Theological Opinions

[Spock]

"Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet."
Ralph Waldo Emerson

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

In no essential doctrine is the Bible contradictory. Many parts also can be perceived as contradictory, but on closer examination one finds that they aren't. For example, the number of women that came to Jesus' tomb, the number of angels that were present. A closer examination of the passages however wipes out contradictions. The fact that one passage says, "Mary of Magdalene went up," means the author was focusing on Mary Magdalene. It does not mean, "Mary of Magdalene went up alone." The fact that one scripture says, "an angel appeared to her and said . . ." does not mean that there was not another angel with him. So many errors actually aren't errors. They are faults in the reader's reading.

And btw, this is an EXTREMELY strong point demonstrating that these are actual honest eye-witness accounts and there was no collusion involved.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Spock

"Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet."
Ralph Waldo Emerson

What is the context of this? Does he mean beware, evildoers? Personally, I think that's what the right reading is.

[Lief Erikson]

RÃ*an, what do you think of my post #580 on this thread?

[Rían]

post 580?

*pages back*

Sheesh! Which part?

I'll start at the bottom of the post...

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I really don't think I have time for it, as my college schedule is so tight. I'm taking eighteen units of course work, and the maximum students are allowed to take is nineteen. I'm skimming the edge, but thanks for the invitation . It's certainly appreciated.

18 units! I think you'll be busy, but hope you can stay in the rpg

The rest of the post?

Gonna have to wait - time for bed! *yawn*

(any particular part, btw, or the whole enchalada?)

[Butterbeer]

heh guys. i'll be back tuesday .. thanks for the birthday wishes

best
BB


hope you do stay with us in the rpg Lief!

[Lief Erikson]

Have a good . . . trip? I forget why you're leaving . A happy birthday indeed to you, and may you come back to find everything peaceful and resolved in the Nazgul thread!

[Rían]

well, you know, there's always trouble when Nazgul are around!

[Butterbeer]

heh guys, cheers.

yeah it was a business "trip" to Amsterdam: the IBC convention.

well, i'll be a bit busy for a bit but thought i better just pop in and say hello while i get the chance...

Sorry, Lief, it didn't work out in the nazgul rpg

For my part at least you are always more than welcome to re-join ... though i can understand your decision ... such a shame the whole thing -

...i could understand where Cs was coming from ... but you were very flexible i thought in response ... just one of em' things i guess


...er..well at least it was memorable!

Rian, i really hope you don't leave ... i have just been catching up on it all ... well these things can happen .. and usually both parties don't want it to ... it just gets a life of it's own (is that creationism? ) ... like a roller coaster....

anyway, i am not going to get involved as i like the both of you (and you too rian! )


but i look forward to the theology sometime soon ...

best
BB

[Spock]

[Butterbeer]

good to see nothing's getting in the way of you having a serious debate Lief

...

[Lief Erikson]

BUMP. This thread shall return to life. Post, mon cher Butterbeer!

[Butterbeer]

bumps yet again into another bump.

where are we? could you start us back off again please?



o.k. which came first, God or the Bible?

which do we trust the most?

Is it humanely possible thay every single word, every phrase, every translation, ervry re-translation or re-interpreatation in every version of the bible in the last 2 millenia are 100% correct and not allowing of any interpreatation or debate whatsoever?


when is murder, murder?

If we pro-actively assasinate in pre-strike proactive defence is this morally ok?


how much are we murdering without any real moral or theoloigical authority merely on the guess or possibility someone may perpetrate an act against us?

Is this not murder and therefore wrong.

I really do not see jesus saying thou shalt not kill (murder) but assasination is ok-dokey. No matter how we justify self defence: if we pro-actively strike via assaination as was called for on a whim ... i really do not see that as morally justifable .

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

I really do not see jesus saying thou shalt not kill (murder) but assasination is ok-dokey. No matter how we justify self defence: if we pro-actively strike via assaination as was called for on a whim ... i really do not see that as morally justifable .

Once again, Pat Robertson hardly called for it on a whim. He said he believed Chavez to be "a terrific threat" to the United States, a dangerous enemy. That is not a whim killing.

I'll try to respond to the rest of your post later.

[Spock]

...well "he ain't dead yet".

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Spock

...well "he ain't dead yet".

who? robertson, chavez, lief erickson, butterbeer?

[Spock]

..I decline to answer on the grounds it might incite a riot...
--------------------------------------
"When the world goes mad, one must accept madness as sanity; since sanity is, in the last analysis, nothing but the madness on which the whole world happens to agree."
George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), Irish-born British playwright

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

o.k. which came first, God or the Bible?

Hmm, let's see.

God never came, He IS (i.e., he is a self-existant being).
The Bible was written in a specific time-period in the history of the earth, and grouped together and "set in stone" by the early Church authorities.

which do we trust the most?

Not sure what you mean ...

Is it humanely possible thay every single word, every phrase, every translation, ervry re-translation or re-interpreatation in every version of the bible in the last 2 millenia are 100% correct and not allowing of any interpreatation or debate whatsoever?

If you look at studies done on the various manuscripts, the accuracy is incredible. High 90's, something like that. And most of the "errors" are things like grammatical inversions, which do NOT affect the meaning of a sentence in a language like Greek. So as far as accuracy as a piece of ancient literature, it's absolutely in the top of its class - secular works included. I can point you to some more refs if you want.

As far as absolutely 100% correct, I think that's not relevant. What IS relevant is that the Bible accomplishes its purpose 100%, although it may only be 99% accurate translation-wise. See, it's mission isn't to make sure every translation is totally 100% accurate (and if you know anything about languages, you know that that's impossible, anyway! It's very interesting to be around multi-lingual people and see them struggle to translate certain phrases and cultural concepts). Its mission is to provide a means to reconcile mankind to a God that loves them.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

when is murder, murder?

If we pro-actively assasinate in pre-strike proactive defence is this morally ok?

I think so. We should have good Intelligence though, first. We should have a very strong reason to attack before we decide to act in that way.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

how much are we murdering without any real moral or theoloigical authority merely on the guess or possibility someone may perpetrate an act against us?

If I have a strong reason to believe that criminals are planning to attack my family (warnings from other people, etc.), I would do well to try to move. Perhaps I might buy a weapon. I might take my family and attempt to escape.

If I am a leader of a nation, running is not an option. You can prepare to defend yourself, and we're doing that. However, my options are limited. If I am extremely sure the enemy is going to attack me, I would be negligent if I refused to attack first, and thus let them destroy me.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If I have a strong reason to believe that criminals are planning to attack my family (warnings from other people, etc.), I would do well to try to move. Perhaps I might buy a weapon. I might take my family and attempt to escape.

This is a direct opposite of your next statement:

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If I am extremely sure the enemy is going to attack me, I would be negligent if I refused to attack first, and thus let them destroy me.

The same rationale should apply to yourself and family. To cut and run weakens you and shreds your personal web of security not to mention economics