Why Did God Change His Mind? Old Testament versus New Testament.
thedeviliam@hotmail.com
<thedeviliam@hotmail.com>killed.
CHRISTIAN: Jesus invalidated the Old Testament.
ATHEIST: Why do you still use it if it's obsolete?
CHRISTIAN: Well, it has historical importance.
ATHEIST: Well, it _influenced_ history...but that doesn't mean what
happened in it is true, does it?
CHRISTIAN: It's true.
ATHEIST: Evidence?
CHRISTIAN: The Bible. Faith. The flood thing.
ATHEIST: Um, that isn't evidence. None of that is evidence. The Bible
is assertions, religious faith is a substitute for evidence and the
alleged evidence of the flood thing has been refuted repeatedly.
CHRISTIAN: Well, as a Christian I follow Christ's teachings anyway.
ATHEIST: Didn't Christ say in Matthew 5 that he didn't intend to
devalue the laws of the prophets?
CHRISTIAN: Yes, "until it is finished". When he died, his last words
were "it is finished".
ATHEIST: Well...Matthew 27 says: And about the ninth hour Jesus cried
with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to
say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he
cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost." And Luke 23:46
says: And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father,
unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up
the ghost. And John 19:30 says: When Jesus therefore had received the
vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up
the ghost.
CHRISTIAN: Well, they were standing at different distances from the
cross so they heard different things.
ATHEIST: Maybe, but damn--Christ sure seems to have some mixed
sentiments there. Anyway, let's assume that God did want the laws
changed from the Old Testament.
CHRISTIAN: Thank you.
ATHEIST: Very welcome. It's not like you have a chance without a
handicap anyway. My question to you is: why did God change His mind?
CHRISTIAN: Because the world changed.
ATHEIST: So God's nature is influenced by the world?
CHRISTIAN: Um, um...sure. Yes, I mean no, I mean yes.
ATHEIST: So how has His nature changed since the New Testament?
CHRISTIAN: It hasn't.
ATHEIST: Why not?
CHRISTIAN: Because the world hasn't changed in the past two millenia.
ATHEIST: Okaaay. Well, isn't the God of the Old Testament a hypocrite
anyway--with the genocide and the not killing people and all that?
CHRISTIAN: God's a nice guy now. He just burns people forever anyway
because that's what you do when someone you love disagrees with you.
SEARCHER
<JAGOETL@hotmail.com>On Apr 13, 11:32 am, "thedevil...@hotmail.com"
SEARCHER
<JAGOETL@hotmail.com>On Apr 13, 11:32 am, "thedevil...@hotmail.com"
<thedevil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
thedeviliam@hotmail.com
<thedeviliam@hotmail.com>sweet.
> > because that's what you do when someone you love disagrees with you.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
dgp
<vorax.pye@gmail.com>Have you killed a homosexual today?
Shouldn't you be out stoning some adulters to death?
Saving money up so you can rape virgins?
Fighting the stupid liberals that allowed women to vote?
Or perhaps today are you just killing girls who have premarital sex?
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>On Apr 13, 2:32 pm, "thedevil...@hotmail.com"
Excellent post, Devil. I've gone through the same argument in my head
and that was how I came to the conclusion that the Bible is
intrinsically inconsistent.
thedeviliam@hotmail.com
<thedeviliam@hotmail.com>consistent standar--oh, fuck, wait, I forgot who I was talking to.
Chris
<chrism3667@yahoo.com>thread (as if it's likely to make a difference, not for anything, but
atheists are typically very uninformed w/regards to biblical concepts.
That's ok though, and that's what a discussion is all about). God
didn't "change his mind". In short, the NT is the fulfillment of what
the OT proclaimed throughout it's pages. Some refer to this as "the
scarlet thread" which comprises all the messianic prophecies beginning
in the book of Genesis.
As to why Christian's don't (or shouldn't!) hold to the civil aspects
of the old testament takes a bit of explaining. God is a god of
justice, one of his attributes. He cannot refrain from punishing evil.
He's perfect, and perfectly holy. Sinfulness cannot even exist in his
presence. To see God would be to die. But God is also a god of love.
For he so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that
whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting
life. The OT and it's laws are a reflection (predominantly) of God's
justice. The NT (era) is much much more a reflection of his love.
Wishing to reconcile mankind to himself, he sent Christ to be the
propitiation for our sins. The unjust cannot die, or pay for the sins
of the unjust. It had to be someone w/o sin. This is why Christ came,
to live the perfect life, totally fulfill God's righteous requirement,
and to be slain in our place.
I'd love to take the time to say that a little less awkwardly but
that basically sums it up.
thedeviliam@hotmail.com
<thedeviliam@hotmail.com>me: what do you think of Deuteronomy 13?
ZikZak
<ZXBWDNKFYBXA@spammotel.com>On Apr 13, 1:08 pm, "Chris" <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The unjust cannot die, or pay for the sins
> of the unjust. It had to be someone w/o sin. This is why Christ came,
> to live the perfect life, totally fulfill God's righteous requirement,
> and to be slain in our place.
In other words, your god demands human sacrifice....
....because that is "love" and "justice?"
Twisted.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>On Apr 13, 4:08 pm, "Chris" <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Sorry that I probably won't find time to read through this whole
> thread (as if it's likely to make a difference, not for anything, but
> atheists are typically very uninformed w/regards to biblical concepts.
> That's ok though, and that's what a discussion is all about).
Actually in my experience, atheists are more familiar with the Bible
than Christians.
> God
> didn't "change his mind". In short, the NT is the fulfillment of what
> the OT proclaimed throughout it's pages. Some refer to this as "the
> scarlet thread" which comprises all the messianic prophecies beginning
> in the book of Genesis.
Or, they're reversed-engineered to appear so regardless.
> As to why Christian's don't (or shouldn't!) hold to the civil aspects
> of the old testament takes a bit of explaining. God is a god of
> justice, one of his attributes. He cannot refrain from punishing evil.
> He's perfect, and perfectly holy. Sinfulness cannot even exist in his
> presence. To see God would be to die. But God is also a god of love.
> For he so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that
> whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting
> life. The OT and it's laws are a reflection (predominantly) of God's
> justice.
By "justice" you mean "killing innocent people to punish others for
their transgressions", and "punishing all of humanity forever because
Adam and Eve (who didn't exist anyway) ate an apple"?
>The NT (era) is much much more a reflection of his love.
> Wishing to reconcile mankind to himself, he sent Christ to be the
> propitiation for our sins. The unjust cannot die, or pay for the sins
> of the unjust. It had to be someone w/o sin. This is why Christ came,
> to live the perfect life, totally fulfill God's righteous requirement,
> and to be slain in our place.
> I'd love to take the time to say that a little less awkwardly but
> that basically sums it up.
Not really. You didn't explain at all why you think the OT's smiting
and burning is consistent with the NT's peace and love. One says "God
is there to punish you" and the other is "God is there to save you".
You've assumed what God has done in the OT is just, you have no
argument for why it is. The only way people can get this out of the OT
is to fall back to "We can't question God's motives" or "We can't
understand God's motives". It's a bit of a cop-out. So either admit
that there is no logical consistency in the Bible, or just don't
bother arguing at all, since it requires a total logical fallout to
make it consistent in the first place.
Chris
<chrism3667@yahoo.com>sacrifice in general or in any other context is a falsehood.
Someone else giving up their life for you is twisted somehow?
Yes, his love and his justice was displayed in the crucifixion. And
how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation...
Chris
<chrism3667@yahoo.com>On Apr 13, 4:18 pm, "thedevil...@hotmail.com"
<thedevil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Well, you arrogantly accuse atheists of being "uninformed" but tell
> me: what do you think of Deuteronomy 13?
There's no arrogance about it. Just that it doesn't make alot of
sense to "develop" a cursory, if that, understanding of something,
then set about to trash it. And I'll repeat, I don't mind the
discussion, I don't have a problem with it. But the bible is somewhat
of a complex book (have you ever held one in your hand? lol).
The history of ancient Israel is rife with them returning to the
worship of the false gods around them. In other words it's somewhat of
a struggle, then and now, to hold onto true faith. Now, in the
fleeting moments that I have before I'm kicked out of here, D13 is a
warning against going back, and away from the true God. I'd really
like to spend a little more time on the subject.
And frankly there are many other topics in the OT and even a couple
in the new that should be branded as "disturbing". That one doesn't
bother me a whole lot by comparison. These are different times from
those. Those were desperately brutal. Consider that when reading. And
also consider what some of the sacrifices were by those other
religions. You'll really understand whtat twisted is.
ZikZak
<ZXBWDNKFYBXA@spammotel.com>On Apr 13, 1:41 pm, "Chris" <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> he required the sacrifice of 1 man. To say that he requires human
> sacrifice in general or in any other context is a falsehood.
[...]
> And how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation...
So he does require human sacrifice in return for certain favors (such
as allowing us to "escape" his wrath). Thank you for confirming.
Sounds like a protection scheme to me.
Frankly, whether he demands one human sacrifice or thousands, the fact
that he demands any at all reveals him as despicable and vile.
> Someone else giving up their life for you is twisted somehow?
Not at all, but a god who demands it is.
> Yes, his love and his justice was displayed in the crucifixion.
Ew.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>can read the conversation.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>On Apr 13, 4:52 pm, "Chris" <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 13, 4:18 pm, "thedevil...@hotmail.com"
>
> <thedevil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, you arrogantly accuse atheists of being "uninformed" but tell
> > me: what do you think of Deuteronomy 13?
>
> There's no arrogance about it. Just that it doesn't make alot of
> sense to "develop" a cursory, if that, understanding of something,
> then set about to trash it. And I'll repeat, I don't mind the
> discussion, I don't have a problem with it. But the bible is somewhat
> of a complex book (have you ever held one in your hand? lol).
Here's some fair warning: Dev has probably read the Bible and knows
more passages than any Christian you'll ever meet (possibly yourself
as well). Be *VERY* careful about your assumptions of people's
intelligence and understanding of the Bible on this board.
> The history of ancient Israel is rife with them returning to the
> worship of the false gods around them. In other words it's somewhat of
> a struggle, then and now, to hold onto true faith.
> Now, in the
> fleeting moments that I have before I'm kicked out of here,
We have collectively kicked out about three true posters who were
actually just bare-naked spammers. Your contribution to this board
will not be censored unless you give us reason to do so (spamming is
our only true offense).
> D13 is a warning against going back, and away from the true God.
What do you mean "going back"? If God exists as depicted in the OT,
why wouldn't God just show them the way earlier (as they claim God did
after Abraham)? Why wait so many generations to allow all the people
of the world to develop different "untrue" religions, only to show
them generations later that they got the wrong idea. Presumably all
people came from Adam and Eve, so who were the people that broke from
the fold and went to the whole "graven image" thing?
