-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Historical Accuracy in Scripture
- Thread starter SalixIncendium
- Start date
Forcing and also coercing people to get the vaccine is against the Nuremberg code that says:
The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
Nuremberg Code - Wikipedia
Firing people, or preventing them to move is coercing, if done to make people accept the shot.
I think it depends on what is the law. But, for example law that says, don't murder, has obviously purpose to prevent murder. I think laws that all people can agree on are legitimate. For example don't murder, no one wants to be murdered, so it is a legitimate law. And in all cases, I think the law should be equal for all so that, if for example a world leader brakes the law, he gets the same punishment as anyone else.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
But that's not what happened as Americans weren't commanded by the American government to get vaccines or they would be prosecuted. Some departments, such as in some areas of the military, mandated them because not to do so would have not only threatened many soldiers' lives because of their close quarters but also might have weakened the military. Private businesses made their decision on whether to mandate them or not.
In order to believe the Genesis account, even though some people would have you believe that there is sufficient evidence to deny it, three premises must be given:
1) Do you believe that God really exists?
2) you think he is interested in humans, his ultimate terrestrial creation
3) you believe that He is directly responsible for the production of the Bible (in its original ideas)
The Messiah is not a leader Jews will produce by themselves, but a person God chooses by Himself and anoints and send/sent ... so their opinion about Jesus is intranscendental.
A relationship with God does not depend on Jews' acceptance, but in God's acceptance. Actually, if God have rejected Jews before, why is so difficult for some people to undertsand that He did it again and that time for good?
Think on this prophecy given to the Jews near 4 centuries before Jesus:
Mal. 3:14 “You say, ‘It is of no value to serve God. How have we benefited by keeping our obligations to him and by walking somberly before Jehovah of armies? 15 Now we consider presumptuous people happy. Also, those who practice wickedness are successful. They dare to put God to the test and get away with it.’”
16 At that time those who fear Jehovah spoke with one another, each one with his companion, and Jehovah kept paying attention and listening. And a book of remembrance was written before him for those fearing Jehovah and for those meditating on his name.
17 “And they will be mine,” says Jehovah of armies, “in the day when I produce a special property. I will show them compassion, just as a man shows compassion to his son who serves him. 18 And you will again see the distinction between a righteous person and a wicked person, between one serving God and one not serving him.”
Why do you think God is talking about a new "special property" if the Jews had already returned from exile and rebuilt Jerusalem and its temple?
He already knew that that people was irreparable.
Last edited:
Nobody in their right mind would consider them as premises that are to be believed on fiat. They must be justified first.
If you must believe in a God and you must believe that this God wrote the Bible in order to believe in the Bible, then you must provide independent reasons apart from the Bible to convince us that there IS a God and that He actually is responsible for the Bible's writings.
I do. Just not your GodThere are enough reasons to believe in God ... all around you.
You just have to take some time to look at the real natural world ... out of your computer.
And no. I do not believe you can get away with just that. If you think there are enough reasons, let's put them up for examination and analysis. I would be happy to work on this is a different thread with others here if you so feel like. As I think we are moving away from the thread topic here.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Been there done that. It refuted the Genesis myths. Perhaps you need to do the same. Get out of your Bible and look at the natural world.
You just have to take some time to look at the real natural world ... out of your computer.
Where did all of the sedimentary rocks come from? As a YEC you are claiming that your God is a liar.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The question is why do you believe in a lying God? You really should answer that question before you make any demands of others.Which one? Yours?
Tell me more.
I am a Hindu. I believe in a monistic ultimate reality that is simultaneously transcendent and immanent in all things and all beings that is called the Brahman. The world we see and the self ie I that we experience in day to day life are a set if conditionally dependent phenomenal structures that arise out of this unitary reality and do not have an independent existence apart from it. The technical term in Sanskrit is "bhava" or modes of Brahman. This reality can be experienced directly by spiritual practices discussed in many Indian scriptural traditions ( including Hinduism but also Buddhism, Jainism etc) and also in less structured form in other mystical traditions throughout the world. I have provided my reasons in many earlier threads, this is not the thread to discuss them.Which one? Yours?
