slimboyfat ...That was an interesting video. A bit pretentiously delivered but that is what philosophy tends to do.lol. Narkissos is much missed as that is his specialty,the philosophical stripe of Christianity. Though never was he as smug as Hart. I swear, some of the Church Fathers could have had a copy of Moby Dick and seen the heavens in it.
Ruin those Ruining th Earth
I would really be happy to say I am wrong, I misjudged you Pete, but some facts do not allow me to say it! I already pointed out to John the elder and John the presbyter.... There is no scholarship in it, this is how uninformed anti theists spoke about the Bible. I checked some of yours previous posts. I must admit you are not so insolent like your buddies, but your despise can be felt! Here it is: " Equating Holocaust "denial" with literary criticism of a story filled with magic and contradictions is just inappropriate and inflammatory... Jesus as historical person not only has neither but does have all the hallmarks of allegory and fiction and reasonable objective people should assume this to be the case unless significant evidence directs otherwise. " I used italics and bold letters to emphasize interesting parts. Please, explain yourself! Did you ever discuss about positive side of Christianity? Did you ever told your buddies not to offend religious feelings of Christians? You were JW for some years, you should know that the Bible many times say do NOT be afraid? I would give you some quotes, but I think you would not read it! Why did you conclude that my faith merely consist of fear? The fact ( It is possible that no one put my interpretation in written form or that the letter was lost) no one before me did not interpret that text the way I am, is a slam dunk from atheistic point of view. But, from believers point of view, it could be confirmation of Daniel 12:4! Why are you insisting on intent of the author? I already explained it! Pete, do not play games! Your English is better, cause my native language is Serbian, but I understand everything you write! I do not know why 1 Tim 6: 5 should be more relevant that rev 8 :9? Statistically, physical corruption occurs more times in Revelation and in Greek Scriptures than moral one! Physical one occurs in Luke 12 :33, 2 Cor 4 :16, Rev 8 :9 and at least once (your view) in 11 :18! Moral one occurs in 1 Tim 6: 5 and this is the only indisputable place in NT! It is incorrect to cite rev 19 :2, cause the most probable word is φθείρω. You should not use rev 11:18 either, cause there is no solid evidence for antanaclasis (you are silent at the moment about the challenge), and context speaks against it, unless you can not accept even the slightest possibility that Bible does not contradict itself, or at least Revelation! in that case, I can not play this game. Rules are on your side and I can not win! However, I could comfort myself that everything was done in reasonable objective manner from atheistic point of view! https://clicknupload.org/8j872gadrw6f
I have spent a lifetime reading the Bible, I was a pioneer, missionary and Bethelite. When I first freed myself from the literalist approach to the Bible, I did at times react less than my name should suggest. I chose the name Peacefulpete as a reminder to always try to remain peaceful. The quote you dug up was actually quite peaceful considering the accusation being leveled at me. Critical analysis of the Bible is not the same as holocaust denial. I'll stand behind my comment. Apparently you would have preferred I use the word "miracles" instead of "magic" though they mean the same thing objectively. And to be clear, not agreeing with a conclusion dawn by another doesn't equate to hostility toward that person.
As to a positive side to Christianity...that depends upon the actions of those claiming to be acting as Christians. Just like any other religion it can be an enabler or a facilitator. People who are otherwise kind loving folks can be helped through a church to channel that goodwill to others. Those who are divisive and bigoted will find a church that fosters and channels that negativity.
You keep speaking of some challenge that I'm avoiding. I'm not. It just doesn't make sense to demand what you are demanding as absolute proof. However, here is 1 Cor 3:16,17
16 Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst? 17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for God’s temple is sacred, and you together are that temple.
Another antanaclasis. The context is clear that if a person spiritually destroys their temple (body) God would actually destroy that person. That's about as perfect a parallel as you can get.
In previous posts I answered your comment with another hoping you would see the distinction you are drawing was artificial and not idiomatically required. Apparently you require something more than what I can provide.
Why did you conclude that my faith merely consist of fear?
I didn't. I said If you faith consisted of fear you were best to reevaluate it. If your religion requires fear to be real, it is not worth holding to.
