Let’s get right to it.
One really has to wonder what is in archaeologists’ minds these days as their theories make less and less sense. For example, the following:
The discovery of two Samson scenes in the Huqoq synagogue suggests that it was decorated with a Samson cycle — the first such cycle known in Israel,” said Magness, Kenan Distinguished Professor in the religious studies department in UNC’s College of Arts and Sciences. “A cycle is a series of scenes about Samson, in which different episodes relating to Samson are depicted.”
First off, her definition of a ‘cycle’ makes no sense. It has nothing to do with the purpose for the mosaics and brings to light no new information about the people who made them. We know that the Byzantines loved building mosaics but to call them a ‘cycle’ means nothing at all
Is the Modaba Map part of a map cycle even though only one map mosaic has ever been found?
Second, a cycle refers to a temporary interest or appearance. This mosaics were not made to be temporary but to depict certain scenes the builders (for lack of a better term) found encouraging, interesting and wanted to bring encouragement to the worshipers of that particular church.
Third, the mosaic is a great example of how artist renditions is not a modern trend but has ancient foundations. As far as I am concerned Miss Magness is distorting the mosaics purpose and creation for whatever reason she has. We do not have enough mosaics to make such a label or construct such a theory.
Joel Watts seems to be turning into some kind of bully as he attacks another person for over-quoting his website. I won’t quote from his here as I do not want Joel to attack me :). I do not care how much other people quote my website, if they do at all, as long as they give this website its proper credit.
I certainly do not need to waste my time going after people for such a minor offense and I do not need to look like those corporations who have dumped Paula Deen. To tell you the truth, Watts has very little quotable material
Back to watts here as this is a very poorly worded argument against using scripture to direct legal matters. Basically all he is saying is that God’s word has no right to influence legal matters in America.
If God’s word was not an authority over the constitution then it is not God’s word, The Constitution would not be under God rule. In other words, Watts doesn’t want the laws of a nation influenced by spiritual matters but he is too late for that as almost all laws have some sort of spiritual foundation and can be traced back to the Bible.
Seems as if Watts only wants God when it benefits him and that is not right. All nations need a morality that is superior to a human’s definition because if there wasn’t, then morality depends upon which human is in power and it would be changing all the time.
Plus there would be no real right or wrong rendering any law moot.
I am not a fan of Jim West and I rarely agree with anything he says but from time to time he does make a good point. This is one of those times.
Equality under the law means equality for EVERYONE (including polygamists, Mr President?). If not, why not? What possible justification do you, the Democrats, and many Republicans, and the Supreme Court have, or can you offer, for denying men multiple wives or women multiple husbands? Your inconsistency is showing, and so is your pro-gay bias.
True equality means that everyone gets the same things yet I do not hear Bob Cargill advocating for polygamists or practitioners of bestiality or some other alternative sexual perversion. Why aren’t they? After all they want equality and civil rights for all. Where and why do they draw the line?
Though it should be pointed out that once they draw the line, they are no longer for equality but discriminate against someone. People need to realize that God defined marriage first not man and God declared what was right or wrong, not man. Having the same civil rights does not mean the world is following what is right or wrong but promoting and saying sin is good.
I wonder how the homosexual community would feel if all heterosexuals started to sue homosexuals for violating their federal civil rights. I mean ‘do unto others as ye would have them do unto you’ would mean that the homosexual wants to be sued because they sue anyone and everyone who denies them service, etc.
To me, the homosexual community is very selfish and spoiled. They won’t take or can’t take ‘no’ for an answer and they won’t allow those who disagree with them to exercise their preferences, even though they force theirs on others. Politicians and judges have catered to the homosexual far too much and now they have a monster they have created causing a lot of trouble on their hands.
It is a good thing for them that Christians and heterosexuals do not practice an eye for an eye.
#5. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2013/06/mind-changing-as-religious-imperative.htm l
McGrath is always good for examples of what not to do and this is a good one. It is a mis-application of scripture to avoid calling people sinners.
He tells the skeptical people who have gathered outside, “God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean.”
Peter changed his mind, and the church would never be the same.
Despite deeply held religious convictions regarding circumcision and dietary restrictions, he led the way in opening the doors of the church to all who would enter, regardless of ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status or religious background.
We can learn a lot from Peter — not only from his inclusiveness, but also from his willingness to change his mind.
Like Peter, God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean. And that I should not think so highly of myself as to assume I’ve got this faith thing all figured out.
The author of this quote forgets to include verses like: “by their fruits ye shall know them;” or “there were also false teachers among the people” or yet, “while evil men and imposters will go from bad to worse”
If we are not to call anyone impure or unclean then what do we call evil people who practice sin? Do we call them Christian and children of God? Of course not but the author of that post and McGrath fail to see this simple point.
The author of that quote left out some key words to make sure their agenda looked like it was supported by scripture. here are the key words from Acts 10 where the scenario takes place:
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common (KJV)
or as the NIV reads
15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”
There is a big difference between what that author said and what God said. If the homosexual or the rapist or the liar have not repented of their sins and received forgiveness and salvation then God has not made them clean and it is still okay to call them evil, sinners, impure and unclean.
But leave it to McGrath and his friends to distort what scripture is saying in order for them to alter religious belief to include what God hates–sin. God is inclusive. John 3:16-17 make that very clear. Anyone can come to him repenting of their sins and receive salvation WHAT IS EXCLUDED is SIN!
People have to make a choice–they can either have sin or they can have salvation. They can’t have both and if they choose the former then they are unclean and impure.
That is enough for now. As you know I am not a fan of archaeologists as they seem to pull their theories out of their rear ends and have far too little evidence to support them. Magness is no different as a few Mosaics a practice does not make. If she had some written verification from that time period then yes she should say it but since she does not, all she can or should conclude is that the Byzantine builders thought the Samson stories were stories of encouragement or were easier to make than other stories.
Or that they liked Samson over all the other biblical characters or that the other biblical people were used in different areas of life at that time. You see, without something written to honestly describe why something was built, the artifact is subject to any number of theories each with little or no hope of being the truth.
As for the others well false teachers abound even today and even though they claim to be christian, their words and actions undermine their claims. We do get to call them impure and unclean because they are impure and unclean because they refuse to allow God to cleanse them. Doesn’t matter what anyone says or what they say God ‘taught them’ because if they do not believe God then God didn’t teach them anything
Sure God gave them intelligence and brains and they can make some good insights but since they do not follow God they do not know scripture or how to apply it. Their talents are limited by their blindness and refusal to believe God.