and rejected Esau and his descendants(Edomites). Clearly from Genesis 36:6-8, we see that God did bless Esau too:
Genesis 36:6-8 (New International Version)
"Esau took his wives and sons and daughters and all the members of his household, as well as his livestock and all his other animals and all the goods he had acquired in Canaan, and moved to a land some distance from his brother Jacob. 7 Their possessions were too great for them to remain together; the land where they were staying could not support them both because of their livestock. 8 So Esau (that is, Edom) settled in the hill country of Seir."
I wish I had a Greek to English/Hebrew to English Concordance because the meaning of certain words in those languages cannot be fully accurately covered by our English language.
I did a search for looking for the meaning of the Greek word translated to hate and found this:
"The reason for this is that the Greek word μισέω has two basic meanings. The first means to hate or detest something and the second is defined this way: to be disinclined to, disfavor, disregard in contrast to preferential treatment (www.bdmsmith.wordpress.c om)"
Personally, I tend to accept the second definition which would cover what loco was talking about.
-
whats the Bible stance on honosexuality exactly?
‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads" Lev 20:13
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders" 1Cor 6:9
the wicked will NOT inherit the Kingdom of God, meaning they wont be going to heaven. this is what I have a problem with, many liberal Christians say its open to interpretation, but it isnt.
No, I agree it is not open to interpretation that the bible states that engaging in homosexual activity is a sin. Of course we keep in mind that the bible states that "ALL are sinners (in one way or another) and fall short of the glory of God."
But ATHEIST, isn't 1Cor 6:9 talking about unbelievers? Additional text following:
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Believers are not considered "the wicked" as they have been "justified." Think about how many of us could be included in the "idolaters (putting anything before God in importance)" and "greedy" categories!
-
I wish I had a Greek to English/Hebrew to English Concordance because the meaning of certain words in those languages cannot be fully accurately covered by our English language.
I did a search for looking for the meaning of the Greek word translated to hate and found this:
"The reason for this is that the Greek word μισέω has two basic meanings. The first means to hate or detest something and the second is defined this way: to be disinclined to, disfavor, disregard in contrast to preferential treatment (www.bdmsmith.wordpress.c om)"
Personally, I tend to accept the second definition which would cover what loco was talking about.
Try this link http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html (http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html)
Interesting point of view you and Loco have with regard to God choosing Jacob over Esau or one person over another. This could be an interesting topic for discussion.
Personally I don't think God loves everyone and I know he definetly did not love the Edomites or the Amalekites and so on but even if God did bless Edom it would fall under what some call "common grace". Gotta go talk later on this.
-
Try this link http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html (http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html)
:D Thank you Hustle Man!
-
Try this link http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html (http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html)
Interesting point of view you and Loco have with regard to God choosing Jacob over Esau or one person over another. This could be an interesting topic for discussion.
Personally I don't think God loves everyone and I know he definetly did not love the Edomites or the Amalekites and so on but even if God did bless Edom it would fall under what some call "common grace". Gotta go talk later on this.
Maybe God doesn't love everyone. I don't know. But so far, from what I've read in the Bible, it seems that God does love everyone, even if He severely punishes some. Parents punish disobedient children, and society severely punishes murderers. A judge may be put in a position where he/she has to sentence his own son or daughter to death for murder. It doesn't mean that these parents hate their children.
"if he killed Stephany, he'll have to pay the price. I won't visit him in his cell, I cannot embrace him"
Anita van der Sloot speaking of her son, Joran van der Sloot
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100620/ap_on_re_eu/eu_netherlands_van_der_sloot
Psalm 145:17
"The LORD is righteous in all his ways and loving toward all he has made."
-
Psalm 145:17
"The LORD is righteous in all his ways and loving toward all he has made."
Says it all right there
-
Maybe God doesn't love everyone. I don't know. But so far, from what I've read in the Bible, it seems that God does love everyone, even if He severely punishes some. Parents punish disobedient children, and society severely punishes murderers. A judge may be put in a position where he/she has to sentence his own son or daughter to death for murder. It doesn't mean that these parents hate their children.
"if he killed Stephany, he'll have to pay the price. I won't visit him in his cell, I cannot embrace him"
Anita van der Sloot speaking of her son, Joran van der Sloot
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100620/ap_on_re_eu/eu_netherlands_van_der_sloot
Psalm 145:17
"The LORD is righteous in all his ways and loving toward all he has made."
