0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Funny one of the Monks was telling me that, Hitler took the name ´third reich´ From revelations to, The thrid reign, Clearly Hitler thought he was Jesus or somthing and that his mission was to bring into being in a new era: It is quite clear that if hitler worked for anyone it was Satan- and the politics of hate!
Quote from: jolly on 25/06/2007 14:41:27Funny one of the Monks was telling me that, Hitler took the name ´third reich´ From revelations to, The thrid reign, Clearly Hitler thought he was Jesus or somthing and that his mission was to bring into being in a new era: It is quite clear that if hitler worked for anyone it was Satan- and the politics of hate! Just for clarification: The Nazi Party used the terms Drittes Reich (Third Empire) and Tausendjähriges Reich ("Thousand-Year Realm/Empire") to describe the greater German ethnic empire they wished to forge. The term Third Reich referred to the Nazi recognition of former incarnations of important German realms, the first being the Holy Roman Empire and the second being the German Empire) while alluding to envisioned future prosperity and the new nation's alleged destiny. The Holy Roman Empire, deemed the First Realm or First Reich of the German people, had lasted almost a thousand years from 843 to 1806. The term Tausendjähriges Reich was used only briefly and dropped from propaganda in 1939, officially to avoid mockery and possibly to even avoid religious connotations. In speeches, books and articles about the Third Reich after 8 May 1945, the phrase has taken on a new meaning and the early Nazi professions about a "thousand year" empire are often juxtaposed against the twelve years that the Third Reich actually existed.Also: Hitler advocated a "Positive Christianity", a belief system purged from what he objected to in traditional Christianity, and which reinvented Jesus as a fighter against the Jews. It's almost certain that he believed in Christ, but it's highly unlikely that he thought himself to be Jesus.
Fram an aethiest standpoint I see the same problems that Jolly does. An example I saw recently was an American fundamentalist Christian organisation that was funding a radical Jewish organisation who were trying to take teh Temple Mount back from the Muslims. The American's were happy to admit that there only interest was in trying to start a war, which they predicted the Jews woud win, because this was a necessary step to the second coming of Christ!Can anyone see how this sort of behaviour can possibly be considered moral?And yes, I'm agreeing with Jolly too! 
The story of Noah is good in that both the idea there was a flood and that there was as Noah and family and God and warlords... is all equally hard to believe from a science standpoint.
The version of the flood in the (much older) mesopotamian 'Gilgamesh' stories is much more fun. The Gods send the flood to kill all the people, not because they are corrupt or evil but simply because they are making too much noise!
OK, since you mention it, here's a qupote from that site "How many stalls and horsemen?KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem."
The bible says that there were 40,000 and that there were 4000.Only one of these can have been right and so there's a contradiction. At most one of those can be the work of a perfect God, but they are both in the bible.As you say, there are scores of others but 1 is quite enough to prove that the Bible is imperfect and, therefore, not the Word of a perfect God. Either He's not perfect, or the Bible isn't His word.As you say, that site also gives the "explanations" but there aren't that many; here's the list."Of the various methods I've seen to "explain" these:1. "That is to be taken metaphorically" In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD--which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...
2. "There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b," so they decide there was "a" AND "b"--which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b." But it doesn't say there was "a+b+litle green martians." This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e. only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining they they don't mind adding to verses.
3. "It has to be understood in context" I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set is suppose to be taken as THE TRUTH when if you add more to it it suddenly becomes "out of context." How many of you have goten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown up at you?
4. "there was just a copying/writing error" This is sometimes called a "transcription error," as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or that what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said when he thought it was said. And that's right--I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the bible itself is wrong.
5. "That is a miracle." Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact.6. "God works in mysterious ways" A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the bible SAYS and what they WISH it said." Did you notice that it was poining out that these "explanations" don't work?
God's word is a kind of perfect. But 400 or 4000 is a latter transcriber's error most probably. Must check and see if Hebrews has a decimal system.With me personally I don't need to check, because of spiritual experiences and more difficult contradictions like Mary's ancestry in Matthew and Luke. One is actually Jospeh's and one is Mary's, Jesus ancestors recorded.The trialsome contradiction for me is, Joel "I will restore the years the locust has eaten." the at least two fold restoration versus "you will be the least in heaven."It has eaten at me suffering me since before I was a Christian.
"I never claimed that the bible was the perfect word of God."I know you didn't, but there are plenty of people out there who think it is. They don't take it metaphorically.When you say "Not really sure whet your getting at here. Only fundamentalists act so stupidly, it is quite arrogant to say what I believe is the total truth and if you don't believe me your evil, where is the humility there?" you are perfectly correct; unfortunately the fundamentalists do exist.
They have no humillity (after all, why should they- from their point of view, they are the only ones who are right).
"Come on, true scholars of the bible know the realities."No 2 of them seem to agree what they are."I wonder why you follow or believe anything at all. "Generally, I believe things for which there is evidence. If there is no evidence I usually say I don't know. If new evidence overturns a belief of mine then I accept that and change what I believe. These collectively are the sort of things that distinguish science from religion.
Dear Jolly, Titanscape, Bored Chemist & Co. -I have problems with religious nutters here in the USA. Their big thing here is that they want public schools to stop teaching Darwin and start teaching "creation science". I would rather kiss a pig than see that happen.
I think it is a mistake to argue with them over contradictions and paradoxes in the Bible. They don't get it when you do that. We have a writer here named Bart Ehrman who likes to analyze and point out the copy errors and the made-up stories in the bible that were done over the centuries by copyists before the printing press, and the various gospels that the early christian bigwigs decided were inconsistent with their message, and therefore jettisoned. It's fascinating stuff. In a way this whole thing is a bit like those optical illusion drawings. Is it a fish or the nose on an elephant? Depends on your point of view- and there is no changing your mind from one view to the other.