That's why I have him on ignore.Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
|
|
|
|
|
That's why I have him on ignore.
It is ironic and very funny that you state that, because that is EXACTLY what the Republicans (led by the right wingers) have been telling people about the Republicans, not the Democrats, for years. Now, it doesn't feel so good to Republicans for people to say "wait a minute, I thought the Bible stated something else".
Thank You, duck. As usual, you get to the point so much more quickly and clearly than I do.
Aub, I won't address your belief that the Bible is simply a form of world literature. What I will address is that I haven't changed one bit. I still believe some of the things I did before but only for different reasons. After having read the Bible, I realized that I was mistaken on things I thought Jesus would have us do because there wasn't anything in the Bible to indicate that he would. It doesn't mean that they're bad ideas. I'm not against public schools. I think we need them and they need to be overhauled. I'm not against social programs. I'm not against the elimination of AIDS. I could go on and on and on. In fact, as I sit back and think about it, I would have to consider myself pretty liberal in terms of social programs. I've become more conservative in some moral issues. My point was that I'm tired of people saying that Jesus would do certain things when there is no historical evidence from the Bible that says he would.
As far as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are concerned. They serve no purpose in moving this country forward from our racist past. There is no doubt that racism still occurs. However, it's not to the level it was in the past. Jesse and Al look at everything action as though it's racially motivated when it's not. I don't what point you're trying to make about a grandmother from Battle Creek, MI. Is that supposed to mean that since she wasn't from the South she was a good racial influence on you because she wasn't racist. I've got bad news for you. The South gets the bad rap, but the North were every bit as bad-especially in Detroit, Chicago and other areas. They're still as bad. I've already given my family's history on their race relations which are hell of alot more significant than giving a hug on a dirt road in South Carolina.
I'll have to finish this later. Vette needs the computer for work.
There are many hints in American literature and history that white and black people became increasingly split sometime in the first half of the 20th century. My grandmother born in S. Carolina and reared in Carriere, Miss., went off to "finishing school" in Hattiesburg and then found a job sewing in Cincinnatti in before 1920. My grandfather was born in Michigan and they met while he was a brakeman atop a box car and she working near an upstairs window of the factory. I imagine a lot of couples met in such situations. Cheaper than hanging out in bars after work.
The extreme no touch/no equality of talk, etc., between the races wasn't something they practiced with black people. But legal if unconstitutional segregation created a gap that caused an increasing lack of knowledge and understanding among people of different races.
I can't guess what Jesus really intended to accomplish with his teaching and preaching, but he appeared to be pretty careful about denying Old Testament teaching while simultaneously teaching in figurative language that suggests that his understanding of his language caused him to see his own and the teaching of the old-timers as meant to be learned from because of their inherent truth rather than factuality.
I am listening to the ballgame and it is 0-0 after the first. Too many left on base!
"The other part of the this paragraph that I have a problem with is the implication that Jesus would do anything about AIDS, police brutality, a national health care policy and bad education system. Show me in the Bible where he says anything about all that."
Wouldn't Jesus lay hands on people with AIDS and cure them? And wouldn't health care be strictly under his supervision? And couldn't he teach all at once in every language either through electronic media or the supernatural equivalent? He didn't mention things he couldn't predict.
These are clearly assertions that are impossible to know. Did Jesus heal everyone who was sick when he was on earth? No. What was an integral part of the healing? Belief. Jesus didn't attempt to push through political policies...he dealt with the church. This is why even John the Baptist had moments of disbelief about who he was. The Jewish community expected a political savior...clearly, Jesus was not a political savior.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
Anybody who thinks the New Testament is historically accurate or is writtten by eyewitnesses hasn't done any research on the subject.
Not that it matters. Everybody has a different image of Jesus and His teachings and nothing is going to change that.
John was most certainly an eye-witness. His book is not written specifically as a historical account. I'll not go down the "historical accuracy" road with you unless you want me to. I'll just suffice it to say that there are numerous historical corroborations with the scripture from non-Christian historians. Check out Josephus (sp.) for starters..
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
Maybe He was all three.
Frankly, sometimes it is difficult today to tell the difference between Christians and Non-Christians unless they are wearing nose rings or are covered by tattoos.
Why would any Christian be concerned by politics? Is your allegiance to Rome or to Jesus? Remember, you can't have it both ways.
Johnny, what proof do you have that John was an eyewitness?
All the historians at that time were Roman. Which one mentions Jesus?
Do the research I told you about and then we'll talk.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
I nominate this for dumbest Salty post of the month (I know, the month is still young).
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
Josephus:
The first-century Jewish writer Josephus is significant for a study of Jesus for two reasons: (1) He provides the major (virutally the only) contemporary Jewish account of the history and conditions of the periods leading up to and including the New Testament era, and (2) if in one form or another they are from his pen, his references to John the Baptist, Jesus and the death of James the Just, the relative of Jesus, are the oldest non-Christian references to Christianity.
As far as Roman historians...they most certainly would not have cared about a Jew that wasn't even accepted by the leaders of the Jews. Remember, the Romans brought no charges against Jesus.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
Is this the guy you are referring to?
Do the research I told you about and then we'll talk.
http://www.livius.org/jo-jz/josephus/josephus.htm
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote