Guest Carl Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 "Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message news:dM2dnX7dEL0LDpvanZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@giganews.com... > Pastor Dave wrote: >> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:29:41 -0000, Empty >> <perfect.empty@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> pfft... Why the heck can't Christians understand that they are >>> pathetic, is a more accurate question.. >>> >>> //Empty >> >> Your handle is appropriate. > > Yeah...as in the clip of his gun as he stands over your bullet-riddled > body. What a childish thing to post. May God bless, Carl my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/ my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/ Quote
Guest Denis Loubet Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 "Carl" <saints@nettally.com> wrote in message news:fe373r$ibn$1@news.utelfla.com... > > "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message > news:4MqdnUEZltfqqJnanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@io.com... >> >> >> All the theist has to do is edit the god's word to read "Thou shalt not >> MURDER!" and everything is magically cool. >> >> Just interpret the bible, and you can justify anything. >> > > Actually the proper and most accurate translation of the Hebrew is "Thou > shalt not murder." You could at least be intellectually honest about this. > However if this is beyond your capabilities... You mean the bible lies? > The Hebrew word used in the verse is "ratsach" which means "murder" > according to Thayer's Greek Lexicon and Brown Driver & Briggs Hebrew > Lexicon. Also New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with > Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary defines it as "murder" as well. So of course, all the bible out there use the word murder, right? Or are you suggesting that all Christians are conversant enough with ancient hebrew, and the ancient scripture, to accurately translate it, in direct contradiction to what's written on the pages of most English translations? My position is that most Christians, if they interpret the word as murder, do not do so as a result of superior biblical scholarship, but rather as an ignorant, ham-handed rationalization. -- Denis Loubet dloubet@io.com http://www.io.com/~dloubet http://www.ashenempires.com Quote
Guest Christopher A.Lee Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 00:32:12 -0400, "Carl" <saints@nettally.com> wrote: > >"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message >news:fqibg35ffj302vsb6eof70oa72e8b4qhp3@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:29:29 -0700, saints@nettally.com wrote: >> >>>On Oct 4, 2:52 pm, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote: >>>> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:30:59 -0700, sai...@nettally.com wrote: >>>> >On Oct 4, 12:15 am, Meteorite Debris >>>> ><epicurusboth@YOUR_SHOESaapt.net.au> wrote: >>>> >> Last time that great scribe MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> chipped away >>>> >> at >>>> >> his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... >>>> >>>> >> > A more accurate translation is "Thou shalt not commit murder." >>>> >>>> >> I believe this has been disputed. Dan Barker in his book says that >>>> >> "kill" is a more accurate translation than "murder" for the >>>> >> commandment. >>>> >>>> >Barker isn't qualified as an expert in Biblical languages. His degree >>>> >in Religion from Azusa Pacific University did not give him expert >>>> >qualifications in Biblical languages, specifically in this case, >>>> >Hebrew and Koine Greek. So your source is flawed. Actual Biblical >>>> >language experts teach that both the Hebrew and Koine Greek that >>>> >reference this commandment are most accurately translated as "to >>>> >murder." The recognized scholarly sources such as Thayer's and >>>> >Strong's support this as well. As do numerous other scholarly sources. >>>> >>>> Only among those who want it to mean that becvause they're in denial. >>>> >>>> Barker simply did hard work t hat anybody could have done, without an >>>> axe to grind. >>> >>>Barker does has "an axe to grind." His whole conclusions are based on That was a lie. Unlike you he cited where the information came from, and demonstrated the only possible conclusion. You should have shown why his data was wrong. Because the figures won't go away no matter much you lie about bias. >> Only in the fantasies of deluded religionists. >> >>>his personal presuppositions therefore he cannot be recognized as >> >> Liar. >> >>>being objective. Secondly, his knowledge of Hebrew and Koine Greek is >>>quite limited and he is no expert on Biblical languages. Thirdly, he >> >> So what? >> >> Anybody can repeat what he did. >> >>>intentionally rejects established sources simply because they show his >> >> Liar. >> >>>position on the passages in question to be incorrect. >> >> Liar. >> >>>> Why can't you assholes show a shred of honesty? >>> >>>I am being intellectually honest about this. Unfortunately, as your >> >> Liar. Care to explain how dismissing points by saying somebody is biased, "intellectually hoinest"? You should have shown where Barker was wrong, using the same data source that he did. >>>response shows, you are being not only intellectually dishonest, but >> >> Liar. >> >>>quite immature and uncivil. As such you disqualify yourself from any >>>credibility whatsoever. >> >> Liar. You resorted to personal lies instead of addressing what you were