Kimyal Tribe of West Papua getting NT for first time

General discussions
Feardorcha
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1266
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 4:28 pm

Re: Kimyal Tribe of West Papua getting NT for first time

Post by Feardorcha » Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:25 pm

When the spirit moves me. :)
Ephesians2:8/9
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 2:12 am

Re: Kimyal Tribe of West Papua getting NT for first time

Post by Ephesians2:8/9 » Wed Apr 27, 2011 2:16 am

Feardorcha wrote:Would that they who cometh forth unto this forum wouldst use unto us the word of the English language of the 21st century for then in truth it would be shown unto us what the crap it is of which they speaketh.
Well, at least two of your own, Dawkins and Hitchens, lauded it recently. Said Christopher Hitchens, "Though I am sometimes reluctant to admit it, there really is something 'timeless' in the Tyndale/King James synthesis," in his commentary featured in Vanity Fair.

I have access to all the bible translations but I, like Christopher Hitchens (I pray he recovers from his illness) appreciate the timeless quality of the King James. Happy 400th anniversary!
Ephesians2:8/9
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 2:12 am

Re: Kimyal Tribe of West Papua getting NT for first time

Post by Ephesians2:8/9 » Wed Apr 27, 2011 2:34 am

oldrnwisr wrote: Jesus actually commands his disciples to kill unbelievers.

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me"

Luke 19:27
Actually, Jesus does not command his disciples to kill unbelievers here. Jesus is using a parable here to teach, among other things that those who will not be governed by the grace of God will be destroyed by the wrath of God.
Ephesians2:8/9
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 2:12 am

Re: Kimyal Tribe of West Papua getting NT for first time

Post by Ephesians2:8/9 » Wed Apr 27, 2011 2:53 am

funkyderek wrote: Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth.
I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Matthew 10:34
You're taking this out of context.

Jesus isn't speaking about an actual sword. The sword of violence has no place in the message of the gospel. See Matt. 26:52, Luke 9;51-56, and Luke 10:1-11.

Matthew 10 talks about the results of being obedient to the command of Jesus that we are to go into all the world to preach his message. Some people will listen and accept it but sadly many will reject it and react violently.
People will hate us for the message of repentance that we are commanded to take into all the world. We will be hated because the gospel message calls people from turn from evil to light and because the gospel exposes their evil deeds and motives. For many Christians it will mean that even their own loved-ones and "best friends" will turn against them.

The sword that Jesus is speaking of is his word. God's word brings division (see Hebrews 4:12). It divides truth from error so naturally it is going to separate those who love the truth from those who love the lie. The sword that Jesus brings is not a sword that they are to wield against other people, far from it.

Christians who are used to sharing the gospel are not surprised when some people react violently to the gospel; the bible promises us this will happen.This kind of reaction in unbelievers happens in many countries, sadly. Actually, many persecuted Christians will tell you that you don't even have to share the gospel to be persecuted. The Chinese for example have ratcheted up their persecution of Christians recently for doing no more than meeting peacefully.

I've met my fair share people who become rude and violent when I preach the gospel to them. I'm not forcing any one to become a believer; I'm only sharing a message. They don't have to accept the message but there's no call for rudeness and violence. If an atheist were to come to me and tell me that atheism is a great belief system i.e. religion, I wouldn't get angry with him. Far from it, I'd talk to him in a friendly way.
DaithiDublin
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 6:15 pm
Location: Bray, Co. Wicklow
Contact:

Re: Kimyal Tribe of West Papua getting NT for first time

Post by DaithiDublin » Wed Apr 27, 2011 5:17 am

Ephesians2:8/9 wrote:Actually, Jesus does not command his disciples to kill unbelievers here. Jesus is using a parable here to teach, among other things that those who will not be governed by the grace of God will be destroyed by the wrath of God.
That's just you cherry picking your interpretation of the 'Word'. You're also wilfully neglecting to read what is right in front of you. When Jesus is quoted saying "...bring hither, and slay them before me", whether it is a parable or not the message is clear: do as I say or else...
You prove that yourself in your attempt to explain away Jesus' lack of grace: "those who will not be governed by the grace of God will be destroyed by the wrath of God." How does that fit with the notion of an all loving god? A god of forgiveness? No, it's simply do as I say, or else. A tactic that merely mortal parents are very familiar with, but not one they would use on their own children beyond a certain age. You couldn't say that to an adult and expect love in return.
Ephesians2:8/9 wrote:You're taking this out of context.

Jesus isn't speaking about an actual sword. The sword of violence has no place in the message of the gospel.
The ever faithful 'out of context' argument. It's always ok to preach out of context but never to criticise.
Christians who put the bible up as a moral guide will quote the commandment not to kill, as though it was a new idea hot off the press at Sinai. They also like to quote the commandment to honour thy father and mother, yet just after Jesus' reference to a sword he goes on to tell his disciples that "I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father and mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter is not worthy of me."
God doesn't mind contradicting himself. Not that following his commands is any way to guarantee you'll receive his favour. Just ask Cain...

