REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

It never said that he didn't speak to her with respect. However the gospels do not put Mary Magdalen in a good light either, and actually calls her "a woman of the streets - a prostitute" (luke 7:37) So how did the Roman Catholic Church twist this statement?

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

It is felt that this Mary was the same who first went to Jesus and washed his feet with her tears.

"It is felt" is quite a different statement from your first quote, where you say in Luke it "actually calls her" a prostitute. I still don't see anywhere where the Bible "actually calls" Mary Magdalen a prostitute.

There are quite a few Marys in the Bible. There are three mentioned at the foot of the cross when Jesus is dying, and they're all Marys: his mother Mary, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. I have heard that many people think Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, but I don't see any place in the 4 gospels where this is said.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Fine. Just remember that the author of the Silmarillion would have pointed you to the Bible... and its Author!

good point

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

"It is felt" is quite a different statement from your first quote, where you say in Luke it "actually calls her" a prostitute. I still don't see anywhere where the Bible "actually calls" Mary Magdalen a prostitute.

There are quite a few Marys in the Bible. There are three mentioned at the foot of the cross when Jesus is dying, and they're all Marys: his mother Mary, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. I have heard that many people think Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, but I don't see any place in the 4 gospels where this is said.

Well- a lot of what you claim isn't in the bible either, but you still believe it.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

good point

The author is dead and in a thousand years or two thousand years from now, it may be found by archeologists who have no idea what they had found and must figure it out.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well- a lot of what you claim isn't in the bible either, but you still believe it.

I was just pointing out that your claim that "However the gospels do not put Mary Magdalen in a good light either, and actually calls her "a woman of the streets - a prostitute" (luke 7:37) " was incorrect, because it does NOT say "Mary Magdalene" in any of the accounts.

[Mercutio]

An idea my dad mentioned once:Some Biblical scholars believe "Adam and Eve" referred to a the whole of civilization at that time--more than just two people. Apparently in original texts Adam can mean "man" as in humankind (and also "dust" I believe?). The original sin and fall A & E went through would be representative of what all human creation went through.

Mary Magdalene...what is the issue here? I do think she was referred to as a prostitute JD and RÃ*, but that she was a repentent sinner who had turned from her previous ways (and treated as a repentent Christian by Jesus).

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

An idea my dad mentioned once:Some Biblical scholars believe "Adam and Eve" referred to a the whole of civilization at that time--more than just two people. Apparently in original texts Adam can mean "man" as in humankind (and also "dust" I believe?). The original sin and fall A & E went through would be representative of what all human creation went through.

Well there you go back to interpretation versus taking the bible at it's word. That's the problem - you can twist the bible to mean anything you want it to really.

Mary Magdalene...what is the issue here? I do think she was referred to as a prostitute JD and RÃ*, but that she was a repentent sinner who had turned from her previous ways (and treated as a repentent Christian by Jesus).

That seems to be only the case if you beleive that they were the same woman. But hey - it seems like everyone can just choose what parts to believe and what parts not to believe and if something doesn't fit in - people just fill in the gaps as they see fit - like rian has done repeatedly here.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I was just pointing out that your claim that "However the gospels do not put Mary Magdalen in a good light either, and actually calls her "a woman of the streets - a prostitute" (luke 7:37) " was incorrect, because it does NOT say "Mary Magdalene" in any of the accounts.

It does indicate that they are the same woman. Byut then again - most of what you have said to defend Adam and Eve and genetic devirsity in mankind is not in the bible either.

[Mercutio]

http://www.catholicherald.com/saunde...s/ws040722.htm

^very well explains the Mary Magdalene issues (and the other Marys, and if she was the same as Mary of Bethany, and why her "gnostic gospel" was thrown out...)

literal versus figurative...do you expect it to be totally one or the other? I think some of it is literal and some figurative, and then that creates big theological debates on issues (like communion, for example). Anyway, don't a lot of things need interpretation? Just because something could be interpreted in different ways shouldn't discredit it. Some people have interpreted Adam & Eve to refer to mankind in general because that is the way it makes logical sense to them. They could be wrong, we just don't know.

Help me RÃ*, what is our response to "twisting the Bible to mean anything we want"?