told. Thie word for someone who does this is "liar". If you don't like it, stop lying. >> I am simply calling an in-denial intellectually dishonest religionist >> what he shows himself to be. >> >>>> >It is becoming apparent that you are unable and/or unwilling to be >>>> >intellectually honest on this point and would rather rely on >>>> >unqualified sources (such as Dan Barker) rather than researching this >>>> >correctly. As such your claims become moot. >>>> >>>> Why are so many Christians such personal liars? Well, why are you? >>>And your response merely gives further evidence of your inability to >>>engage in intelligent discourse. >> >> Liar. You lied and got called a liar for it. >>> I will keep you in my prayers. >> >> Deliberate nastiness. Well? >>>May God bless, >> >> Fuck off and die. >> >>>Carl >>>my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/ >>>my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/ > >Your hatred, immaturity, dishonesty and misplaced anger are all duly noted. How is calling a a liar a liar by the evidence of his own words, "hatred, immaturity, dishinesty and misplaced anger", liar? It was not I who dismissed what BArker did and anybody else could by calling it "biased". Why didn't YOU use exactly the same objective data and show why he was wrong? Guess hoiw we know you're a Christian? And it's not in ways you would find flattering. >May God bless, What a remarkably and in-your-face nasty thing to say to anybody you know is atheist. But then you're full of shit in the first place, with no integrity, common sense or courtesy. >Carl >my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/ >my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/ > Quote
Guest Christopher A.Lee Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 00:23:10 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote: > >"Carl" <saints@nettally.com> wrote in message >news:fe373r$ibn$1@news.utelfla.com... >> >> "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message >> news:4MqdnUEZltfqqJnanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@io.com... >>> >>> >>> All the theist has to do is edit the god's word to read "Thou shalt not >>> MURDER!" and everything is magically cool. >>> >>> Just interpret the bible, and you can justify anything. >>> >> >> Actually the proper and most accurate translation of the Hebrew is "Thou >> shalt not murder." You could at least be intellectually honest about this. >> However if this is beyond your capabilities... And he wonders how we know he is an in-your-face nasty liar, for remarks like this. In short he's a typical net.Christian. >You mean the bible lies? > >> The Hebrew word used in the verse is "ratsach" which means "murder" >> according to Thayer's Greek Lexicon and Brown Driver & Briggs Hebrew >> Lexicon. Also New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with >> Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary defines it as "murder" as well. > >So of course, all the bible out there use the word murder, right? > >Or are you suggesting that all Christians are conversant enough with ancient >hebrew, and the ancient scripture, to accurately translate it, in direct >contradiction to what's written on the pages of most English translations? > >My position is that most Christians, if they interpret the word as murder, >do not do so as a result of superior biblical scholarship, but rather as an >ignorant, ham-handed rationalization. Of course. That much is obvious. And instead of justifying it they rationalise - in this case by ignoring the data and accusing the person using it of bias. He should have shown where Barker's work was wrong - by repeating it for himself and showing that all occurrences of "ratsach" were for murder and that none of the other words used, were. But no, it got dismissed for "bias". Which even if it were true, make no difference to the numbers and occurrences of the various words. And this is the guy who accuses others of not being intellectually honest. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 16:49:29 -0700, Andy W <vorath@mailinator.com> wrote: >On 6 Oct, 00:29, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 16:02:56 -0700, Andy W <vor...@mailinator.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >On 4 Oct, 23:21, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 13:15:36 -0400, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote: >> >> >> >"Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote in message >> >> >news:4MqdnUEZltfqqJnanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@io.com... >> >> >> >> All the theist has to do is edit the god's word to read "Thou shalt not >> >> >> MURDER!" and everything is magically cool. >> >> >> >> Just interpret the bible, and you can justify anything. >> >> >> >Actually the proper and most accurate translation of the Hebrew is "Thou >> >> >shalt not murder." You could at least be intellectually honest about this. >> >> >However if this is beyond your capabilities... >> >> >> >The Hebrew word used in the verse is "ratsach" which means "murder" >> >> >according to Thayer's Greek Lexicon and Brown Driver & Briggs Hebrew >> >> >Lexicon. Also New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded >> >> >Greek-Hebrew Dictionary defines it as "murder" as well. >> >> >> Even these don't take the nuance that ratsach has in this case. >> >> Some get closer to the mark with "Thou shalt not commit manslaughter", >> >> but even this is not close enough to the indended meaning. >> >> Properly translated, it is "Thou