• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Modern Faiths

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;1390386; said:
No, I let them back in and act like something happened. The consequences do not include damnation or removal from my presence for eternity. Especially not for something as silly as cursing my name (which each of my kids has already done).
Click to expand...

Bullshit!!! They walk in on the week of The Game wearing blue and gold Meatchicken gear, talking bad about Woody and Tress and you would just hold out your arms???? :cough: Bullshit! :cough:

Rape, murder, treason...sure, but....that? Do. Not. Buy. It.
 
Upvote 0
jwinslow;1391029; said:
What of the concept of heaven?
Click to expand...
If by heaven you mean afterlife, then I believe in that.... that is to say, I believe that there is more to existence than our human bodies and our human life (that is, we have a soul that continues beyond our death). If by heaven you mean some kind of ... Utopian place, I guess... then I'm more likely to think of it as I think of hell - imaginary.

So, after life = Yes.
72 virgins = no.

If that makes sense.

You also said you wouldn't act like everything is fine. To me that suggests that the relationship is not unconditional, perhaps that would be a better approach than "love" (which is unconditional with you) or "welcome".
Click to expand...
Well, what I meant is I concede that there are consequences to behavior and I even would concede that G-d is perfectly "fine" (as it were) to have consequences for our misdeeds. But... if there is unconditional love, then of those consequences, Eternal damnation (refusal to let the child return home) is inconsistent with that Love.

My child can always return home, but our relationship does not continue on without a beat unconditionally, and that could impact whether he's ready to return. There are times he must make amends (as well as me) to repair and repent from what was done.

I will have a everlasting (in Earth terms) relationship with my kids.
I will have unconditional love for my kids.
I will not have an unconditional relationship with them.
Click to expand...

Again, the key issue is eternal damnation. I've tried to illustrate how this idea is inconsistent with a G-d who loves unconditionally. It may well be that G-d is a conditional lover... I don't know... But, it's a serious problem for Christianity, I think. Either G-d is not who they say He is (He is conditional) or the concept of damnation is patent scare tactics meant to control morality... to the extent that these tactics are employed in the Bible, and to the extent that Hell is imaginary, we cannot accept Christianity generally.... and.... more specifically, we don't need a Jesus who dies for our sins as he is unnecessary - protecting us from no particular bogeyman.

As I said in my brief exchanges with Fanatic.... if Christianity brings you closer to G-d, I cannot, and will not, begrudge you that. These discussions are not me trying to convince you your religion is a fake. When I argue against your positions, it is not me trying to convince you you're wrong so much as it is me telling myself "this offer of proof fails" Likewise, I'm not interested in "proving" the "truth" of my position either.... at least not to you (or any reader)... I'm not looking for my own followers. I'm just trying to understand the universe. That's why I engage in these discussions.
 
Upvote 0
Bleed S & G;1391013; said:
This question is much harder one to answer..

If Jesus was born through a virgin, and the blood of King David was on Joesph's side.. how is Jesus a direct descendant of King David?
Click to expand...

If we are assuming that being Joseph's adopted son does count as coming from the line of David from Jesus's paternal side, there is also a tradition of Catholic scriptural belief that his maternal side is also in the Davidic line by way of Nathan:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Genealogy of Christ
"Tradition tells us that Mary too was a descendant of David. According to Numbers 36:6-12, an only daughter had to marry within her own family so as to secure the right of inheritance. After St. Justin (Adv. Tryph. 100) and St. Ignatius (Letter to the Ephesians 18), the Fathers generally agree in maintaining Mary's Davidic descent, whether they knew this from an oral tradition or inferred it from Scripture, e.g. Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8. St. John Damascene (De fid. Orth., IV, 14) states that Mary's great-grandfather, Panther, was a brother of Mathat; her grandfather, Barpanther, was Heli's cousin; and her father, Joachim, was a cousin of Joseph, Heli's levirate son. Here Mathat has been substituted for Melchi, since the text used by St. John Damascene, Julius Africanus, St. Iren?us, St. Ambrose, and St. Gregory of Nazianzus omitted the two generations separating Heli from Melchi. At any rate, tradition presents the Blessed Virgin as descending from David through Nathan."

Also:
Genealogy of Jesus through Mary
 
Upvote 0
muffler dragon;1391110; said:
Bay:

Just one thing to keep in mind regarding Jewish lineage:

Mother determines whether child is Jewish or not.
Father determines tribe.
Click to expand...

Yes, I sort of gathered that in looking into the Mary-David connection, but the canonical response seems to be that when a women has no brothers (as is presumed of Mary) the tribal heritage can pass on to a daughter (Numbers 27:8), which (I'm certainly no expert here, just referencing others' ideas) seems to be part of the basis for a reading of Luke's genealogy via Mary instead of Joseph.
 