~

EDIT: I don't think the Bible was meant to explain every tiny itsy bitsy detail to us. That would make it way too big for anyone to study or for lay people to read...not quite the point.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by mercutio

Some people have interpreted Adam & Eve to refer to mankind in general because that is the way it makes logical sense to them. They could be wrong, we just don't know.

well, if the 'adam & eve' refers to two individual people, then the human race has an extremely limited genepool, and i am surprised that i don't have four arms growing out of the side of my head and suchlike

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

We must assume that the diversity of off spring from adam and eve would be the same. Unless you throw in mysticism into the whole affair. i dnd't say they didn't have full human DNA. But if there are only TWO people on the planet and they have sex and have 30 children - those 30 children are basically going to have very similar genetic makeup. You seem have ERRONEOUSLY took what I said to mean that they didn't have full DNA But the DNA between me and my brothers and sister isn't much different and if I was to have to have off spring with them - because they were the only people on earth - again - the genetic deversity wouldn't occur. So where did all the genetic deversity happen if everyone is descended from 2 people?

Let's look at genetics to answer this question. Science is a wonderful tool!

Evolutionist Francisco Ayala says that humans are heterozygous for 6.7% of their genes, on the average. Given this figure, Ayala calculates a single human couple could produce 10 to the 2,017 children (mathematically, not phsically ) before they would have to produce an identical twin. That's 1 followed by 2017 zeroes. The number of known atoms in the universe is 10 to the 80. This is nothing at all compared with the variety that is present in just two humans.

Easy - no one else was placed on the earth with Adam and Eve according to the bible. So - the only reason why you don't see how I could come up with my conclusion - I must assume - because you have to fit everyth9ing in with what the bible says and nt necessarily look at does it make any sense.

Another possibility is that I know something about genetics like what I listed above, which makes perfect sense.

We're not merely talking about color. And you can't get everything from white to dark black from two medium brown people.

I was talking only about color merely to save space. And yes, you CAN get everything from white to dark black from two medium brown people. Again, let's look at genetics.

All of us (except albinos) have exactly the same skin coloring agent - melanin. We all have the same basic skin color, just differing amounts of it. The amount of skin color we have depends on at least 2 pairs of genes, which we'll call A and B. People with the darkest skin color have AABB and those with very light skin have aabb. People with two capital letter genes would be medium-skinned, and people with 1 or 3 would be a shade lighter or darker. Starting with two parents of AaBb, if you do a genetic square, you'll see that you can get ALL skin types in just one generation. And this is in fact what you see in places like India. Some Indians are the darkest dark, and others very light, even in the same family. If dark or light skinned people migrate into the same place and have kids, then eventually they'll lose the variability and produce only light or dark kids. But if they get together again, you'll again see the full range of skin colors, as in the West Indies.

So please - look beyond the the narrow view you seem to have here and look at how much of what you state makes sense.

I always look at what makes sense
I'm considering going back to plan B

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

Mary Magdalene...what is the issue here? I do think she was referred to as a prostitute JD and RÃ*, but that she was a repentent sinner who had turned from her previous ways (and treated as a repentent Christian by Jesus).

References please, Merc

I don't think you'll find any.

[inked]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

And the same holds true for the bibel Just because there are historical accuracies in the bible does not make it true. Doe snot make Genesis or Noah or anything like that true.

Not necessarily at all. And we're not talking about an accurate record of Jesus's life or times and his friends. I can write about the historical events of today, go into detail of my firends, write about one of them doing mystical things. Does that mean because the first two items are historically confirmed - that the third one is most likely accurate? No it doesn't.

JD,

It doesn't prove that the third point is historically accurate, but it certainly suggests that your reportage of the third point is accurate. That report may be reliable. The actual claims made by the person you are reporting about would then be assessed as "historically made claims" and their truth value assessed. See?

[Blackheart]

Every Civilization must re-discover and re-invent spirituality for itself. Every time it winds up a mish mash of leftovers and new discoveries.

If you think this is good, or bad, you have missed the point. It is not good, nor bad, it just is.

My personal opinion is that the old religions are dying. They are based on outmoded spiritual and social needs that no longer apply to a large portion of humanity.

