christians who support the war?...seems odd to me.

[Gunny]

It is not ringing a bell, but you could be right. Even if it is so, I still maintain that Jesus and God are the biggest fans of peace. I really think you could turn to any random page of the new testament and find someting that alludes to peace.

You could also turn to the Old Testament and find chapters where God sent his army to destroy to the man an enemy.

I'm all for peace. I'm just not going to stick my head in thesand and pretend there aren't those out there that want us as a people, society, race, and/or whatever destroyed. Their idea of compromise is "us dead."

If they win, it's wholesale slaughter and back to the 7th century for the survivors.

I'm not willing to have peace by compromising my beliefs to let a bunch of murderous, theocratic thugs have their way.

 

[trobinett]

Hmmm, interesting thread.

My observation would be, Christianity wouldn't of lasted long had its followers just continued to turn the other cheek.

History tells us, that survival is achieved through strength. Many a nation has become but a memory for not looking to defending itself in whatever way necessary to survive.

The same is true with capital punishment. A society not willing to enforce its laws, isn't going to survive long.

If one man kills another, and KNOWS the penalty for that act, and carries it out anyway, and we don't enforce the law, what message does that send?

Serial killers, murder for hire, murder for personal gain, murder during the commission of another crime, these should all be punished by death, PERIOD.

 

[5stringJeff]

The difference between old testament and new testament is almost night and day.

A possible reason for this is that the old testament was probably created through the passage of stories from generation to generation among the hebrews. Some of the stories have been dispelled by archeology, meaning that they could have been just that: stories.

The old testament is filled with what a good story should have: heroes, action, and adventure. This does not mean that the whole thing is fake, but many are inclined to believe that most of the old testament is traditional tale and symbolism. The legends were created with religious intent of course, but they were not necessarily on factual events.

By contrast, the new testament is written by the followers of Jesus. (it may have been doctored over time, who knows) Its main themes are more likely to be accurate representations of God and Jesus.

The legends that created the old testament was most likely the hebrews' laws and inspiration. Through the symbolism and legend they were able to portray God as needed: an all powerful force that will punish your sins and lead us to victory in battle. It served its purpose.

The difference between OT and NT is not as drastic as you think. There are many passages that speak of God's mercy, love, and grace in the OT, just as there are many passages on God's wrath and judgment in the NT.

And, out of curiousity, which OT stories have been dispelled by archaelogy? I've never heard of any.

 

[5stringJeff]

they support the people who killed in war for it's cause, yet protest about killing an admitted serial killer on death row?

Supporting soldiers fighting in war is permissible in Christianity, as is supporting the death penalty.

 

[jasendorf]

Supporting soldiers fighting in war is permissible in Christianity, as is supporting the death penalty.

The Bible has been pimped to promote slavery and picketing soldiers' funerals... I'm sure it can be abused to promote just about anything one wants if they want to enough.

 

[5stringJeff]

The Bible has been pimped to promote slavery and picketing soldiers' funerals... I'm sure it can be abused to promote just about anything one wants if they want to enough.

Yawn.

 

[Gunny]

Yawn.

Well, this is two threads dropped dead due to jasen's unimpeachable and eloquent intelect. :rotflmao:

 

[1549]

The difference between OT and NT is not as drastic as you think. There are many passages that speak of God's mercy, love, and grace in the OT, just as there are many passages on God's wrath and judgment in the NT.

And, out of curiousity, which OT stories have been dispelled by archaelogy? I've never heard of any.

Many modern geologists contend that events such as the Exodus and the rule of Solomon and David did not play out as the bible indicates. I suggest looking into Israel Finkelstein as a source for more information.

 

[Gunny]

Many modern geologists contend that events such as the Exodus and the rule of Solomon and David did not play out as the bible indicates. I suggest looking into Israel Finkelstein as a source for more information.

However, they also must contend that the Exodus, and rules of Solomon and David DID happen, even if their verisons of the minor details don't jive.

 

[1549]

However, they also must contend that the Exodus, and rules of Solomon and David DID happen, even if their verisons of the minor details don't jive.

Yes and no. It depends on the event in question and the archeologist.

For example, many debate the existence of David and Solomon all together. Others do not go as far as to say they did not exist, they just note that Judea was far short of a kingdom and was nothing more than a small village at the time the bible alleges David and Solomon ruled.

