Just like what the atheists are doing. Select the traditions they want and strip religion out.
Not quite. Speaking personally I have no issue with Christians celebrating Christmas and attend midnight mass with my family, so I'm certainly not trying to systematically destroy it at all. Christianity did however clearly move the date of the birth and adopted various pagan customs to do just that. They were not interested in existing side by side with the Roman gods of the time, rather they were attempting to gain as may converts as possible from them.
A large part of most religions is conversion.
Did I say it causes problems?
No, what you did was cast aside its origin and claim it for Christianity. That you don't see a problem with that is the exact point I was making.
Ah, yes they rebel, but in their own way. I probably tried to explain it in a bit difficult way; they don't rebel like in the west. In Pakistan in the tribal areas the generation that is now adults rebelled against their parents through religious and political extremism, but not directly shouting to their parents like in the west.
Seriously I have to say from personal experience of working and travelling in the Middle East over a thirty year period, not to mention working directly with Muslims for many year, you have no idea of what you are talking about.
Are you seriously attempting to claim that not Muslim child from the Middle East has ever shouted at or insulted a parent?
However the penalties limit the amount of possible criminals, because the more cunning may want to avoid crimes that will lead to harsh penalties.
Except they don't, as most criminals simply so not take the penalties into account when they commit crimes. If they did those countries with the death penalty and forced labour would see lower levels of crime. The issue is that they don't.
Source -
http://www.prison.org/english/rpcr4.htm
Yet you replied to my post in which I opposed the view that God doesn't care about animals; initially I said nothing that would question our reign over the nature:
Why quote and reply to a post in a manner it is easily interpreted as it is not meant to: yours is easily seen that God wouldn't care about animals:
Oh, and the Finnish translation might also have changed the meaning a bit. In our language, the word that means 'reign' has a two-way meaning, the rulers rule, but also have the responsibility to defend those whom they rule. The word's meaning comes from the old times when the noblemen, mainly the king ruled the lands and people (in Sweden there was no feudalism), but they were also responsible to defend and also look after (the rights of) the citizens - hence why 'reign' in our language has those two aspects.
I don't know what the Greek version's wording is or the words' exact meaning is, though.
You've got to understand that other languages may have multiple meanings in a word (meanings that in English are the meanings of separate words), or then they may have words that are more specific than their English counterparts. For example, we have specific words for "father's brother" ('setä') and "mother's brother" ('eno'), while they both are just "uncle" in English. Now if somewhere read "uncle" and there is no more specific information, the interpreter must choose either "setä" or "eno". He might as well choose the wrong one without anyone noticing, while making a crucial mistake. That translated back to English would work, because it would become "uncle" again. No-one sees the mistake, but the Finnish version has a more limited meaning than the English one. Similarly the meaning may widen during translation.
That's why our language version has a bit different meaning, and without knowing Greek, we can't know which is more correct.
I see I'm going to have to go back to the relevent verses:
Genesis 1:27 - 30
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
The word in question is Dominion.
Your taken that, converted it into Rule and then taken that and used the 'fluffiest' description of it you can.
Angels aren't mentioned in the Genesis (at least not in the Creation), but just later on. So isn't Satan mentioned - they clearly give hints of a not-so-monotheistic base, but with one God (Yahweh, the creator) above the other divine creatures.
Hate to break it to you, but you can have as many "other divine creatures" as you like, if you only have one God then you have a Monotheistic religion.
A monotheistic religion popping out of nothingness is as likely as a polytheistic religion popping out of nothingness. A single god is easier than a pantheon of gods, because
I'd see it more likely that Yahweh was Israelites' own God/god, but due to the mixing of the cultures, the Israelites took some aspects from Assyrians and Canaanites and vice versa. Some Romans took God, or Yahweh as one god of their pantheon (that was originally Etruscan) from the Jews, somewhat like how they did with the Greek gods.
In Germanic religion, there were some tribes who had extra gods/divine creatures whom the other tribes regarded as gods unique to that tribe. Similarly, some tribes considered particular gods belonging to them. Israelites could have seen Yahweh as their God/god, while not necessarily denying the existence of the other peoples' gods until later.
Since there is and might never be enough evidence to prove it any way, we can just speculate.
Polytheism is actually a fairly straightforward progression in almost all primitive civilizations, what can't be understood (particularly if it is of benefit or danger) is deified. Rains too much/not enough - something must be controlling it - quick give it an offering. Not enough Sunshine to ripen the crops - something must be controlling it - quick give it an offering. Mountain nearby starts smoking and spitting out fire something must be controlling it - quick give it an offering. Etc, etc, etc.
We have even seen examples of this as late as the 20th century with
cargo cults. Yet Polytheism can be traced back to the Neolithic era.
Source -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheism
Monotheism (with a small number of exceptions) came much later and generally arose from the followers of a God rejecting the others in a Pantheon and becoming the one true god, with all the others being false. True monotheism came about before Judaism but well after Animism and Polytheism and as such is a much later development.
Your example of a German tribe is typical of a pantheon of gods, in which your 'local' god or a 'creator god' is seen as the best or most powerful, the difference is that unlike true Monotheism they still believe in the other gods. Just as Zeus was head of the Greek pantheon, yet the Greeks clearly believed in a pantheon.
So yes, given the historical context it is far more likely that a monotheistic religion came from a single god within a pantheon than simply springing into existence by itself.
I don't see your point. Because Christianity has been around for only a fraction of the life span of the Earth, it is logical to stick calling the Christianity-based system the one that is the "common era"? The only thing I see is a logical fallacy.
Which is exactly my point, your saying that I shouldn't use BCE and CE, yet no reason for me not to exists.
You have to agree with me that the contradictions are caused by men - because the Bible was written by men, even the Orthodox Jews and Catholics agree with that it was written by men.
The only thing that the Old Testament says having come from God himself are the Ten Commandments. Now they don't conflict with the New Testament much, do they?
My exact point. Every part of it (including the 10 commandments) was written down by men, nothing other than that has been proven.
We also know that its been re-written and interpreted by men over the years.
As such why should we trust any of it?
Lutheran/Protestant/Anglican church ≠ Luther himself. The view of the churches is to follow their time, with the core of the belief still in God.
Does the Great Commandment contradict with the Ten Commandments, unless you are a maniac who wants all what the Ten Commandments forbid to be done to you? And of course the Great Commandment isn't Christian in its origin, because it had already been surfaced, eg. in that line from Talmud I quoted, but probably in other cultures too. Anyway, what makes it important in Christianity is that it is the Great Commandment of Christianity
Hey I'm not the one who has been banging on about the NT overruling the OT, that's been you. That you seem to be having a bit of mission creep about the degree of that is not my issue (I seem to recall you taking some issue with the 10 commandments a while ago - I will have to check however).
My point has consistently been that the bible is inconsistent and flawed.
Also, to regard the sin, who over 2 years old has never thought or said anything bad about others? But finally sin is not that important, because it is forgiven through belief. The Orthodoxes think there is a (rain)storm in which you go after death which washes the sins away, similarly the Catholics have the purgatory where the sins are burnt away. The (mainstream) Protestants think they are forgiven in a way or other, not sure if it is a storm or fire or whatever.
No sin starts at birth. Your books rules not mine.