shalt not take blood veneange into >> >> your own hands" >> >> >So if I've understood you correctly, the only thing forbidden by the >> >commandment is killing in revenge? >> >> Proscriptively or apodictically, yes. >> But it doesn't exclude further restrictions on killings. >> >> >All other types of killing are >> >okay? >> >> Not at all. >> They are dealt with elsewhere. >> It is just that this particular command is restricted to the absolute >> prohibition of manslaughter motivated by (blood) vengeance. > >Gotcha. > >I wonder why it was deemed so important it required its own >commandment? To balance the (then tribal) conflicts between killing one's genetic relations versus a genetic competitor. Very important, in terms of reproductive integrity. >> >It's bad enough when it's translated as "murder" since that >> >seems to exclude stuff like executions, war, genocide, and anything >> >"God commands". >> >> Quite. >> As it is usually translated "kill", that would be lunacy for a nation >> that was almost constantly at war, and that had commandments requiring >> the death penalty for numerous infractions. >> Just ludicrous to the point of imbecility! > >And who ever heard of such qualities in a religion? Jim Jones. >Thanks You are more than welcome, sir. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 03:01:06 -0700, Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote: >On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 00:23:10 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> >wrote: > >> >>"Carl" <saints@nettally.com> wrote in message >>news:fe373r$ibn$1@news.utelfla.com... >>> >>> "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message >>> news:4MqdnUEZltfqqJnanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@io.com... >>>> >>>> >>>> All the theist has to do is edit the god's word to read "Thou shalt not >>>> MURDER!" and everything is magically cool. >>>> >>>> Just interpret the bible, and you can justify anything. >>>> >>> >>> Actually the proper and most accurate translation of the Hebrew is "Thou >>> shalt not murder." You could at least be intellectually honest about this. >>> However if this is beyond your capabilities... > >And he wonders how we know he is an in-your-face nasty liar, for >remarks like this. > >In short he's a typical net.Christian. : I have informed him of his error on numerous occasions, to with no response. Quote
Guest saints@nettally.com Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 On Oct 6, 5:51 am, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote: > > Care to explain how dismissing points by saying somebody is biased, > "intellectually hoinest"? Actually your attempts to misrepresent my position and what I have posted already shows you to be equally intellectually dishonest as well. I have pointed out the biasness of Barker's assertions via his own words and admissions that he has taken an anti-Christian and radical athetistic stance. For you or anyone else to claim his has no bias in light of this fact is to ignore reality. > You should have shown where Barker was wrong, using the same data > source that he did. I showed where Barker was wrong and used better data sources than he did especially since he intentionally ignores any and all recognized data sources for the sole reason they refute his claim concerning the passages in question. > >>>response shows, you are being not only intellectually dishonest, but > > >> Liar. > > >>>quite immature and uncivil. As such you disqualify yourself from any > >>>credibility whatsoever. > > >> Liar. > > You resorted to personal lies instead of addressing what you were > told. Thie word for someone who does this is "liar". If you don't like > it, stop lying. I have presented documented facts. You calling them lies does not change the facts I present. All it actually exposes is your immaturity and inability to engage in intelligent discourse. > >Your hatred, immaturity, dishonesty and misplaced anger are all duly noted. > > How is calling a a liar a liar by the evidence of his own words, > "hatred, immaturity, dishinesty and misplaced anger", liar? It is such since you haven't proven the lies of which you accuse. Rather you spew the accusation forth as a playground child would when unable to present anything substantive. Since you have nothing substantive to offer, I see no reason to continue this thread with you. The documented facts have long refuted Barker and you in regards to the Biblical passages in question and your childish provocations are simply a waste of my time and resources. May God bless and help you with you anger and hatred, Carl my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/ my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/ Quote