I am not sure what kind of accusation you are talking about? Was it personal or did he attack yours cherished beliefs? Yes, miracle is not offensive word for Christian ears and you could use it. It is acceptable for atheists too, as you admit, when you wrote objectively=from atheistic perspective! Nice to hear you are standing behind your comment. So, Bible is filled with magic and contradictions, but you as atheist do not think it is full of crap? Reasonable and objective people should not believe that Jesus ever lived, so Christians and every person who do not believe that Jesus is fiction, according to your definition are... This is scholarship or extreme atheism? Your comment about positive side of Christianity shows that you have found nothing inherently good in it! So say it, openly, I was not wrong about you! Correct me if I am wrong, but you were Witness, and not an ordinary, when you wrote this! Can I call it hypocrisy? 1 Cor 3 : 16,17 is an interesting piece of evidence. It could be antanaclasis, and maybe I was overreacting when I tried to negate even the possibility of antanaclasis in rev 11:18. But , possibility and plausibility are different things! On the other hand it is possible, even probable, that there is no antanaclasis in 1 Cor 3 : 16,17 . When I read it, John 2 : 19 came to my mind. Jesus replied, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again.” I found that temple and body occur only in two places: John 2 : 21 and 1 Cor 6:19, a verse related to 1 Cor 3 : 16. Also, check out 1 Cor 3 : 18,19 a and 1 Cor 2 :7, 8. I do not have time, at the moment, for deeper analysis! " In previous posts I answered your comment with another hoping you would see the distinction you are drawing was artificial and not idiomatically required. " If you refer to my persistence that it is not possible when moral corruption reach its peak to advance moral corruption further, I am standing behind my comment. It is illogical, there will be no place for moral corruption to spread!
Apparently too much is being lost in translation. Best to you and your research.
I concur. It's ridiculous to think the author was referring only to or especially to the ruination of the physical natural environment. The context of the statement suggest a very broad meaning. Why would the author mention God rewarding all God's servants and those who fear his name, and then turn around mention only polluters of the environment facing adverse judgment? Makes no sense. Those "ruining the earth" must refer to all sinners.
You mentioned Genesis 6 where it says the "earth was ruined" in the sight of God. I believe the author of Revelation 11:18 chose this particular wording to deliberately allude to that verse back in Genesis 6 as if to say that the wickedness at the end would be as the wickedness when God brought to flood; and the slaughter of the wicked will likewise be great as with the flood. 2 Peter does the same kind of thing. In fact, throughout Revelation the author alludes to passages in the OT.
Yes Pete, sometimes too much can be lost in translation, so it is good thing to look at original language, or at least to check other, better translations. Island man, I disagree. It makes sense to segregate polluters. Think about Matthew 5:5 and Isaiah 45:18? Is it a small thing to nullify Jehovah’s intention? It does not matter whether meek ones, servants of the God, will lost their inheritance? For anti theists it really does not matter, but you are here to prove validity of your worldview. Of course, physical corrupters are also the ones who support polluters. (psalm 50:18,21;Rev 18:4) Genesis 6 is nice example against your interpretation, it can be seen when we go deeper than anthi theism would allow us.First, the word is καταφθείρω not diaphtheirai. I know it does not matter to you, for you even tâmı̂yd and zebach are the same, cause it must be in order to prove that Daniel 8 and 9 ch refer to the same event. But, I wonder why καταφθείρω appears invariably through Genesis? In all five places, flood is associated with καταφθείρω, not diaphtheirai, not even once! In all five places, moral and physical corruption reach its peak. Earth is/will be filled with violence or water, there is no space for additional flooding or corruption! Unlike the flood, there is space for additional corruption in Rev 11:18, and God will stop it before it reaches its peak! Again, this corruption can not be moral, cause Rev 19:2 and 14:15-18 reveal that there will be no space for additional moral corruption!So, the best and only candidate should be physical corruption!John did not call it pollution, I think it is obvious why, but we know now what kind of physical corruption he was alluded to, and probably he was not aware of it! Unlike the flood,physical corruption is mentioned first, and unlike the flood, physical corruption is utilized to save the earth! Thus, there is a contrast between the flood and armageddon. In the light of Gen 8:21,22 it is quite expected!I hope it is time to end this discussion. in a few days I will summarize arguments from both sides!
The issue is not what or how we consume, its the population pure and simple. You can not put 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound bag
Exactly, and this is what I tell folks i know. There are too many people on the planet.
We can either keep the same amount of people, and go back to living 18th century lives, where we grown things in our backyards and live in a minimalist way, or can continue to get all the products and services we want, in which case, we really need to reduce the amount of people.
I have no idea what the right number is, but I suspect that if there was 1 billion people on earth say, the strain we put on the planet would be acceptable.
Cow flops produce a huge amount of methane gas.
I wonder if this will be brought up as a reason for Christians to consider going vegan.
Rub a Dub
An example of another bad interpretation simply to meet their agenda.