Let's not forget to include this verse as well Psalm 145:20 "The LORD watches over all who love him, but all the wicked he will destroy."
Brother, first I want you to know that I am trying to get understanding here, not cause strife or division. In your first reply to me about the new testament scripture I used to point out that God doesn't love everyone you pointed out, "...God loving Jacob and hating Esau has nothing to do with the emotions of love and hate. It just means that God chose Jacob and his descendants (Israelis) to be God's chosen people and rejected Esau and his descendants(Edomites)." What I want to know is, that word "loving" in Ps 145:17 what does it mean in the hebrew? I looked it up and it has many meanings and you are correct we must look at the context in which these words were/are used. Loving could mean; in the context of this Psalm: Merciful, pity, kind, showing favour, etc. Some translations use words like "lovingkindness", i.e. the KJV and NKJV. That said, the context of this verse is clearly not emotional as some might think but has to do with God's actions and his character, agree? This verse could read like this; "The LORD is righteous just in all his ways and loving shows pity, mercy or lovingkindness etc. toward all he has made." I think Ps 145:20 puts this entire Psalm into context, David is praising God in the first 16 verses then he switches in 17...
I gotta go I will come back another time to finish my thought on this sorry!
HM
-
Let's not forget to include this verse as well Psalm 145:20 "The LORD watches over all who love him, but all the wicked he will destroy."
Brother, first I want you to know that I am trying to get understanding here, not cause strife or division. In your first reply to me about the new testament scripture I used to point out that God doesn't love everyone you pointed out, "...God loving Jacob and hating Esau has nothing to do with the emotions of love and hate. It just means that God chose Jacob and his descendants (Israelis) to be God's chosen people and rejected Esau and his descendants(Edomites)." What I want to know is, that word "loving" in Ps 145:17 what does it mean in the hebrew? I looked it up and it has many meanings and you are correct we must look at the context in which these words were/are used. Loving could mean; in the context of this Psalm: Merciful, pity, kind, showing favour, etc. Some translations use words like "lovingkindness", i.e. the KJV and NKJV. That said, the context of this verse is clearly not emotional as some might think but has to do with God's actions and his character, agree? This verse could read like this; "The LORD is righteous just in all his ways and loving shows pity, mercy or lovingkindness etc. toward all he has made." I think Ps 145:20 puts this entire Psalm into context, David is praising God in the first 16 verses then he switches in 17...
I gotta go I will come back another time to finish my thought on this sorry!
HM
Don't worry, Hustle Man! I never thought that you were trying to cause strife or division. This is a good discussion. Like I said, maybe God does hate the wicked. I don't know. Maybe you are correct about the meaning of Psalm 145:17. I don't know. I'm always trying to gain understanding too. I have read the Bible from cover to cover once or twice, and I now listen to the audio version from beginning to end and then start over. I just finished Psalms and I am now on Proverbs. I read different versions of the Bible, in English and in Spanish. I wish I could read it in Hebrew and Greek! :(
But from what I've read, I believe that God loves both the righteous and the wicked. God loves the wicked, even when severely punishing them. The wicked, if they don't repent, have to be punished even if God loves them. Otherwise God wouldn't be just. But God is loving and patient. Even believers were once wicked, yet God sent His Son to die for all the wicked. Now those who believe in Jesus Christ are considered righteous in God's eyes, because of Jesus' righteousness and not because of their own.
I don't believe that God really hated Esau because God blessed him greatly. Esau and Jacob were the Warren Buffets or the Rothschild s of their time.
-
Don't worry, Hustle Man! I never thought that you were trying to cause strife or division. This is a good discussion. Like I said, maybe God does hate the wicked. I don't know. Maybe you are correct about the meaning of Psalm 145:17. I don't know. I'm always trying to gain understanding too. I have read the Bible from cover to cover once or twice, and I now listen to the audio version from beginning to end and then start over. I just finished Psalms and I am now on Proverbs. I read different versions of the Bible, in English and in Spanish. I wish I could read it in Hebrew and Greek! :(
But from what I've read, I believe that God loves both the righteous and the wicked. God loves the wicked, even when severely punishing them. The wicked, if they don't repent, have to be punished even if God loves them. Otherwise God wouldn't be just. But God is loving and patient. Even believers were once wicked, yet God sent His Son to die for all the wicked. Now those who believe in Jesus Christ are considered righteous in God's eyes, because of Jesus' righteousness and not because of their own.
I don't believe that God really hated Esau because God blessed him greatly. Esau and Jacob were the Warren Buffets or the Rothschild s of their time.