Guest saints@nettally.com Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 On Oct 6, 9:34 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: > On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 03:01:06 -0700, Christopher A.Lee > > > > > > <ca...@optonline.net> wrote: > >On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 00:23:10 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> > >wrote: > > >>"Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote in message > >>news:fe373r$ibn$1@news.utelfla.com... > > >>> "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote in message > >>>news:4MqdnUEZltfqqJnanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@io.com... > > >>>> All the theist has to do is edit the god's word to read "Thou shalt not > >>>> MURDER!" and everything is magically cool. > > >>>> Just interpret the bible, and you can justify anything. > > >>> Actually the proper and most accurate translation of the Hebrew is "Thou > >>> shalt not murder." You could at least be intellectually honest about this. > >>> However if this is beyond your capabilities... > > >And he wonders how we know he is an in-your-face nasty liar, for > >remarks like this. > > >In short he's a typical net.Christian. > > : > > I have informed him of his error on numerous occasions, to with no > response.- Hide quoted text - Actually, Michael, your "explanation" if you wish to refer to it as such, it not accurate in regards to the passages in question. I know what the consensus of Biblical language experts say concerning the passages in question and I will defer to their expertise over your alledged knowledge. I've already cited several recognized, legitimate scholarly sources supporting my contention and can cite numerous others yet I already can see based upon your own words that you dismiss them all out of hand so any further citations would be a waste of my time. It's apparent you have made up your mind on this and you are entitled to your opinion. I happen to disagree with it as do thousands of Biblical language scholars. I think I will side with the established scholars over you. May God bless, Carl my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/ my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/ Quote
Guest Geoff Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 Carl wrote: >>>> //Empty >>> >>> Your handle is appropriate. >> >> Yeah...as in the clip of his gun as he stands over your >> bullet-riddled body. > > What a childish thing to post. And let's see what mature things you say? > May God bless, And you think I'm childish? LOL I don't need your condescension, you judgmental prick. Quote
Guest saints@nettally.com Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 On Oct 6, 2:50 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote: > Carl wrote: > >>>> //Empty > > >>> Your handle is appropriate. > > >> Yeah...as in the clip of his gun as he stands over your > >> bullet-riddled body. > > > What a childish thing to post. > > And let's see what mature things you say? > > > May God bless, > > And you think I'm childish? LOL > > I don't need your condescension, you judgmental prick. And you go ahead and prove me correct. May God bless, Carl my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/ my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/ Quote
Guest Christopher A.Lee Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 11:25:21 -0700, saints@nettally.com wrote: >On Oct 6, 5:51 am, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote: >> >> Care to explain how dismissing points by saying somebody is biased, >> "intellectually hoinest"? > >Actually your attempts to misrepresent my position and what I have >posted already shows you to be equally intellectually dishonest as >well. I have pointed out the biasness of Barker's assertions via his >own words and admissions that he has taken an anti-Christian and >radical athetistic stance. For you or anyone else to claim his has no >bias in light of this fact is to ignore reality. No, liar, you have asserted it. Feel free to address Barker's figures (derived from Strong), and all the places the various words are used. >> You should have shown where Barker was wrong, using the same data >> source that he did. > >I showed where Barker was wrong and used better data sources than he Where, liar? You just accused him of bias. If you really think you showed where he was wrong then it should be easy to cut'n'paste into a response. >did especially since he intentionally ignores any and all recognized >data sources for the sole reason they refute his claim concerning the >passages in question. Liar. He used Strong. > >> >>>response shows, you are being not only intellectually dishonest, but >> >> >> Liar. >> >> >>>quite immature and uncivil. As such you disqualify yourself from any >> >>>credibility whatsoever. >> >> >> Liar. >> >> You resorted to personal lies instead of addressing what you were >> told. Thie word for someone who does this is "liar". If you don't like >> it, stop lying. > >I have presented documented facts. You calling them lies does not >change the facts I present. All it actually exposes is your immaturity >and inability to engage in intelligent discourse. Where, liar? You made baseless assertions and lied about somebody who actually bothered to do the work, being biased and used that as an excuse to dismiss it. You wouldn't know maturity or ability to engage in intelligent discourse, if they hit you over the head with a lump hammer. Here's a clue: Use the same Strong that Barker did, and show where his figures were wrong. Look at the sections using those words in context, and see what they are translated to. >> >Your hatred, immaturity, dishonesty and misplaced anger are all duly noted. >> >> How is calling a a liar a liar by the evidence of his own words, >> "hatred, immaturity, dishinesty and misplaced anger", liar? Well, liar? >It is such since you haven't proven the lies of which you accuse. Another lie. I cited how Barker reached his conclusion, in his own words. Which you dismissed using accusations of bias as an excuse. Look up "ad hominem fallacy". >Rather you spew the accusation forth as a playground child would when >unable to present anything substantive. Since you have nothing Liar. I showed you how Barker reached his conclusion. >substantive to offer, I see no reason to continue this thread with >you. The documented facts have long refuted Barker and you in regards Where do they do that, liar? YOU have to refute him. Show where his figures were wrong, that he derived from Strong's concordance. Show where the passages where particular words all translate to the same thing. >to the Biblical passages in question and your childish provocations >are simply a waste of my time and resources. You really are an arrogantly nasty piece of work, not just a dishonest one. >May God bless and help you with you anger and hatred, What "Anger and hatred", intellectually dishonest Christian liar? Fuck you and the God you rode in on. >Carl >my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/ >my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/ Quote