And just in case we make the mistake of thinking that all this talk of family feuding is mere metaphor or parable, we have Jesus' fine example in the next chapter of Matthew. The Pharisees give out to him for not washing his hands when he eats. "Why do you also transgress the commandments of God by your tradition? For God commanded saying 'He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death'." Supposedly asking why the dishonoured fathers and mothers of the Pharisees are not stoning their children to death.
Was Jesus taking Exodus out of context here? The writer of Mark didn't think so. The same story is repeated there, where they are criticised for "making the word of God of no effect through your tradition."

Jesus makes clear how repugnant is his lust for glory later in Matthew when he says: "And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sister, or father, or mother, or children, or lands, for may name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall have everlasting life."
- Matthew 19:29

It seems pretty clear, if you are not willing to abandon or kill your own children then you are not worthy of God's love and salvation. Any you wonder at our point of view?

You comfort yourself by choosing to believe that the parts of the bible where God is directly shown to be cruel and violent are just parables. Or that these things are not meant to be taken literally. Then I ask you, why would God use such language? If he is all about love then why not just use language that reflects that? Surely God wasn't stuck for words. Surely he would have seen how his words would be interpreted down the ages and come up with some nicer parables.
Ephesians2:8/9 wrote:Christians who are used to sharing the gospel are not surprised when some people react violently to the gospel; the bible promises us this will happen.This kind of reaction in unbelievers happens in many countries, sadly. Actually, many persecuted Christians will tell you that you don't even have to share the gospel to be persecuted. The Chinese for example have ratcheted up their persecution of Christians recently for doing no more than meeting peacefully.
"the bible promises us this will happen." So you would think God could have toned down the rhetoric a bit.

As for persecution of Christians in China, that's another poor example easily refuted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HJaAxDINlY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6s_4rM7yorg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZMwM1XPSAk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n82oyveG0U8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkzvc15_PNg
As yet I have not found a single case of a terrestrial animal which fertilises itself.

- Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
(he obviously never went to Bray)
Feardorcha
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1266
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 4:28 pm

Re: Kimyal Tribe of West Papua getting NT for first time

Post by Feardorcha » Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:40 am

The Garda who prosecuted me for saying 'Fuck off or I'll kick you in the goolies' misunderstood my usage of the old German pfeuckov which means 'embrace' or (in some translations 'kiss'). He also failed to see that 'goolies' was being used figuritively to mean 'jewels' and referred to the wealth of society which I wished to share with the community. Needless to say, he chose to interpret 'kick' as meaning 'a blow with the foot' when of course what was intended was the middle-Irish 'ciochaidhgh' which many scholars believed was a form of 'chloghaidhghebhe' meaning to stroke a donkey.

I feel sorry for God. He really wanted to write like Shakespeare but just couldn't hack it. His Bible I and the sequel, Bible II, is a very poor imitation of the Master and only suitable as a Hollywood script.
funkyderek
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 373
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Contact:

Re: Kimyal Tribe of West Papua getting NT for first time

Post by funkyderek » Wed Apr 27, 2011 11:34 am

Ephesians2:8/9 wrote:You're taking this out of context.
Well, you started it!
Jesus isn't speaking about an actual sword. The sword of violence has no place in the message of the gospel. See Matt. 26:52, Luke 9;51-56, and Luke 10:1-11.
In Matthew 26:52, Jesus famously rebukes Peter for his use of a sword, but read in context, this is because scripture has to be fulfilled by his being captured and crucified. In Luke 22:36, Jesus tells his disciples to buy swords - or were they metaphorical swords as well?