Tell me more.
Now over to you.
Interesting. But I don't see that your deity has any power over anyone other than Hindus.
The God of the Bible has displayed his power throughout all of human history over the world empires that existed.
Can you cite any historical event where your God(s) have changed human history, and there is a record of that historical event outside of Hindu writings?
The God of the Bible has displayed his power throughout all of human history over the world empires that existed.
Can you cite any historical event where your God(s) have changed human history, and there is a record of that historical event outside of Hindu writings?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
He has? Do you have a source aside from the Bible that makes those claims? And from what I can see in the Bible it only deals with the small world of the Hebrews. His holy book may cover a wider set of empires than yours.
You need to provide evidence for the existence of your God and that He was the source of the Bible.
This you must provide independent on the claims made in the Bible since you yourself stated that one needs to presuppose your God and presuppose that He was the source of the Bible in order to believe in the Bible.
Currently there is no reason for me to believe anything other than that the Bible is from some actual God, is there?
What do you think is more feasible: that I show you that my God exists,... or that you show me that the more than 300 million gods of Hinduism exist?
Yesterday I was on an ocean excursion with friends, and a rabbi and his wife (not from my own synagogue but fondly known to all of us) had joined us for the fun and learning experience (we went whale-watching). I had mentioned this thread to the rabbi and I asked him the question: "Rabbi, what's more important in Jewish scripture -- historical accuracy, or the lessons learned from it?" He said: "The lessons, of course," and not just lessons from the Tanakh (Bible) but also lessons from the Talmud (the collection of writings that covers Jewish law and tradition).
I then asked him: "What do you say, Rabbi, to people who tell you that there hasn't been found archaeological evidence for some recorded biblical events?" The rabbi (an elderly man with a mischievous twinkle in his eye) replied: "I say to them: Not yet!"
I'm hoping to get him to join this forum. He also knows some great Jewish jokes.
I then asked him: "What do you say, Rabbi, to people who tell you that there hasn't been found archaeological evidence for some recorded biblical events?" The rabbi (an elderly man with a mischievous twinkle in his eye) replied: "I say to them: Not yet!"
I'm hoping to get him to join this forum. He also knows some great Jewish jokes.
Franz Rosenzweig 2.0
No one has ever defined a real god to me, so in practical terms I don't know what the question means, have no idea what real thing or entity I'm supposed to be referring to, For instance,if I find a real suspect, what objective test will determine whether it's God or not? What is the quality 'godness' that a real god will have and a real superscientist (who can make universes, raise the dead, &c &c) will lack?
Why 'he'? Why not 'it'? Or 'they'.
No, of course not. The bible's roots are in ancient Sumer, for example, and only later in Semitic cultures. The bible is an interesting set of ancient documents, and records the beliefs and practices and to some extent the deeds of an ancient tribe, ancestors of modern Jewry. However, the cruel and murderous god it portrays has a morality no doubt suitable for the Bronze Age but in large part seriously repugnant to me.
The messiah is to be a civil or military or religious leader of the Jewish nation. No Jew of 1st century Judea would recognize the Jesus of the NT as any of those things.
But the NT's starting point is the Jewish god of the apocalypse, a major social movement at that time and place.
Because God had no reason to reject the Jews. They were faithful to [his] covenant, something which the Christians shortly abandoned because it was bad for sales.
Prophecies are political tools, not accurate visions of the future. In all the bible there is not one example of a credible prophecy. Indeed, in the NT, by Mark 13:2 we can date Mark to later than 70 CE. (Indeed, on other evidence, 75 CE or later.)
Why wouldn't a new property be a new temple? Capital? Market square? A different kind of choral accompaniment to worship? Some addition to diet? Why wouldn't it be anything you like? It certainly doesn't suggest a new religion that abandons the covenant ─ Malachi places great stress on the covenant.
Nonsense. That's Christian rationalization, pure and simple. Given an historical Jesus, there is no basis on which a faithful Judean or Galilean Jew of the first century should have recognized Jesus as anything other than another wandering player in the religion industry.
Last edited:
You´re watching too many animations for atheist philosophers