Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions  (Read 10973 times)

jgruber

  • Guest
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #110 on: July 13, 2004, 08:05:07 PM »
Where did you think the Bible we know was finally defined?

That's one of the reasons that the Gospel of Thomas is not part of the Bible.

And please, there were many Christians before Darwin who did not interpret the Bible literally.  Read your history a little more carefully.

And you say the Catholic Bible was changed the Bible to suit their purposes.  If that is the case then why do you read a Bible that was defined by the Catholic Church?

I'm curious now.  What Bible do you read?


Jeffjoe, really?  Before Darwin no Christians thought of the story of creation as anything but literal.  Even after him most take it as literal.  I have to exclude Catholism from "church" because they have gone so far as to change scripture to fit their views.  I mean read the ten commandments in the Catholic Bible and then read it in a Hebrew lexicon.

The reason pastors, generally speaking, are better at interpreting scripture is because they simply read and study it more.

bobfett33

  • Guest
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #111 on: July 15, 2004, 04:53:21 AM »
Freak, the margin of error in carbon dating is far less than a million years.  The only time when such a margin would ever be stated would be if the difference was negligible, say between 356 and 357 million years ago.  Other than that, carbon-dating can be accurate to within probably around 500-1000 years.  Think about it - if carbon dating had a million year margin of error, then nothing in Earth's history could have been dated, only in it's pre-history.  Needless to say, thousands of places and objects that existed only a few millenia ago have been successfully carbon-dated.  Don't try to feed us bad science.

Freak

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4899
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #112 on: July 15, 2004, 10:56:43 AM »
Jeffjoe, I read the NIV, however, I find the NAS and the NKJ to be better literal translations in most cases.  If I have a question, I crack open a reference and look at the literal translation.

Also, name one prominent Christian, before Darwin, who supported the theory that God didn't really make man in his own image.

Bobfett33, If you'll notice I said radioactive decay, I never mentioned carbon dating.  But you bring up an interesting point.  If carbon dating is accurate to within 500-1000 yrs then what's the point?  We have no artifacts with documented evidence (i.e. no writing) of being more than 5000 yrs old so we have no way of verifying it's accuracy past that point.  If we're 10-20% off then the dating method becomes little more than a marginally effective tool, which we cannot test.  I took organic chemistry as an elective (got an A btw) and I know there are all sorts of ways to mess up radioactive decay.

Blunt, there is only one truth regardless of interpretation.  These sects are not logically consistent with the Bible.  They tend to do one or more of the following, deny the deity of Christ, deny the deity of the Holy Spirit, deny Christ died and rose again to pay the penalty for our sins, ignore or add to certain passages, or emphasize a few doctrines and ignore most others.  Granted most churches have one emphasis or another, but as long as they stay basically sound they are not necessarily non-Christian.

The Bible was pretty much decided by several church councils within the first few centuries after Christ. The catholics weren't so full of errors at that time.

The Koran is quite contrary to the Bible, for instance, Jesus is not God in the Koran. If Jesus isn't God then Christianity is a lie.

You have a point, Trojan, but Christians don't go so far as to believe the Koran is from the same God, unless they've never studied it.
Freak is the best, Freak is the best!  Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
I don't like calling you Freak, I'd rather call you  Normal Nice Guy.

jgruber

  • Guest
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #113 on: July 15, 2004, 11:02:04 AM »
Jeffjoe, I read the NIV, however, I find the NAS and the NKJ to better literal translations in most cases.  If I have a question I crack open a reference and look at the literal translation.

Also, name one prominent Christian, before Darwin, who supported the theory that God didn't really make man in his own image.


NKJ?

Prominent Christian?  Why does it have to be a prominent Christian and what do you mean by Christian?  Member of certain denominations?  Since it would have been considered heresy to suggest what Darwin did, wouldn't they have been driven into obscurity anyway?

And who said Darwin said man was not made in God's image?  What do we mean when we say God's image?  I'm sure we don't mean carbon copies of God since we are so diverse in appearance?

I think we need to be more precise.


Decide by several church councils?  Hmmmmmmm.  Would that be Catholic Church counsils? 

TrojanChispas

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4702
  • , a worthy adversary
    • View Profile
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #114 on: July 15, 2004, 03:53:53 PM »
the point freak is that noone can agree on teh exact interpretation.  you are making my point for me: the exact interpretation is not as important as the basic tennets.  it is in this way that the bible serves its function of bringing people closer to God. but fo rthat matter so does the torah and koran...so maybe they are all God's book, just aimed at different audiences.
Arab Majority May Not Stay Forever Silent
http://www.nysun.com/article/36110?page_no=1

buster

  • Guest
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #115 on: July 15, 2004, 03:54:47 PM »
oooooh, you're in trouble!  ;)

but fo rthat matter so does the torah and koran...so maybe they are all God's book, just aimed at different audiences.

jgruber

  • Guest
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #116 on: July 15, 2004, 04:03:09 PM »
Ooooooo .  you're in trouble.

I agree with you and this is what my church teaches me.  The truth of the Bible is its truth as a whole, not individual words and phrases.  The overall story, not the individual incidents per se.

And I agree about the Koran.  There is nothing in my beliefs that is endangered by or disqualified by the Koran.  I don't know it, but I have no reason to believe it is not from God.  The little I know of it is consistent with the truth of the Bible.

The Torah.... isn't that part of what Christians call the Old Testament?


the point freak is that noone can agree on teh exact interpretation.  you are making my point for me: the exact interpretation is not as important as the basic tennets.  it is in this way that the bible serves its function of bringing people closer to God. but fo rthat matter so does the torah and koran...so maybe they are all God's book, just aimed at different audiences.