Luke 9 really has nothing to say on the matter. Jesus rebuked his disciples but it's certainly not because he considers fire from heaven to be an inappropriate punishment for such a village, as we can see if we look just past the verses you cited in Luke 10. Verse 12 says: "I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town." Sodom, if you recall, was destroyed by YHWH (the god you worship) by "fire and brimstone"
Matthew 10 talks about the results of being obedient to the command of Jesus that we are to go into all the world to preach his message. Some people will listen and accept it but sadly many will reject it and react violently.
Nonsense. It contains instructions to the disciples of Jesus at that time, and specifically tells them not to "go into all the world" but to confine their preaching to the "lost sheep of Israel". Further it tells them that they won't have time to finish even this "before the Son of Man comes".
People will hate us for the message of repentance that we are commanded to take into all the world. We will be hated because the gospel message calls people from turn from evil to light and because the gospel exposes their evil deeds and motives. For many Christians it will mean that even their own loved-ones and "best friends" will turn against them.
Often Christians are "hated" precisely because they view all non-Christians as evil. They even regard natural family love as evil when it is put ahead of their religion.
The sword that Jesus is speaking of is his word. God's word brings division (see Hebrews 4:12). It divides truth from error so naturally it is going to separate those who love the truth from those who love the lie. The sword that Jesus brings is not a sword that they are to wield against other people, far from it.
The NT writers do seem to like their sword metaphors, don't they? While I agree that, for the most part, Jesus does not endorse his followers to use violence, the Bible is so rife with violent imagery and metaphor that it's no surprise that those who follow it are influenced by it. The Inquisition and others who tortured innocent people in the name of Christ often claimed that doing so would help their victims to avoid the eternity of torture that Christ/YHWH - your god - had in store for them.
Christians who are used to sharing the gospel are not surprised when some people react violently to the gospel; the bible promises us this will happen.This kind of reaction in unbelievers happens in many countries, sadly. Actually, many persecuted Christians will tell you that you don't even have to share the gospel to be persecuted. The Chinese for example have ratcheted up their persecution of Christians recently for doing no more than meeting peacefully.
You don't need the bible to tell you that would happen. Oppressive regimes are by their nature oppressive. Who they oppress depends on their ideology but Christians are hardly unique in being persecuted, and when the regime itself is (at least nominally) Christian, it is non-Christians (or Christian "heretics") who suffer.
I've met my fair share people who become rude and violent when I preach the gospel to them. I'm not forcing any one to become a believer; I'm only sharing a message. They don't have to accept the message but there's no call for rudeness and violence. If an atheist were to come to me and tell me that atheism is a great belief system i.e. religion, I wouldn't get angry with him. Far from it, I'd talk to him in a friendly way.
I could point out that many Christians react rudely and violently to anyone questioning their belief system, but you have an easy out in that anybody who does not behave according to your standards is not a true Christian. All that really means is that we can deduce nothing about Christianity by observing the behaviour of those who claim to be Christians.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead

Image

Image Image Image Image
oldrnwisr
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 4:09 pm
Location: Limerick, Ireland
Contact:

Re: Kimyal Tribe of West Papua getting NT for first time

Post by oldrnwisr » Wed Apr 27, 2011 2:52 pm

Ephesians2:8/9 wrote:
oldrnwisr wrote: Jesus actually commands his disciples to kill unbelievers.

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me"

Luke 19:27
Actually, Jesus does not command his disciples to kill unbelievers here. Jesus is using a parable here to teach, among other things that those who will not be governed by the grace of God will be destroyed by the wrath of God.
Sure he does, at least as far as Luke's gospel is concerned.

The parable of the ten minas in Luke's gospel is followed by the following passage:

(switching to NIV to avoid the wrath of Feardorcha :) )

After Jesus had said this, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem.
As he approached Bethphage and Bethany at the hill called the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples, saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you untying it?’ say, ‘The Lord needs it.’”
Those who were sent ahead went and found it just as he had told them. As they were untying the colt, its owners asked them, “Why are you untying the colt?” They replied, “The Lord needs it.” They brought it to Jesus, threw their cloaks on the colt and put Jesus on it. As he went along, people spread their cloaks on the road. When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen: “Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!”

Luke 19:28-38

The author of Luke's gospel makes it quite clear through the rest of Chapter 19 that the parable of the minas told by Jesus in verses 11-27 is self-referential. The version of the parable as told in the Gospel of Luke is a distorted version of the parable of the talents laid out in Matthew 25. The significant difference in the version told in the Gospel of Luke is that the parable of the minas refers to a king obtaining a kingdom. The later reference to Jesus as king makes it clear that Jesus is referring to himself when he talks of the king and his actions.

One question though? DaithiDublin referred to blood being shed in the name of God or Allah, to which you responded about where that is mentioned in the new testament. Has the old testament been scrapped or something? Did I miss some theological press release? The Old Testament contains some wonderful examples of the moral vacuum of God's character so why are you dismissing those?
"Science doesn't know everything. Religion doesn't know anything." AronRa - WAC 2011
Ephesians2:8/9
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 2:12 am

Re: Kimyal Tribe of West Papua getting NT for first time

Post by Ephesians2:8/9 » Thu Apr 28, 2011 9:35 am

funkyderek wrote:
Often Christians are "hated" precisely because they view all non-Christians as evil. They even regard natural family love as evil when it is put ahead of their religion.
I don't view only non-Christians as evil; I am evil myself. There is no good in me. I can honestly say that I am nothing more than a worm.

We should love God so much that the love we have for our family will seem like hate compared to it.

Another point: our definitions of evil are probably very different so it's hard for us to communicate on the same level when discussing it.
Ephesians2:8/9
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 2:12 am

Re: Kimyal Tribe of West Papua getting NT for first time

Post by Ephesians2:8/9 » Thu Apr 28, 2011 10:16 am

DaithiDublin wrote:You comfort yourself by choosing to believe that the parts of the bible where God is directly shown to be cruel and violent are just parables.
You are assuming I do this. You are wrong. God killed two people in Acts for telling a lie. I believe it and it wasn't a parable.
Post Reply