Guest Christopher A.Lee Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 23:04:45 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: >On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 03:01:06 -0700, Christopher A.Lee ><calee@optonline.net> wrote: > >>On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 00:23:10 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> >>wrote: >> >>>"Carl" <saints@nettally.com> wrote in message >>>news:fe373r$ibn$1@news.utelfla.com... >>>> >>>> "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message >>>> news:4MqdnUEZltfqqJnanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@io.com... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> All the theist has to do is edit the god's word to read "Thou shalt not >>>>> MURDER!" and everything is magically cool. >>>>> >>>>> Just interpret the bible, and you can justify anything. >>>> >>>> Actually the proper and most accurate translation of the Hebrew is "Thou >>>> shalt not murder." You could at least be intellectually honest about this. >>>> However if this is beyond your capabilities... >> >>And he wonders how we know he is an in-your-face nasty liar, for >>remarks like this. >> >>In short he's a typical net.Christian. > >: > >I have informed him of his error on numerous occasions, to with no >response. They never explain how their "experts" reach their "conclusion". They say it is and that is enough for them. Instead of addressing Dan Barker's work which explains how he reaches his conclusion, where he lists the most common words for "kill" and how they translate, he dismisses it because of some alleged bias. Anybody can do what Barker did. But instead of checking it and showing where he was wrong, it was dismissed using alleged "bias" as an ad hominem. These guys project their own dishonesty onto us. And having used these personal lies they pretend the reaction is inability to hold an intelligent discussion - which is another projection. Quote
Guest Geoff Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 saints@nettally.com wrote: > And you go ahead and prove me correct. Hey, whatever makes you feel good about yourself and let's you think you're so superior...go for it. What a laugh. Quote
Guest Empty Posted October 19, 2007 Posted October 19, 2007 On Oct 6, 6:39 am, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote: > "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:dM2dnX7dEL0LDpvanZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@giganews.com... > > > Pastor Dave wrote: > >> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:29:41 -0000, Empty > >> <perfect.em...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> pfft... Why the heck can't Christians understand that they are > >>> pathetic, is a more accurate question.. > > >>> //Empty > > >> Your handle is appropriate. > > > Yeah...as in the clip of his gun as he stands over your bullet-riddled > > body. > > What a childish thing to post. > > May God bless, > Carl > my website --http://www.nettally.com/saints/ > my blog --http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/ May God bless, what a childish thing to post... Did your mom drop you when you were a baby? Quote
Guest Abrams1117 Posted October 20, 2007 Posted October 20, 2007 On Oct 3, 4:42 pm, "josh" <jillywo...@abcjillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote: > One of the ten Bible commandments says quite clearly 'Thou shalt not kill', > and I believe Jesus continued in the same theme. > > So I ask a simple question that strikes to the heart of Christianity: why > have Christians defied their god and spent the last two thousand years > killing people either in wars or during exploration or simply because they > disagreed with each other over the way to worship their god? > > Surely it is quite simple for all Christians: Thou shalt not kill. > > Any person who has killed another human being or has deliberately set up a > situation where a human being is likely to be killed cannot claim to be a > Christian - George Bush and Tony Blair are prime examples. > > Please don't tell me that when their time comes killers are just going to > beg forgiveness and then be dispatched to heaven. The place would be full > of former murderers! > > That would make a mockery of the Bible statement. 2 Corinthians 11:13-15: 11:13: For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 11:14: And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 11:15: Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. Quote