> I'd really
> like to spend a little more time on the subject.
> And frankly there are many other topics in the OT and even a couple
> in the new that should be branded as "disturbing". That one doesn't
> bother me a whole lot by comparison. These are different times from
> those.
> Those were desperately brutal.
So a brutal God is fitting and necessary to reinforce the idea?
> Consider that when reading. And
> also consider what some of the sacrifices were by those other
> religions.
You mean some ancient Mesopotamian rituals?
> You'll really understand whtat twisted is.
I'm not sure I'm following you here.
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>Great piece !
Thanks
Psychonomist
On Apr 13, 11:32 am, "thedevil...@hotmail.com"
<thedevil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
dgp
<vorax.pye@gmail.com>On Apr 13, 4:41 pm, "Chris" <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> he required the sacrifice of 1 man.
1 - god creates humans
2 - Humans disobey god, he calls this "sin" and they are labeled
"sinners"
3 - god brings son to earth to teach humans how they should be acting
4 - god requires his son be sacrificed to appease...umm...himself?
You realize this means your god is completely certifiable. First,
requiring ANY human sacrifice is primative and evil. Second, doing it
to appease himself is technically pre-medidated murder of his own son
for his own twisted purposes.
Wait a minute though, I've heard christians say christ IS god, in that
case it was more of a some elaborate show for the primatives to get
caught up in, because christ really couldn't die (he's god).
Was it all a show for the masses or was it pre-meditated murder?
Please explain this to my uneducated Atheist mind...this bible thing
is rather confusing.
> Someone else giving up their life for you is twisted somehow?
> Any
> Yes, his love and his justice was displayed in the crucifixion.
Your god shows love by killing his son? There was a women that
recently showed the same kind of love for to her four children...I
think society gave her a label -- Insane.
> And
> how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation...
Salvation from what? Salvation from the same guy who made us? He is
saving us from his punishment? That makes no sense, it's like a judge
convicting someone, sentencing them to eternal torture (BTW...that's
fucked up all on it's own), then the judge goes and kills his son and
says..."it's ok, your good to go! You're free, just remember that I
love you and keep thanking me!"
Fucked up indeed!
Stephen
<stephen.p.craig@gmail.com>On Apr 14, 3:32 am, "thedevil...@hotmail.com"
S: The question I want to answered is whether I should considered it
moral behaviour today for me to kill those who pick up sticks on
Saturday, kill people who don't believe Moses' creed, and kill my wife
if I found out she was not a virgin on our honeymoon. I would also
like to know if it is _immoral_ behaviour to ignore God's (alleged)
commands he established for all eternity commanding us to act in this
way.
1. The divine command theory of ethics is valid.
2. The commands in the OT are from God.
3. The commands in the OT have been established for all eternity.
4. I should treat other people how I would like to be treated.
(Principle of reciprocity taught by many of the world religions,
including of course Christ).
Basically, these four statements form an inconsistent tetrad such that
from any three one can validly infer the falsity of the remaining one.
Thus, one can coherently assert 1, 2, and 3 only at the cost of giving
up 4; assert 2, 3, and 4 only at the cost of giving up 1; and so on.
scooter
<scooter.leto@yahoo.com>"why". Why would some all powerful mega-omnixxx god create man to
begin with? Was he bored? And then there's the question as to why the
freakin hell would he go through all this stupid BS with the warnings
and the sin and the saving. Not to mention stranding us on a planet in
the middle of comet and asteroid shooting gallery. Its like a freakin
laundry list of incompetence and inefficiency. To put it mildly, this
guy could fuck up a wet dream.
So the question is "why?" And the answer is "because its just a
story."
On Apr 13, 1:32 pm, "thedevil...@hotmail.com"
Chris
<chrism3667@yahoo.com>On Apr 13, 4:54 pm, "ZikZak" <ZXBWDNKFY...@spammotel.com> wrote:
> On Apr 13, 1:41 pm, "Chris" <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So he does require human sacrifice in return for certain favors (such
> as allowing us to "escape" his wrath). Thank you for confirming.
> Sounds like a protection scheme to me.
>
> Frankly, whether he demands one human sacrifice or thousands, the fact
> that he demands any at all reveals him as despicable and vile.
He himself gave it though. Are you missing that point entirely?
Chris
<chrism3667@yahoo.com>> Seriously, the question Christians should try to ask themselves is
> "why". Why would some all powerful mega-omnixxx god create man to
> begin with? Was he bored? And then there's the question as to why the
> freakin hell would he go through all this stupid BS with the warnings
> and the sin and the saving. Not to mention stranding us on a planet in
> the middle of comet and asteroid shooting gallery. Its like a freakin
> laundry list of incompetence and inefficiency. To put it mildly, this
> guy could fuck up a wet dream.
>
> So the question is "why?" And the answer is "because its just a
> story."
No thinking person isn't going to ask that question at some point.
Let me know when you find the answer, because I've agonized over it in
the past.
If not the bible, and possibly look over a few of the other threads
regarding the resurrection and the virgin birth, then what? Some would
rather just believe in nothing, but I don't feel this is a valid or
worthwhile assumption. But regarding some of the questions, consider
the book of Job. The dude had the worst possible set of circumstances,
and it's no secret that God himself subjected him to them. Then to top
it off, he shows up at the end and asks, in essence, "who the h are
you to question me?" LOL. Talk about adding insult to injury. But the
reality is God is trying to reconcile the world to himself. Believers
often have a rather sorry set of circumstances to deal with. Not
always, but I've heard this referred to as "redemptive suffering".