I often hear people say God loves everyone, and then uses the analogy of a parent disciplining a child. It tends to baffle me. Baffling me is not hard to do I will admit. Not many parents will kill their child for discipline. Not many will kill all their children, regardless of age (flood). Not many will stand by and watch their children be murdered, raped, deformed, etc etc. Not many will punish them for an eternity in hell for the crime of failure to believe something.
I worked a stint in a Family Violence detail, and was assigned stalking cases. I found a similarity between the biblical god and many of the stalkers. "Love me or I will kill you" is what it seemed to boil down to. The biblical God requires me to love him or else I will be sent to hell for eternity when I die. I tend to rebel against things I am forced at gunpoint to do. You may say that God doesnt force anyone to love him and technically this is true, but he makes it clear that if you don't you will be punished. That just doesnt set right with me. Course I will have a gazzilion years to contemplate it in hell... :-)
-
I often hear people say God loves everyone, and then uses the analogy of a parent disciplining a child. It tends to baffle me. Baffling me is not hard to do I will admit. Not many parents will kill their child for discipline. Not many will kill all their children, regardless of age (flood). Not many will stand by and watch their children be murdered, raped, deformed, etc etc. Not many will punish them for an eternity in hell for the crime of failure to believe something.
I can understand the struggling involved w/the parent/God analogy. But I also keep in mind that we were given free will. Do I believe that God could intervene and stop some of these things? Yes. Do I understand why He doesn't? No, but I know I myself am not omniscient and still do believe He is in ultimate control.
I worked a stint in a Family Violence detail, and was assigned stalking cases. I found a similarity between the biblical god and many of the stalkers. "Love me or I will kill you" is what it seemed to boil down to. The biblical God requires me to love him or else I will be sent to hell for eternity when I die. I tend to rebel against things I am forced at gunpoint to do. You may say that God doesnt force anyone to love him and technically this is true, but he makes it clear that if you don't you will be punished. That just doesnt set right with me. Course I will have a gazzilion years to contemplate it in hell... :-)
To me I don't really see it as "love me or I will kill you." To me, I see it as more being desirous of forgiveness for sins committed by me. I do love God, but I don't see loving Him as a requirement for salvation. I don't know if I felt I loved Him when I first accepted Christ as Savior....maybe I did, but I don't consciously remember that. I think loving Him helps us not to sin as much though (as even after accepting Christ as Savior, we still sin).
The biblical God requires me to love him or else I will be sent to hell for eternity when I die.
Would you rather be forced to spend eternity with Him?
-
"Would you rather be forced to spend eternity with Him? "
Stella, I had to chuckle when I read that :)
No, I probably wouldn't want to be forced to do anything.
An astute philosopher from around the late 1800's once wrote
"When I was a boy I heard them tell of an old farmer in Vermont. He was dying. The minister was at his bed-side -- asked him if he was a Christian -- if he was prepared to die. The old man answered that he had made no preparation, that he was not a Christian -- that he had never done anything but work. The preacher said that he could give him no hope unless he had faith in Christ, and that if he had no faith his soul would certainly be lost.
The old man was not frightened. He was perfectly calm. In a weak and broken voice he said: "Mr. Preacher, I suppose you noticed my farm. My wife and I came here more than fifty years ago. We were just married. It was a forest then and the land was covered with stones. I cut down the trees, burned the logs, picked up the stones and laid the walls. My wife spun and wove and worked every moment. We raised and educated our children -- denied ourselves. During all these years my wife never had a good dress, or a decent bonnet. I never had a good suit of clothes. We lived on the plainest food. Our hands, our bodies are deformed by toil. We never had a vacation. We loved each other and the children. That is the only luxury we ever had. Now I am about to die and you ask me if I am prepared. Mr. Preacher, I have no fear of the future, no terror of any other world. There may be such a place as hell -- but if there is, you never can make me believe that it's any worse than old Vermont."
So, they told of a man who compared himself with his dog. "My dog," he said, "just barks and plays -- has all he wants to eat. He never works -- has no trouble about business. In a little while he dies, and that is all. I work with all my strength. I have no time to play. I have trouble every day. In a little while I will die, and then I go to hell. I wish that I had been a dog."
I kinda feel the same way
-
"Would you rather be forced to spend eternity with Him? "
Stella, I had to chuckle when I read that :)
No, I probably wouldn't want to be forced to do anything.