Guest Meteorite Debris Posted October 21, 2007 Posted October 21, 2007 Last time that great scribe Abrams1117 <John1117@peoplepc.com> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > On Oct 3, 4:42 pm, "josh" <jillywo...@abcjillywoods.karoo.co.uk> > wrote: > > One of the ten Bible commandments says quite clearly 'Thou shalt not kill', > > and I believe Jesus continued in the same theme. > > > > So I ask a simple question that strikes to the heart of Christianity: why > > have Christians defied their god and spent the last two thousand years > > killing people either in wars or during exploration or simply because they > > disagreed with each other over the way to worship their god? > > > > Surely it is quite simple for all Christians: Thou shalt not kill. > > > > Any person who has killed another human being or has deliberately set up a > > situation where a human being is likely to be killed cannot claim to be a > > Christian - George Bush and Tony Blair are prime examples. > > > > Please don't tell me that when their time comes killers are just going to > > beg forgiveness and then be dispatched to heaven. The place would be full > > of former murderers! > > > > That would make a mockery of the Bible statement. > > 2 Corinthians 11:13-15: > 11:13: For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming > themselves into the apostles of Christ. > 11:14: And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel > of light. > 11:15: Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be > transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be > according to their works. What does this prove. Nothing besides there being some sort of schism. The texts by the other schisms were not included in the bible so lo and be hold the "history" of the early church schisms is written by the victors who painted themselves as angels and their adversaries as satanic. Why Ashrams, should I care for some schismatic propaganda? -- Remove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2009 Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire Quote
Guest stoney Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 00:42:42 +0100, "josh" <jillywoods@abcjillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote: >One of the ten Bible commandments says quite clearly 'Thou shalt not kill', >and I believe Jesus continued in the same theme. > >So I ask a simple question that strikes to the heart of Christianity: why >have Christians defied their god and spent the last two thousand years >killing people either in wars or during exploration or simply because they >disagreed with each other over the way to worship their god? > >Surely it is quite simple for all Christians: Thou shalt not kill. > >Any person who has killed another human being or has deliberately set up a >situation where a human being is likely to be killed cannot claim to be a >Christian - George Bush and Tony Blair are prime examples. > >Please don't tell me that when their time comes killers are just going to >beg forgiveness and then be dispatched to heaven. The place would be full >of former murderers! > > That would make a mockery of the Bible statement. Which is well deserved-from beginning to end. Quote
Guest stoney Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 01:07:22 +0100, "kingdoodlesquat" <neggerscheggers@negatseacatspam.com> wrote: > >"josh" <jillywoods@abcjillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message >news:t4adneLrgJ9iupnaRVnyuwA@eclipse.net.uk... >> One of the ten Bible commandments says quite clearly 'Thou shalt not >kill', >> and I believe Jesus continued in the same theme. >> >> So I ask a simple question that strikes to the heart of Christianity: why >> have Christians defied their god and spent the last two thousand years >> killing people either in wars or during exploration or simply because they >> disagreed with each other over the way to worship their god? >> >> Surely it is quite simple for all Christians: Thou shalt not kill. >> >> Any person who has killed another human being or has deliberately set up a >> situation where a human being is likely to be killed cannot claim to be a >> Christian - George Bush and Tony Blair are prime examples. >> >> Please don't tell me that when their time comes killers are just going to >> beg forgiveness and then be dispatched to heaven. The place would be full >> of former murderers! >> >> That would make a mockery of the Bible statement. >> >> > >Laughingly, ultra theist duke was involved in the manufacture of weapons - >but he gets around this little inconvenience by suggesting that he did >exactly what his country told him to do. But this also has a caveat because >he thinks that his god talks the US president regarding war. I like the idea >the we have to live our lives in complete slavery & obedience to this god >who lays down the commandments & as soon as he loses his temper, its all >fire & brimstone & hell for eternity. How more theists don't end up in the >loony bin trying to resolve these contradictions they so firmly believe in >is beyond me. Compartmental capacity. Quote
Guest stoney Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 13:15:36 -0400, "Carl" <saints@nettally.com> wrote: > >"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message >news:4MqdnUEZltfqqJnanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@io.com... >> >> >> All the theist has to do is edit the god's word to read "Thou shalt not >> MURDER!" and everything is magically cool. >> >> Just interpret the bible, and you can justify anything. >> > >Actually the proper and most accurate translation of the Hebrew is "Thou >shalt not murder." You could at least be intellectually honest about this. >However if this is beyond your capabilities... Yes, Carl, such is beyond your capabilities. Don't worry, myraid other superstitious people have the same problem. >The Hebrew word used in the verse is "ratsach" which means "murder" >according to Thayer's Greek Lexicon and Brown Driver & Briggs Hebrew >Lexicon. Also New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded >Greek-Hebrew Dictionary defines it as "murder" as well. > >May God bless, There is no 'God,' oh mental toddler. >Carl >my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/ >my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/ > Quote