Christ said that he was the vine, and those that abide in him are the
branches. Anyone who abides in him God prunes, that he/she might bring
forth more fruit - in essence to a better job of showing who He is to
the world around them. Progressive sanctification, progressive
holiness. Any that have experienced his regeneration have to bring
themselves to a realization that he is ultimately in control, and they
have to accept and submit to his providential will and care. Not easy.
And frankly, getting back to the Job issue, if He is God, how can we
question him? Sure, some things beg to be asked, but ultimately the
creation has to accept that he is the Creator, and to ask to the point
of finding fault in Him (I've done it) is absurd.
Chris
<chrism3667@yahoo.com>On Apr 13, 6:20 pm, "Stephen" <stephen.p.cr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> S: The question I want to answered is whether I should considered it
> moral behaviour today for me to kill those who pick up sticks on
> Saturday, kill people who don't believe Moses' creed, and kill my wife
> if I found out she was not a virgin on our honeymoon. I would also
> like to know if it is _immoral_ behaviour to ignore God's (alleged)
> commands he established for all eternity commanding us to act in this
> way.
>
> 1. The divine command theory of ethics is valid.
> 2. The commands in the OT are from God.
> 3. The commands in the OT have been established for all eternity.
> 4. I should treat other people how I would like to be treated.
> (Principle of reciprocity taught by many of the world religions,
> including of course Christ).
>
> Basically, these four statements form an inconsistent tetrad such that
> from any three one can validly infer the falsity of the remaining one.
> Thus, one can coherently assert 1, 2, and 3 only at the cost of giving
> up 4; assert 2, 3, and 4 only at the cost of giving up 1; and so on.
Well, some of your logic seems faulty. I can illustrate by saying
murder is murder - unjustifiable killing, and killing a murderer is
not murder. My brain is getting a little wonky here from exhaustion,
but if you're not in agreement with that statement, we really can't do
business. The are exceptions to most rules. And no, the moral aspects
of the Law of Moses are for eternity, the ten commandments primarily I
guess, the civil and ceremonial are not. This is what the new
testament teaches. The ancient nation of Israel (which never even was
supposed to become a KINGdom, an ancillary point), was supposed to be
the means by which God could reconcile the world to himself (those who
would be willing anyway). But after receiving the Law, and just prior
to, and at almost every other conceivable point, spit in his face. Now
the reality is I'm no better, and I'll refrain from speaking for
anyone else at this juncture, yet his grace in this age not only
covers my disobedience, but ensures I won't be the person at some
further point in time (next week, month...?). The "bringing in of a
better covenant".
Ernst
<a6mech@rocketmail.com>On Apr 13, 4:59 pm, "dgp" <vorax....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 13, 4:41 pm, "Chris" <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > he required the sacrifice of 1 man.
>
> 1 - god creates humans
Why did God create humans?
-Ernst
Ernst
<a6mech@rocketmail.com>On Apr 13, 7:34 pm, "scooter" <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So the question is "why?" And the answer is "because its just a
> story."
Valid question. Wrong answer.
-Ernst
Chris
<chrism3667@yahoo.com>On Apr 13, 6:20 pm, "Stephen" <stephen.p.cr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> S: The question I want to answered is whether I should considered it
> moral behaviour today for me to kill those who pick up sticks on
> Saturday, kill people who don't believe Moses' creed, and kill my wife
> if I found out she was not a virgin on our honeymoon. I would also
> like to know if it is _immoral_ behaviour to ignore God's (alleged)
> commands he established for all eternity commanding us to act in this
> way.
>
> 1. The divine command theory of ethics is valid.
> 2. The commands in the OT are from God.
> 3. The commands in the OT have been established for all eternity.
> 4. I should treat other people how I would like to be treated.
> (Principle of reciprocity taught by many of the world religions,
> including of course Christ).
>
> Basically, these four statements form an inconsistent tetrad such that
> from any three one can validly infer the falsity of the remaining one.
> Thus, one can coherently assert 1, 2, and 3 only at the cost of giving
> up 4; assert 2, 3, and 4 only at the cost of giving up 1; and so on.
Well, some of your logic seems faulty. I can illustrate by saying
Stephen
<stephen.p.craig@gmail.com>On Apr 14, 12:40 pm, "Chris" <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 13, 6:20 pm, "Stephen" <stephen.p.cr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > S: The question I want to answered is whether I should considered it
> > moral behaviour today for me to kill those who pick up sticks on
> > Saturday, kill people who don't believe Moses' creed, and kill my wife
> > if I found out she was not a virgin on our honeymoon. I would also
> > like to know if it is _immoral_ behaviour to ignore God's (alleged)
> > commands he established for all eternity commanding us to act in this
> > way.
>
> > 1. The divine command theory of ethics is valid.
> > 2. The commands in the OT are from God.
> > 3. The commands in the OT have been established for all eternity.
> > 4. I should treat other people how I would like to be treated.
> > (Principle of reciprocity taught by many of the world religions,
> > including of course Christ).
>
> > Basically, these four statements form an inconsistent tetrad such that
> > from any three one can validly infer the falsity of the remaining one.
> > Thus, one can coherently assert 1, 2, and 3 only at the cost of giving
> > up 4; assert 2, 3, and 4 only at the cost of giving up 1; and so on.