I guess you could say that Israel Finkelstein is the giant of the field. He is a sort of the middle ground on many issues. However, his book "The Bible Unearthed" did state that there is no evidence that biblical men such as Abraham, Isaac, or Moses ever existed. He also says there is no evidence to support the exodus.

 

[Gunny]

Yes and no. It depends on the event in question and the archeologist.

For example, many debate the existence of David and Solomon all together. Others do not go as far as to say they did not exist, they just note that Judea was far short of a kingdom and was nothing more than a small village at the time the bible alleges David and Solomon ruled.

I guess you could say that Israel Finkelstein is the giant of the field. He is a sort of the middle ground on many issues. However, his book "The Bible Unearthed" did state that there is no evidence that biblical men such as Abraham, Isaac, or Moses ever existed. He also says there is no evidence to support the exodus.

One man's kingdom is another man's fief. I consider such trivial stuff to be ... well ....trivial stuff. To modern man Israel was never more than a fragmented Nation of citystates. To ancient Jews, a citystate could be a kingdom, and it is that of which they write.

It's all relative to where one is sitting while viewing.

 

[5stringJeff]

Yes and no. It depends on the event in question and the archeologist.

For example, many debate the existence of David and Solomon all together. Others do not go as far as to say they did not exist, they just note that Judea was far short of a kingdom and was nothing more than a small village at the time the bible alleges David and Solomon ruled.

I guess you could say that Israel Finkelstein is the giant of the field. He is a sort of the middle ground on many issues. However, his book "The Bible Unearthed" did state that there is no evidence that biblical men such as Abraham, Isaac, or Moses ever existed. He also says there is no evidence to support the exodus.

Lack of archaelogical evidence is not proof that something didn't exist, it's a lack of proof. But I'll see if I can find something of his online.

 

[1549]

Lack of archaelogical evidence is not proof that something didn't exist, it's a lack of proof. But I'll see if I can find something of his online.

When this discussion first came up, I was hoping wiki would have more information on Finkelstein...like that I could link up on here. Their biography of him was pretty brief, not worth sending people to read.

If you do find a good biography, would you mind posting a link? It seems that a lot of people are interested in this thread and his findings are very intriguing. I will look around the web as well.

 

[5stringJeff]

When this discussion first came up, I was hoping wiki would have more information on Finkelstein...like that I could link up on here. Their biography of him was pretty brief, not worth sending people to read.

If you do find a good biography, would you mind posting a link? It seems that a lot of people are interested in this thread and his findings are very intriguing. I will look around the web as well.

Here's a few links to articles with Mr. Finkelstein:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week723/cover.html
http://groups.msn.com/Sequitur/finkelstein.msnw
http://fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/grounds.htm

It seems as though he takes the stance that archaelogical evidence is the only such evidence that would sway him from his current stance that much of the OT is myth; in other words, he presupposes that the OT is myth, instead of presupposing nothing about the truthfulness of the OT.

 

[1549]

Here's a few links to articles with Mr. Finkelstein:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week723/cover.html
http://groups.msn.com/Sequitur/finkelstein.msnw
http://fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/grounds.htm

It seems as though he takes the stance that archaelogical evidence is the only such evidence that would sway him from his current stance that much of the OT is myth; in other words, he presupposes that the OT is myth, instead of presupposing nothing about the truthfulness of the OT.

I guess it is typical scientific method. Hypothesize, research, analyze, conclude.

Even if you do not buy into Israel's conclusions, it is very interesting.

 

[Hobbit]

Here's a few links to articles with Mr. Finkelstein:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week723/cover.html
http://groups.msn.com/Sequitur/finkelstein.msnw
http://fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/grounds.htm

It seems as though he takes the stance that archaelogical evidence is the only such evidence that would sway him from his current stance that much of the OT is myth; in other words, he presupposes that the OT is myth, instead of presupposing nothing about the truthfulness of the OT.

He needs to talk to the generals and archeologists who carry around a Bible with them because of the incredibly historical accuracy of the Old Testament. I even remember a story of a British general in one of the world wars (I think the first) using the same maneuver against the Axis that the Israelites had used against the Philistines in the exact same spot.