We are in the midst of another cycle of course. It's difficult for humans to percieve such things with a limited lifespan. A lot of this is just the fallout from the Renaissance. Which was only 400 odd years ago...

Whatever new vision of spirituality that emerges will quickly be set upon by those of you who have security isues and needs. It will be codified, dogmatized, and turned into religion. And then the process will start all over, with the inevitable bloodshed, ignorance, acceptence, and finally complaceny and degeneration.

And for all that, the only ones who are remotely close to any kind of universal truth are the ones that keep insisting that they don't know....

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by blackheart

If you think this is good, or bad, you have missed the point. It is not good, nor bad, it just is.

merry dol, ring dong a dillo

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Let's look at genetics to answer this question. Science is a wonderful tool!

Evolutionist Francisco Ayala says that humans are heterozygous for 6.7% of their genes, on the average. Given this figure, Ayala calculates a single human couple could produce 10 to the 2,017 children (mathematically, not phsically ) before they would have to produce an identical twin. That's 1 followed by 2017 zeroes. The number of known atoms in the universe is 10 to the 80. This is nothing at all compared with the variety that is present in just two humans.

So what does that have to do with anything? The problem with inbreeding is because of genetic mutations - pure and simple. We aren't talking about identical twins here. Anwyay - if two identical twins had children (which would be an impossiblity because they would have to both be the same sex ) then they would give brith to exact duplicates of themselves - unless there was a genetic mutation that occurred in the process.

Another possibility is that I know something about genetics like what I listed above, which makes perfect sense.

As I said - that still doesn't explain the diverse genepool. We aren't talking identical twins here.

I was talking only about color merely to save space. And yes, you CAN get everything from white to dark black from two medium brown people. Again, let's look at genetics.

All of us (except albinos) have exactly the same skin coloring agent - melanin. We all have the same basic skin color, just differing amounts of it. The amount of skin color we have depends on at least 2 pairs of genes, which we'll call A and B. People with the darkest skin color have AABB and those with very light skin have aabb. People with two capital letter genes would be medium-skinned, and people with 1 or 3 would be a shade lighter or darker. Starting with two parents of AaBb, if you do a genetic square, you'll see that you can get ALL skin types in just one generation. And this is in fact what you see in places like India. Some Indians are the darkest dark, and others very light, even in the same family. If dark or light skinned people migrate into the same place and have kids, then eventually they'll lose the variability and produce only light or dark kids. But if they get together again, you'll again see the full range of skin colors, as in the West Indies.

I understand geneticas - buyt albinos is a genetic DEFECT. it's not really a good example on your part. You can't get a white from two 100% asians - can you?

I always look at what makes sense
I'm considering going back to plan B

Go to which ever plan you want - I said " you seem to have". My opinion. You have no say in my opinion.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

Help me RÃ*, what is our response to "twisting the Bible to mean anything we want"?

Well, I guess people are free to say anything they want to say, including statements like that. I would hope he doesn't think that about you and me. I certainly don't think that about you, and I know I don't do it. But people can say what they want to, whether it is true or not. If you want to, you can ask him directly if he thinks you are twisting the Bible or I am twisting the Bible. General claims are easy to make; specific ones are harder.

I think the best response would be to read thru Matthew 5 and John 15 and I Corinthians 4 and II Corinthians 4 I"m not giving the actual verses on purpose; see what you think is relevant, if anything, and let me know via PM

However, if someone claims that something is actually said in the Bible, then we can ask them for a reference, as I did with JD. He was unable to provide a quote where the Bible said that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, so his claim that the Bible says this is unsupported.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by inked

JD,

It doesn't prove that the third point is historically accurate, but it certainly suggests that your reportage of the third point is accurate. That report may be reliable. The actual claims made by the person you are reporting about would then be assessed as "historically made claims" and their truth value assessed. See?

Yes - but then again. A lot of what is being argued here is not proveable - nor is it even supported historically - such as genesis. Just because there are geneaologies - doesn't make it true.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Whatever new vision of spirituality that emerges will quickly be set upon by those of you who have security isues and needs.

including atheism and agnosticism, of course (two VERY "comforting" world views, IMHO )

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

how is atheism comforting?

some animist religions, especially from central africa, can be construed as disturbing, not comforting, and they are atheistic