>
> Well, some of your logic seems faulty. I can illustrate by saying
> murder is murder - unjustifiable killing, and killing a murderer is
> not murder. My brain is getting a little wonky here from exhaustion,
> but if you're not in agreement with that statement, we really can't do
> business. The are exceptions to most rules.
S: I can accept that the moral command to treat others as we would
like to be treated is intended to be interpreted as a general rule for
which there are exceptions.
> And no, the moral aspects
> of the Law of Moses are for eternity, the ten commandments primarily I
> guess, the civil and ceremonial are not. This is what the new
> testament teaches. The ancient nation of Israel (which never even was
> supposed to become a KINGdom, an ancillary point), was supposed to be
> the means by which God could reconcile the world to himself (those who
> would be willing anyway). But after receiving the Law, and just prior
> to, and at almost every other conceivable point, spit in his face. Now
> the reality is I'm no better, and I'll refrain from speaking for
> anyone else at this juncture, yet his grace in this age not only
> covers my disobedience, but ensures I won't be the person at some
> further point in time (next week, month...?). The "bringing in of a
> better covenant".
S: Psalm 119:151-152, 160 states "All your commands are true. Long ago
I learned from your statutes that you established them to last
forever." "All your words are true; all your righteous laws are
eternal." I am willing to concede that the covenant with Israel has
been superseded. (Because the old one was faulty and useless, which of
course makes us question the assertion that the law is, in fact, from
God in the first place).
The rhetorical question in Deut 4:8 strongly implies the laws given by
God are most moral laws. "And what other nation is so great as to have
such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting
before you today?"
It follows, provided that the divine command theory of ethics is
sounds, that it is _moral_ for me to kill those who pick up sticks on
Saturday and it is _immoral_ for me to let those who pick up sticks on
Saturday live. Do you accept this, logically?
1. The divine command theory of ethics is valid.
2. The commands in the OT are from God.
3. The commands in the OT have been established for all eternity.
4. I am morally obliged to kill those who pick up sticks on Saturday.
I would suggest that the conclusion 4. is inconsistent with the moral
guidelines of the NT, e.g. Paul suggests a more moral relativistic
view in Rom 14:5-6 "One man considers one day more sacred than
another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be
fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special,
does so to the Lord."
According to the OT, I morally ought to kill those who pick up sticks
on Saturday.
According to the NT, I should just be tolerant of other people's views
on the Sabbath - everyone should decide for themselves their own
morals (at least when it comes to the Sabbath).
I would suggest that I cannot accept both the OT and the NT as the
inerrant word of God. If you take into account Mat 5:19, then this
would suggest Paul is the one we ought to disregard.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>You're assuming
0) God exists
1) God is benevolent
2) God doesn't want us to use the intelligence and reasoning faculties
that God gave us in the first place.
I hate this nonsense of "we don't get to question people's views of
God, or to question God's actions". We do get to question everything
we damned well please, in fact. No one (not even God) can stop us from
questioning anything (including God in and of itself). This is
ultimately a cop-out when people state they can't, or won't, question
God's actions.
The bottom line is, most (if not all) of the stories in the Bible are
man's interpretation of God's will (assuming for the moment God exists
in the first place). We're able to question them, just like we can
question any other human finding.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>On Apr 13, 11:15 pm, "Chris" <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 13, 6:20 pm, "Stephen" <stephen.p.cr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > S: The question I want to answered is whether I should considered it
> > moral behaviour today for me to kill those who pick up sticks on
> > Saturday, kill people who don't believe Moses' creed, and kill my wife
> > if I found out she was not a virgin on our honeymoon. I would also
> > like to know if it is _immoral_ behaviour to ignore God's (alleged)
> > commands he established for all eternity commanding us to act in this
> > way.
>
> > 1. The divine command theory of ethics is valid.
> > 2. The commands in the OT are from God.
> > 3. The commands in the OT have been established for all eternity.
> > 4. I should treat other people how I would like to be treated.
> > (Principle of reciprocity taught by many of the world religions,
> > including of course Christ).
>
> > Basically, these four statements form an inconsistent tetrad such that
> > from any three one can validly infer the falsity of the remaining one.
> > Thus, one can coherently assert 1, 2, and 3 only at the cost of giving
> > up 4; assert 2, 3, and 4 only at the cost of giving up 1; and so on.
>
> Well, some of your logic seems faulty.
I don't see that at all. Looks pretty sound to me. Of course there
are unwritten assumptions about what is actually said in the Bible.
> I can illustrate by saying
> murder is murder - unjustifiable killing, and killing a murderer is
> not murder.
That's just the paradox of the liar. You've simultaneously asserted a
statement as both true and false.
> My brain is getting a little wonky here from exhaustion,
> but if you're not in agreement with that statement, we really can't do
> business. The are exceptions to most rules. And no, the moral aspects
> of the Law of Moses are for eternity, the ten commandments primarily I
> guess, the civil and ceremonial are not.
How do you know? This is in the Bible, hence it is (presumably) the
verbatim word of God.
> This is what the new
> testament teaches.
So God in fact DID change his mind, according to this logic. Before,
it was not okay to eat pork, but now it is. They CHANGED. There is
simply no other way to rationalize it.
> The ancient nation of Israel (which never even was
> supposed to become a KINGdom, an ancillary point),
Other than the fact that God anointed their king, you mean? So God
just made a boo-boo in that one?
