• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Are Satanic Temple’s Seven Tenets Morally Superior To Ten Commandments?

Anyone that believes that stories in the Bible like the flood and creation describe literal events is a fundamentalist. For example, science cannot prove nor disprove the virgin birth. Granted, such an event would be extraordinarily unlikely in terms of everything we know in regards to biology, but as we do not have a DNA sample from Jesus, we cannot say it never happened.

In contrast, science can not only say the account of a global flood is physically impossible, we can also say that everything we know about the earth's geology, physics, biology, and genetics tells us it never happened. If there was indeed a global flood and all the animal species were collected on a giant ark, there would be incontrovertible evidence for that flood across the globe - so much so that it would not even be remotely controversial among geologists. Moreover, the evidence for all animal species being reduced to breeding pairs on the ark would be written in the genome of every animal on earth. Yet it isn't. Moreover, if we take a literal account of dating the flood according to scripture, its occurred 4,285 years ago, yet the oldest living tree is 4,845 years old, thus it would have been 600 years old at the time of the flood yet somehow lived through being submerged under a great global flood.

Point being, the flood isn't just a myth, its absolute nonsense.

How did the carnivores not eat everything else on the ark?
 
The time of the end would be marked by

Worldwide preaching of the “good news of [God’s] kingdom.”—Matthew 24:14.

Warfare, even on a global scale.—Matthew 24:7; Revelation 6:4.

Food shortages.—Matthew 24:7.

Great earthquakes.—Luke 21:11.

Terrible diseases.—Luke 21:11.

Hatred and violence.—Matthew 24:10, 12.

Greedy, self-centered people and money lovers.—2 Timothy 3:1-5.


Can you get any more vague? In the days of the plague in the Middle Ages believers thought that the end had come. I predict that in the future there will be earthquakes, famine, wars, diseases.

It is good that hurricanes were not mentioned, or we wold be talking more about this.
 
I get mine though thought, compassion, and empathy, conditioned by social expectations. Most people are like that. Some are merely social expectations.. since they appear to lack compassion and empathy, and don't think about it.

Common sense should be thrown in there too.
 
The same Bible that has the Ten Commandments in it also says that people who pick up fire wood on the Sabbath day should be stoned to death.

Anyone who does that in the USA will have a legal problem.

:lol:
 
Last edited:
The same Bible that has the Ten Commandments in it also says that people who pick up fire wood on the Sabbath day should be stoned to death.

Anyone who does that in the USA will have a legal problem.

:lol:

Even though Christians today are not under the Old Law Covenant that was made between God and the nation of Israel nor are we commanded to observe the Sabbath any longer, there was a distinct purpose in God giving them the law to observe...

Benefits and Importance of the Sabbath. The desisting from all labor and observing other God-given Sabbath requirements not only gave rest to the body but, more important, provided opportunity for the individual to demonstrate his faith and obedience through Sabbath observance. It gave parents the opportunity to inculcate God’s laws and commandments in the minds and hearts of their children. (De 6:4-9) The Sabbath was customarily occupied with taking in knowledge of God and attending to spiritual needs, as is indicated by the reply of the Shunammite woman’s husband when she requested permission to go to see Elisha, the man of God: “Why are you going to him today? It is not a new moon nor a sabbath.” (2Ki 4:22, 23) And the Levites who were scattered throughout the land doubtless took advantage of the Sabbath to teach the Law to the people of Israel.—De 33:8, 10; Le 10:11.

It was important for individual Israelites to remember to keep the Sabbath because violation was regarded as rebellion against Jehovah and was punished by death. (Ex 31:14, 15; Nu 15:32-36) The same principle applied to the nation. Their observing the entire sabbath system, days and years, in a wholehearted way was a vital factor to their continued existence as a nation on their God-given land. Their failure to honor the Sabbath laws contributed largely to their downfall and the desolation of the land of Judah for 70 years to make up for the Sabbaths violated.—Le 26:31-35; 2Ch 36:20, 21.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003778?q=the+sabbath&p=par
 
The only real Christian died on the cross.

Actually he died on a stake...and his followers or disciples ARE considered Christians...
 
It is good that hurricanes were not mentioned, or we wold be talking more about this.

Actually, if you consider all the natural disasters we've had and are having...earthquakes are just one...
 
Actually, if you consider all the natural disasters we've had and are having...earthquakes are just one...

Natural disasters have nothing to do with imaginary beings. They have occurred all through the long history of the Earth.
 
Tell that story to the Christians who believe that he died nailed to a cross.

I do...every chance I get...among the other lies some of them have been taught...;)
 
I haven't heard that one before. Why do you think this?

A brief explanation of why it was not a cross but a stake...

Was It a Cross?

According to Greek scholar W. E. Vine, staurosʹ “denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake. On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroō, to fasten to a stake or pale, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross.”