Guest stoney Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:49:37 -0700, Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote: >On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 13:15:36 -0400, "Carl" <saints@nettally.com> wrote: > >> >>"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message >>news:4MqdnUEZltfqqJnanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@io.com... >>> >>> >>> All the theist has to do is edit the god's word to read "Thou shalt not >>> MURDER!" and everything is magically cool. >>> >>> Just interpret the bible, and you can justify anything. >>> >> >>Actually the proper and most accurate translation of the Hebrew is "Thou >>shalt not murder." You could at least be intellectually honest about this. >>However if this is beyond your capabilities... > >Actually it's not. This is a rationalisation by in-denial believers. > >>The Hebrew word used in the verse is "ratsach" which means "murder" >>according to Thayer's Greek Lexicon and Brown Driver & Briggs Hebrew >>Lexicon. Also New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded >>Greek-Hebrew Dictionary defines it as "murder" as well. > >Dan Barker checked all the words used for kill/slay/etc. From his >essay "Murder, she Wrote" in Losing Faith in Faith, copied without >permission, any typos are my own: > >[begin insert] > >Do the Ten Commandments really say "Thou shalt not murder"? The Hebrew >word for "kill" in Exodus 20:13 is ratsach. (The word for "slay" in >the contradictory command in Exodus 32:27 is haraq). Depending on >which version you use there are about ten Hebrew words which are >translated "kill". The five most common, in Hebrew order (with >translation in order of King James frequency) are: > >muth: (825) die, slay, put to death, kill >nakah: (502) smite, kill, slay, beat, wound, murder >haraq: (172) slay, kill, murder, destroy >zabach: (140) sacrifice, kill >ratsach: (47) slay[23], murder[17], kill[6], be put to death[1] > >Modern preachers must be smarter than the Hebrew translators if they >claim that ratsach means "murder" exclusively. Muth, nakah, haraq, >zabach and ratsach appear to be spilled all over the bible in an >imprecise and overlapping jumble of contexts, in much the same way >modern writers will swap synonyms. > >[end insert] > >He then gives several examples, quoting chapter and verse, showing >both the modern translation and the original word used. It is clear >that if "ratsach" always means murder then the meanings of these >verses become completely different. > >>May God bless, > >May you get a brain and stop being so in-your-face rude. Jesus won't let him. Quote
Guest stoney Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 08:59:43 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: >On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 16:02:56 -0700, Andy W <vorath@mailinator.com> >wrote: > >>On 4 Oct, 23:21, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 13:15:36 -0400, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote: >>> >>> >"Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote in message >>> >news:4MqdnUEZltfqqJnanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@io.com... >>> >>> >> All the theist has to do is edit the god's word to read "Thou shalt not >>> >> MURDER!" and everything is magically cool. >>> >>> >> Just interpret the bible, and you can justify anything. >>> >>> >Actually the proper and most accurate translation of the Hebrew is "Thou >>> >shalt not murder." You could at least be intellectually honest about this. >>> >However if this is beyond your capabilities... >>> >>> >The Hebrew word used in the verse is "ratsach" which means "murder" >>> >according to Thayer's Greek Lexicon and Brown Driver & Briggs Hebrew >>> >Lexicon. Also New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded >>> >Greek-Hebrew Dictionary defines it as "murder" as well. >>> >>> Even these don't take the nuance that ratsach has in this case. >>> Some get closer to the mark with "Thou shalt not commit manslaughter", >>> but even this is not close enough to the indended meaning. >>> Properly translated, it is "Thou shalt not take blood veneange into >>> your own hands" >> >>So if I've understood you correctly, the only thing forbidden by the >>commandment is killing in revenge? > >Proscriptively or apodictically, yes. >But it doesn't exclude further restrictions on killings. > >>All other types of killing are >>okay? > >Not at all. >They are dealt with elsewhere. >It is just that this particular command is restricted to the absolute >prohibition of manslaughter motivated by (blood) vengeance. > >>It's bad enough when it's translated as "murder" since that >>seems to exclude stuff like executions, war, genocide, and anything >>"God commands". > >Quite. >As it is usually translated "kill", that would be lunacy for a nation >that was almost constantly at war, and that had commandments requiring >the death penalty for numerous infractions. >Just ludicrous to the point of imbecility! That's the Abrahamic superstitions for you. Quote