> was supposed to be
> the means by which God could reconcile the world to himself (those who
> would be willing anyway).
This is totally nonsensical to me... why does an omnipotent and
omniscient being need to reconcile anything to anybody?
> But after receiving the Law, and just prior
> to, and at almost every other conceivable point, spit in his face.
Exactly what are you referring to? Adam and Eve? So we're all punished
for the sins of two people that we're supposedly all descended from?
thedeviliam@hotmail.com
<thedeviliam@hotmail.com>Bibles in my hand. It's just that if you're defending a book that says
to kill people, you should do a little better than "you just don't
understand" with no further explanation.
On Apr 13, 2:52 pm, "Chris" <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 13, 4:18 pm, "thedevil...@hotmail.com"
>
> <thedevil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, you arrogantly accuse atheists of being "uninformed" but tell
> > me: what do you think of Deuteronomy 13?
>
> There's no arrogance about it.
Well, it sounds arrogant to me. It's fine to be content and firm in
your beliefs if you have something to say about them that makes sense.
> Just that it doesn't make alot of
> sense to "develop" a cursory, if that, understanding of something,
> then set about to trash it.
See, arrogance. "I know more about the Bible than you but can't
explain it cuz it's haaaaard."
> And I'll repeat, I don't mind the
> discussion, I don't have a problem with it. But the bible is somewhat
> of a complex book (have you ever held one in your hand? lol).
LOL at your damn self. I'll bet I'm more familiar with the damn thing
than you are.
> The history of ancient Israel is rife with them returning to the
> worship of the false gods around them. In other words it's somewhat of
> a struggle, then and now, to hold onto true faith. Now, in the
> fleeting moments that I have before I'm kicked out of here, D13 is a
> warning against going back, and away from the true God. I'd really
> like to spend a little more time on the subject.
Well, then say something substantial for a change.
> And frankly there are many other topics in the OT and even a couple
> in the new that should be branded as "disturbing". That one doesn't
> bother me a whole lot by comparison. These are different times from
> those. Those were desperately brutal. Consider that when reading. And
> also consider what some of the sacrifices were by those other
> religions. You'll really understand whtat twisted is.
I get the sense you didn't even read my initial post all the way
through. I addressed some of what you _seem_ to be saying already.
thedeviliam@hotmail.com
<thedeviliam@hotmail.com>thedeviliam@hotmail.com
<thedeviliam@hotmail.com>This is necessary from an omnipotent deity why?
thedeviliam@hotmail.com
<thedeviliam@hotmail.com>> On Apr 13, 8:34 pm, "scooter" <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Seriously, the question Christians should try to ask themselves is
> > "why". Why would some all powerful mega-omnixxx god create man to
> > begin with? Was he bored? And then there's the question as to why the
> > freakin hell would he go through all this stupid BS with the warnings
> > and the sin and the saving. Not to mention stranding us on a planet in
> > the middle of comet and asteroid shooting gallery. Its like a freakin
> > laundry list of incompetence and inefficiency. To put it mildly, this
> > guy could fuck up a wet dream.
>
> > So the question is "why?" And the answer is "because its just a
> > story."
>
> No thinking person isn't going to ask that question at some point.
> Let me know when you find the answer, because I've agonized over it in
> the past.
I believe you. You are a very agonizing person.
> If not the bible, and possibly look over a few of the other threads
> regarding the resurrection and the virgin birth, then what? Some would
> rather just believe in nothing,
Oh, an implication that nonbelievers believe in nothing because they
have standards for belief. Good.
Belief does not just mean believing in something with no evidence.
> but I don't feel this is a valid or
> worthwhile assumption. But regarding some of the questions, consider
> the book of Job.
Oh, I do. God is a sweetheart.
> The dude had the worst possible set of circumstances,
> and it's no secret that God himself subjected him to them. Then to top
> it off, he shows up at the end and asks, in essence, "who the h are
> you to question me?" LOL.
Yeah, that was a good one...and some of these people say Borat went
too far...
> Talk about adding insult to injury. But the
> reality is God is trying to reconcile the world to himself. Believers
> often have a rather sorry set of circumstances to deal with.
I wouldn't do that shit to that asshole no matter how much I hated His
dumb fictional ass just to prove something to myself. I guess I'm just
a nicer guy than God.
> Not
> always, but I've heard this referred to as "redemptive suffering".
> Christ said that he was the vine, and those that abide in him are the
> branches. Anyone who abides in him God prunes, that he/she might bring
> forth more fruit
Might bring forth "more fruit"? You don't bring about "more fruit"
after you're pruned, you genius--you're dead after that. Or are you
just describing a gay porn starring Christ and Mel Gibson because
that's what it sounds like.
> - in essence to a better job of showing who He is to
> the world around them. Progressive sanctification, progressive
> holiness. Any that have experienced his regeneration have to bring
> themselves to a realization that he is ultimately in control, and they
> have to accept and submit to his providential will and care. Not easy.
> And frankly, getting back to the Job issue, if He is God, how can we
> question him? Sure, some things beg to be asked, but ultimately the
> creation has to accept that he is the Creator, and to ask to the point
> of finding fault in Him (I've done it) is absurd.
You don't have to accept something that has no evidence to support it
as the "Creator".