Upvote 0
BayBuck;1391106; said:
If we are assuming that being Joseph's adopted son does count as coming from the line of David from Jesus's paternal side, there is also a tradition of Catholic scriptural belief that his maternal side is also in the Davidic line by way of Nathan:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Genealogy of Christ
"Tradition tells us that Mary too was a descendant of David. According to Numbers 36:6-12, an only daughter had to marry within her own family so as to secure the right of inheritance. After St. Justin (Adv. Tryph. 100) and St. Ignatius (Letter to the Ephesians 18), the Fathers generally agree in maintaining Mary's Davidic descent, whether they knew this from an oral tradition or inferred it from Scripture, e.g. Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8. St. John Damascene (De fid. Orth., IV, 14) states that Mary's great-grandfather, Panther, was a brother of Mathat; her grandfather, Barpanther, was Heli's cousin; and her father, Joachim, was a cousin of Joseph, Heli's levirate son. Here Mathat has been substituted for Melchi, since the text used by St. John Damascene, Julius Africanus, St. Iren?us, St. Ambrose, and St. Gregory of Nazianzus omitted the two generations separating Heli from Melchi. At any rate, tradition presents the Blessed Virgin as descending from David through Nathan."

Also:
Genealogy of Jesus through Mary
Click to expand...
Which is why the Gospel attributes the blood of David through Joesph?

Matthew 1:1..
1A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
4Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
6and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife,
7Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
8Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
9Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
10Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
11and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[a] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
12After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud,
Abiud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
14Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Eliud,
15Eliud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Click to expand...

The good 'ol Cathlioc encyclopedia - how well I know ye from my days at Watterson..
 
Upvote 0
BayBuck;1391111; said:
Yes, I sort of gathered that in looking into the Mary-David connection, but the canonical response seems to be that when a women has no brothers (as is presumed of Mary) the tribal heritage can pass on to a daughter (Numbers 27:8), which (I'm certainly no expert here, just referencing others' ideas) seems to be part of the basis for a reading of Luke's genealogy via Mary instead of Joseph.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've heard/read that before.

The limitation of that POV is that the discussion in Numbers is actually about property/inheritance, and not lineage. Once the daughter marries, she loses that property and goes to the tribe of her husband. Thus, it's not perpetual. It's all about keeping land within a tribe as a part of that tribe.
 
Upvote 0
From the Catholic Encyclopedia on Mary..

If Mary were not of Davidic descent, her Son conceived by the Holy Ghost could not be said to be "of the seed of David". Hence commentators tell us that in the text "in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God. . .to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David" (Luke 1:26-27); the last clause "of the house of David" does not refer to Joseph, but to the virgin who is the principal person in the narrative; thus we have a direct inspired testimony to Mary's Davidic descent. [22]
Click to expand...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm

I will have to respectfully disagree with the bold. I think it's clear who was "of the house of David."

Matt 1:16

and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Click to expand...

Luke 2:4

So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David.
Click to expand...

Not Mary, Joseph.
 
Upvote 0
Bleed S & G;1391137; said:
From the Catholic Encyclopedia on Mary..


CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Blessed Virgin Mary

I will have to respectfully disagree with the bold. I think it's clear who was "of the house of David."

Not Mary, Joseph.
Click to expand...

There is considerable discussion over the proper translation/interpretation of the phrase (generally along the lines "as was supposed") in the Luke version (3:23) which informs the Catholic reading of it as applying to Mary, which could in turn explain the discrepancy from Matthew's account of the genealogy.
 
Upvote 0
Interesting thread...some of you really know your Bible. Well done.

Of course, there are also plenty of assumptions that aren't based on anything in the Bible, but just thoughts and feelings of the individual. Then again, such thoughts and feelings are as evidential as 99% of the Bible, itself.

Faith is a different animal. People have the amazing ability to believe just about anything, if they really want to do it.
 
Upvote 0
Jake;1420637; said:
Interesting thread...some of you really know your Bible. Well done.

Of course, there are also plenty of assumptions that aren't based on anything in the Bible, but just thoughts and feelings of the individual. Then again, such thoughts and feelings are as evidential as 99% of the Bible, itself.

Faith is a different animal. People have the amazing ability to believe just about anything, if they really want to do it.
Click to expand...

Very true. Especially out here in the land of homo sasquatchas. :biggrin:
 
Upvote 0
:another day, another Jake philo post/joke informing us why our religious view is wrong even though judging, condescension and correcting lectures are at the core of your complaint about religion :lol:

I guess it helps keep the threads alive :so:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
jwinslow;1926623; said:
:another day, another Jake philo post/joke informing us why our religious view is wrong even though judging, condescension and correcting lectures are at the core of your complaint about religion :lol:

I guess it helps keep the threads alive :so:
Click to expand...
yeah - well the watering can image on the toast made me laugh :lol:
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top