The Imperial Bible-Dictionary says that the word staurosʹ “properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling a piece of ground.” The dictionary continues: “Even amongst the Romans the crux (Latin, from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole.” Thus, it is not surprising that The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “Certain it is, at any rate, that the cross originally consisted of a simple vertical pole, sharpened at its upper end.”

There is another Greek word, xyʹlon, that Bible writers used to describe the instrument of Jesus’ execution. A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament defines xyʹlon as “a piece of timber, a wooden stake.” It goes on to say that like staurosʹ, xyʹlon “was simply an upright pale or stake to which the Romans nailed those who were thus said to be crucified.”

In line with this, we note that the King James Version reads at Acts 5:30: “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree [xyʹlon].” Other versions, though rendering staurosʹ as “cross,” also translate xyʹlon as “tree.” At Acts 13:29, The Jerusalem Bible says of Jesus: “When they had carried out everything that scripture foretells about him they took him down from the tree [xyʹlon] and buried him.”

In view of the basic meaning of the Greek words staurosʹ and xyʹlon, the Critical Lexicon and Concordance, quoted above, observes: “Both words disagree with the modern idea of a cross, with which we have become familiarised by pictures.” In other words, what the Gospel writers described using the word staurosʹ was nothing like what people today call a cross. Appropriately, therefore, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures uses the expression “torture stake” at Matthew 27:40-42 and in other places where the word staurosʹ appears. Similarly, the Complete Jewish Bible uses the expression “execution stake.”

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011170?q=cross&p=par
 
Do the details of the myth matter?
 
A brief explanation of why it was not a cross but a stake...



https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011170?q=cross&p=par

The problem with all of that is that there was no Koine word for "cross" as an instrument of execution, or even as a monument, when the Romans moved eastward. The word "stauros" was adapted to mean "cross" in that sense. Of course, we don't know just how Jesus was crucified (and to be clear, I don't think the gospel stories of the crucifixion are historical events), so it's possible he was crucified on a stake. However, the historical and archaeological evidence tells us it is more likely the Romans used a cross in the traditional Calvary configuration, a St. Andrew's cross (a big X), or a tree.

The article you've posted ignores too many linguistic and archaeological issues to be believable. Vine's work, while good for its time, is rather outdated (for example, he traces the origin of the cross, as a symbol, to the cults of the god Tammuz. We now know it is millennia older than that). As such, it should not be relied upon to base a philological or linguistic argument. For example, Thayer's Greek Lexicon recognizes the use of stauros to mean "cross." It even provides some helpful, if brief, historical information--the primary or original meaning, traceable to Homer and later Xenophon (who invented Koine Greek), was indeed a stake. However, the word came to be adapted to mean "cross" as a result of Roman incursions into the Greek-speaking East.

The same phenomenon is common in all languages. As a prime example, go find any dictionary of English from the 1930s and look up the word "computer." What you will find there will be quite different from what you would find in a contemporary dictionary.
 
The problem with all of that is that there was no Koine word for "cross" as an instrument of execution, or even as a monument, when the Romans moved eastward. The word "stauros" was adapted to mean "cross" in that sense. Of course, we don't know just how Jesus was crucified (and to be clear, I don't think the gospel stories of the crucifixion are historical events), so it's possible he was crucified on a stake. However, the historical and archaeological evidence tells us it is more likely the Romans used a cross in the traditional Calvary configuration, a St. Andrew's cross (a big X), or a tree.

The article you've posted ignores too many linguistic and archaeological issues to be believable. Vine's work, while good for its time, is rather outdated (for example, he traces the origin of the cross, as a symbol, to the cults of the god Tammuz. We now know it is millennia older than that). As such, it should not be relied upon to base a philological or linguistic argument. For example, Thayer's Greek Lexicon recognizes the use of stauros to mean "cross." It even provides some helpful, if brief, historical information--the primary or original meaning, traceable to Homer and later Xenophon (who invented Koine Greek), was indeed a stake. However, the word came to be adapted to mean "cross" as a result of Roman incursions into the Greek-speaking East.

The same phenomenon is common in all languages. As a prime example, go find any dictionary of English from the 1930s and look up the word "computer." What you will find there will be quite different from what you would find in a contemporary dictionary.

Regardless of whether it was a cross or a stake, would you wear the instrument...say a gun or a knife...used to kill your loved one around your neck...or hang it on your wall...or make the sign of it across your chest while praying? I think not...according to Scripture, that would be nothing more than an image, which the Bible condemns using in your worship...
 
All Christians ignore large parts of the Bible.
 
I tend to agree with you but so far no one has been able to prove God exists or doesn't exist.
Do you have any ironclad proof?

Yes.
But I'm not going to show you! :)
 
Why should any god have to exist would be a better question.

To enjoy in mad glee you puzzled confusion or to use those parts of the matter of the universe of which we are preforming the important transformational function of heating up the planet to achieve for a great species wonderous things that would blow our minds that we wouldn't understand in any event with our pea head brains.
 
Back
Top Bottom