Keith MacNevins
<kmacnevins@gmail.com>--
Ambassador From Hell
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>other "omni", that's for sure :)
On Apr 14, 10:16 am, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe we are God. God is supposedly all-powerful and exists outside of space
> and time. Maybe he can exist in many places at one time. Maybe every psyche
> that exists is God. Only God exists and everything that happens happens to
> God. In the end the Godhead is all one in every sense of the word, one, and
> we may decide to go on the roller coaster ride all over again.
>
Chris
<chrism3667@yahoo.com>> Actually in my experience, atheists are more familiar with the Bible
> than Christians.
Undoubtedly this is true. And my question of whether he had held a
bible in his hand was not to infer he hadn't, but was to point out
it's heft (w/it's accompanying complexity).
But this brings up the question as to why an atheist (and any
particular atheist has to answer it for themself) do they spend a
considerable time with it at all.
> > God
> > didn't "change his mind". In short, the NT is the fulfillment of what
> > the OT proclaimed throughout it's pages. Some refer to this as "the
> > scarlet thread" which comprises all the messianic prophecies beginning
> > in the book of Genesis.
>
> Or, they're reversed-engineered to appear so regardless.
Like Psalm 22? There are a good number of them, it's pretty unlikely
that someone would be able to weave a story that takes them all into
account. And that the story becomes a world religion. Just an
observation.
> > As to why Christian's don't (or shouldn't!) hold to the civil aspects
> > of the old testament takes a bit of explaining. God is a god of
> > justice, one of his attributes. He cannot refrain from punishing evil.
> > He's perfect, and perfectly holy. Sinfulness cannot even exist in his
> > presence. To see God would be to die. But God is also a god of love.
> > For he so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that
> > whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting
> > life. The OT and it's laws are a reflection (predominantly) of God's
> > justice.
> By "justice" you mean "killing innocent people to punish others for
> their transgressions", and "punishing all of humanity forever because
> Adam and Eve (who didn't exist anyway) ate an apple"?
Omg dude, all humanity is represented in Adam. I'll wager you
wouldn't tell me you've never broken his commandments. We're all
capable of evil acts, even if it takes a certain set of circumstances
to be brought upon us (and many times even when they're not). But
Christ loved even those who crucified him. And despite the fact that I
don't have specific scientific proof he ever existed, you'll have to
admit His life had a profound effect on the world.
> >The NT (era) is much much more a reflection of his love.
> > Wishing to reconcile mankind to himself, he sent Christ to be the
> > propitiation for our sins. The unjust cannot die, or pay for the sins
> > of the unjust. It had to be someone w/o sin. This is why Christ came,
> > to live the perfect life, totally fulfill God's righteous requirement,
> > and to be slain in our place.
> > I'd love to take the time to say that a little less awkwardly but
> > that basically sums it up.
>
> Not really. You didn't explain at all why you think the OT's smiting
> and burning is consistent with the NT's peace and love. One says "God
> is there to punish you" and the other is "God is there to save you".
> You've assumed what God has done in the OT is just, you have no
> argument for why it is. The only way people can get this out of the OT
> is to fall back to "We can't question God's motives" or "We can't
> understand God's motives". It's a bit of a cop-out. So either admit
> that there is no logical consistency in the Bible, or just don't
> bother arguing at all, since it requires a total logical fallout to
> make it consistent in the first place.
Arguing from a new testament era standpoint, with all the benefits
Christian tenets produce on a society, you're concluding his Laws were
unjust. I've already stated that even those who used his name would
repeatedly fall into a state of decadency. I don't want to burn anyone
personally, but basically I'll offer that the effects of sin and
degradation were so great and debilitating in those times, stringent
measures had to be put in place. And yet despite them, people still
chose to do their own thing.
Chris
<chrism3667@yahoo.com>On Apr 14, 12:44 am, "rappoccio" <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I hate this nonsense of "we don't get to question people's views of
> God, or to question God's actions". We do get to question everything
> we damned well please, in fact. No one (not even God) can stop us from
> questioning anything (including God in and of itself). This is
> ultimately a cop-out when people state they can't, or won't, question
> God's actions.
As to your first sentence, this I never said. I never even said we
can't or shouldn't question the notions in the bible. I see that
attitude alot myself. The point I was trying to make was that some
questions will never be answered on this side of eternity. Not
terribly many, but basically it doesn't make sense for certain ones to
become a "stumbling stone". I certainly have asked the question why
God created everything in the first place knowing the rather dismal
outcome (for many). And MY conclusion as to asking question to which
I'll probably never find answers is stupid - my own conclusion of my
agonizing over them. I'm not calling anyone stupid. I'll compare it to
demanding to know first all the intricacies of a helicopter while an
impending disaster is about to occur, from which the helicopter can
readily remove you from.
Chris
<chrism3667@yahoo.com>On Apr 14, 8:58 am, "thedevil...@hotmail.com"
<thedevil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This is necessary from an omnipotent deity why?
To satisfy his own requirements. Don't ask me. If you're so convinced
that it's internally inconsistent, why do you keep reading it?
Chris
<chrism3667@yahoo.com>On Apr 14, 9:18 am, "thedevil...@hotmail.com"
<thedevil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Might bring forth "more fruit"? You don't bring about "more fruit"
> after you're pruned, you genius--you're dead after that. Or are you
> just describing a gay porn starring Christ and Mel Gibson because
> that's what it sounds like.