Guest stoney Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 00:23:10 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote: > >"Carl" <saints@nettally.com> wrote in message >news:fe373r$ibn$1@news.utelfla.com... >> >> "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message >> news:4MqdnUEZltfqqJnanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@io.com... >>> >>> >>> All the theist has to do is edit the god's word to read "Thou shalt not >>> MURDER!" and everything is magically cool. >>> >>> Just interpret the bible, and you can justify anything. >>> >> >> Actually the proper and most accurate translation of the Hebrew is "Thou >> shalt not murder." You could at least be intellectually honest about this. >> However if this is beyond your capabilities... > >You mean the bible lies? From start to finish. [] Quote
Guest stoney Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 03:01:06 -0700, Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote: >On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 00:23:10 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> >wrote: > >> >>"Carl" <saints@nettally.com> wrote in message >>news:fe373r$ibn$1@news.utelfla.com... >>> >>> "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message >>> news:4MqdnUEZltfqqJnanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@io.com... >>>> >>>> >>>> All the theist has to do is edit the god's word to read "Thou shalt not >>>> MURDER!" and everything is magically cool. >>>> >>>> Just interpret the bible, and you can justify anything. >>>> >>> >>> Actually the proper and most accurate translation of the Hebrew is "Thou >>> shalt not murder." You could at least be intellectually honest about this. >>> However if this is beyond your capabilities... > >And he wonders how we know he is an in-your-face nasty liar, for >remarks like this. > >In short he's a typical net.Christian. > >>You mean the bible lies? >> >>> The Hebrew word used in the verse is "ratsach" which means "murder" >>> according to Thayer's Greek Lexicon and Brown Driver & Briggs Hebrew >>> Lexicon. Also New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with >>> Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary defines it as "murder" as well. >> >>So of course, all the bible out there use the word murder, right? >> >>Or are you suggesting that all Christians are conversant enough with ancient >>hebrew, and the ancient scripture, to accurately translate it, in direct >>contradiction to what's written on the pages of most English translations? >> >>My position is that most Christians, if they interpret the word as murder, >>do not do so as a result of superior biblical scholarship, but rather as an >>ignorant, ham-handed rationalization. > >Of course. That much is obvious. > >And instead of justifying it they rationalise - in this case by >ignoring the data and accusing the person using it of bias. > >He should have shown where Barker's work was wrong - by repeating it >for himself and showing that all occurrences of "ratsach" were for >murder and that none of the other words used, were. > >But no, it got dismissed for "bias". > >Which even if it were true, make no difference to the numbers and >occurrences of the various words. > >And this is the guy who accuses others of not being intellectually >honest. The usual Christian projection. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 19:03:35 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote: >On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 00:23:10 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> >wrote: > >> >>"Carl" <saints@nettally.com> wrote in message >>news:fe373r$ibn$1@news.utelfla.com... >>> >>> "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message >>> news:4MqdnUEZltfqqJnanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@io.com... >>>> >>>> >>>> All the theist has to do is edit the god's word to read "Thou shalt not >>>> MURDER!" and everything is magically cool. >>>> >>>> Just interpret the bible, and you can justify anything. >>>> >>> >>> Actually the proper and most accurate translation of the Hebrew is "Thou >>> shalt not murder." You could at least be intellectually honest about this. >>> However if this is beyond your capabilities... >> >>You mean the bible lies? > >From start to finish. One of my scores of bibles contains what I consider to be a truth of sorts: "Printed in the United States of America" Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 19:03:35 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote: >On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 00:23:10 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> >wrote: > >> >>"Carl" <saints@nettally.com> wrote in message >>news:fe373r$ibn$1@news.utelfla.com... >>> >>> "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message >>> news:4MqdnUEZltfqqJnanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@io.com... >>>> >>>> >>>> All the theist has to do is edit the god's word to read "Thou shalt not >>>> MURDER!" and everything is magically cool. >>>> >>>> Just interpret the bible, and you can justify anything. >>>> >>> >>> Actually the proper and most accurate translation of the Hebrew is "Thou >>> shalt not murder." You could at least be intellectually honest about this. >>> However if this is beyond your capabilities... >> >>You mean the bible lies? > >From start to finish. One of my scores of bibles contains what I consider to be a truth of sorts: "Printed in the United States of America" Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.