An astute philosopher from around the late 1800's once wrote
"When I was a boy I heard them tell of an old farmer in Vermont. He was dying. The minister was at his bed-side -- asked him if he was a Christian -- if he was prepared to die. The old man answered that he had made no preparation, that he was not a Christian -- that he had never done anything but work. The preacher said that he could give him no hope unless he had faith in Christ, and that if he had no faith his soul would certainly be lost.
The old man was not frightened. He was perfectly calm. In a weak and broken voice he said: "Mr. Preacher, I suppose you noticed my farm. My wife and I came here more than fifty years ago. We were just married. It was a forest then and the land was covered with stones. I cut down the trees, burned the logs, picked up the stones and laid the walls. My wife spun and wove and worked every moment. We raised and educated our children -- denied ourselves. During all these years my wife never had a good dress, or a decent bonnet. I never had a good suit of clothes. We lived on the plainest food. Our hands, our bodies are deformed by toil. We never had a vacation. We loved each other and the children. That is the only luxury we ever had. Now I am about to die and you ask me if I am prepared. Mr. Preacher, I have no fear of the future, no terror of any other world. There may be such a place as hell -- but if there is, you never can make me believe that it's any worse than old Vermont."
So, they told of a man who compared himself with his dog. "My dog," he said, "just barks and plays -- has all he wants to eat. He never works -- has no trouble about business. In a little while he dies, and that is all. I work with all my strength. I have no time to play. I have trouble every day. In a little while I will die, and then I go to hell. I wish that I had been a dog."
I kinda feel the same way
:(
No disrespect intended, but the old farmer in the tale seems pretty pessimistic and possibly chronically depressed. If we try to focus on good things in our lives and are grateful for them the world doesn't seem quite so horrible imo. I know that is easier said than done though.
-
:(
No disrespect intended, but the old farmer in the tale seems pretty pessimistic and possibly chronically depressed. If we try to focus on good things in our lives and are grateful for them the world doesn't seem quite so horrible imo. I know that is easier said than done though.
I'm thinking the anecdote is meant to illustrate the "flawed" system of Christianity if you will.. You can be a good person, be a productive citizen, care for your family, do no harm to anyone, live an honest life, and because you failed for whatever reason to believe a certain thing, you are punished in hell for eternity.. Not a whole lot of fairness if you consider the following..
You can divide the world up on a map into specific majority religions. A baby born to Buddhist parents in Tibet will more likely be Buddhist than Sikh.. a baby born to Christian parents in Texas will more likely be Christian than Muslim, a baby born to ..... the point being, where you are born and to whom has a clear, indisputable effect on what a person believes. Are there exceptions? sure, but the majority will succumb to their parental and community influences.
Why does the baby born to Christian parents in Kansas get an unfair advantage to believe in the bible and accept Jesus as their personal savior and avoid hell over the baby born to Buddhist parents in Japan? Doesn't seem very fair.
-
The PBS show NOVA had a program devoted to this question... who wrote the first 5 books of the bible? It was called "The Bible's Buried Secrets". Essentially the Torah was composed by multiple authors over many years (the term used was "documentary hypothesis") but took it's final form during the Babylonian exile.
-
I'm thinking the anecdote is meant to illustrate the "flawed" system of Christianity if you will.. You can be a good person, be a productive citizen, care for your family, do no harm to anyone, live an honest life, and because you failed for whatever reason to believe a certain thing, you are punished in hell for eternity.. Not a whole lot of fairness if you consider the following..
According to the bible, everyone sins and the result of sin is separation from God but He made a way for us to be forgiven.
Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
Romans 6:23a "...The wages of sin is death..."
Romans 6:23b "...But the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
You can divide the world up on a map into specific majority religions. A baby born to Buddhist parents in Tibet will more likely be Buddhist than Sikh.. a baby born to Christian parents in Texas will more likely be Christian than Muslim, a baby born to ..... the point being, where you are born and to whom has a clear, indisputable effect on what a person believes. Are there exceptions? sure, but the majority will succumb to their parental and community influences.
Why does the baby born to Christian parents in Kansas get an unfair advantage to believe in the bible and accept Jesus as their personal savior and avoid hell over the baby born to Buddhist parents in Japan? Doesn't seem very fair.
I don't think where someone is born is going to stop them from becoming a Christian if God wants them to be one. And you can't always believe surveys, especially from countries where if you openly state you are a Christian you and/or your family are in danger of execution.
-
I hope all the believers realize how inconsistent the bible makes their 'god' look.. LOL
just another glitch in the matrix.