The actual word in the KJV is "purgeth". But you know the bible so
well perhaps you should have been the one to point it out. And I'll
leave it to you to examine the nuances of the greek, and all the
implications.
scooter
<scooter.leto@yahoo.com>On Apr 13, 10:04 pm, "Chris" <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 13, 8:34 pm, "scooter" <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Seriously, the question Christians should try to ask themselves is
> > "why". Why would some all powerful mega-omnixxx god create man to
> > begin with? Was he bored? And then there's the question as to why the
> > freakin hell would he go through all this stupid BS with the warnings
> > and the sin and the saving. Not to mention stranding us on a planet in
> > the middle of comet and asteroid shooting gallery. Its like a freakin
> > laundry list of incompetence and inefficiency. To put it mildly, this
> > guy could fuck up a wet dream.
>
> > So the question is "why?" And the answer is "because its just a
> > story."
>
> No thinking person isn't going to ask that question at some point.
I can't read this sentence because it isn't grammatically coherent.
> Let me know when you find the answer, because I've agonized over it in
> the past.
I've already given you the answer. Its the part wherein i said "...the
answer is..."
> If not the bible, and possibly look over a few of the other threads
> regarding the resurrection and the virgin birth, then what? Some would
> rather just believe in nothing, but I don't feel this is a valid or
> worthwhile assumption.
Having no belief is not an assumption. Furthermore, you seem to think
the Bible is the only valid religious text for no other reason than
because "you said so".
Atheism is the rejection of your god assumption. It is not an
assumption in and of itself. ATheists are atheists, not because they
"believe in nothing" but because they are looking for the truth. They
have discounted your god theory because its hopelessly invalid.
> But regarding some of the questions, consider
> the book of Job. The dude had the worst possible set of circumstances,
> and it's no secret that God himself subjected him to them. Then to top
> it off, he shows up at the end and asks, in essence, "who the h are
> you to question me?" LOL. Talk about adding insult to injury. But the
> reality is God is trying to reconcile the world to himself. Believers
> often have a rather sorry set of circumstances to deal with. Not
> always, but I've heard this referred to as "redemptive suffering".
> Christ said that he was the vine, and those that abide in him are the
> branches. Anyone who abides in him God prunes, that he/she might bring
> forth more fruit - in essence to a better job of showing who He is to
> the world around them. Progressive sanctification, progressive
> holiness. Any that have experienced his regeneration have to bring
> themselves to a realization that he is ultimately in control, and they
> have to accept and submit to his providential will and care. Not easy.
> And frankly, getting back to the Job issue, if He is God, how can we
> question him? Sure, some things beg to be asked, but ultimately the
> creation has to accept that he is the Creator, and to ask to the point
> of finding fault in Him (I've done it) is absurd.
I've given you valid questions to answer concerning the validity of
your god claims. Instead of providing answers, you invoke the "you
can't scrutinize God" nonsense. To the contrary, I have scrutinized
and your religion has come up woefully short of any kind of rational
explanation. In fact, you don't even provide an explanation.
The only thing absurd is the fact that you accept, without question,
these fantastic stories that defy the laws of physics and common sense.
Chris
<chrism3667@yahoo.com>On Apr 14, 11:29 am, "scooter" <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I can't read this sentence because it isn't grammatically coherent.
Sorry, I'm human, but I must imagine you caught my drift nonetheless.
To rephrase that question is probably asked by most or all thinking
people.
> > Let me know when you find the answer, because I've agonized over it in
> > the past.
>
> I've already given you the answer. Its the part wherein i said "...the
> answer is..."
Your assertion.
> > If not the bible, and possibly look over a few of the other threads
> > regarding the resurrection and the virgin birth, then what? Some would
> > rather just believe in nothing, but I don't feel this is a valid or
> > worthwhile assumption.
>
> Having no belief is not an assumption. Furthermore, you seem to think
> the Bible is the only valid religious text for no other reason than
> because "you said so".
Having no belief assumes there's nothing worthwhile to believe in.
And yes I do believe the Bible stands up better to different types of
scrutiny then others. Remarkably so. Consider the civilization
produced by all the rest. At the same time I assert (wow and what a
revelation) that western civilization is on the decline, much more so
in Europe then here. But it seems our demise is not only likely but
inevitable.
> Atheism is the rejection of your god assumption. It is not an
> assumption in and of itself. ATheists are atheists, not because they
> "believe in nothing" but because they are looking for the truth. They
> have discounted your god theory because its hopelessly invalid.
Well I think it would be accurate to say an agnostic is likely more
of a truth seeker than an atheist. To put it another way, an atheist
has a greater assertion that there is no god then an agnostic.
scooter
<scooter.leto@yahoo.com>On Apr 14, 1:15 pm, "Chris" <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 11:29 am, "scooter" <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I can't read this sentence because it isn't grammatically coherent.
>
> Sorry, I'm human, but I must imagine you caught my drift nonetheless.
> To rephrase that question is probably asked by most or all thinking
> people.
Actually, I didn't know what you meant. Thats why I responded by
saying I didn't know what you meant.
>
> > > Let me know when you find the answer, because I've agonized over it in
> > > the past.
>
> > I've already given you the answer. Its the part wherein i said "...the
> > answer is..."
>
> Your assertion.
Its not an assertion. Its a fact. The fact is the Bible is a bunch of
stories. If you think they are anything other than stories, then tell
me what you think they are instead of avoiding my answer.
>
> > > If not the bible, and possibly look over a few of the other threads
> > > regarding the resurrection and the virgin birth, then what? Some would
> > > rather just believe in nothing, but I don't feel this is a valid or
> > > worthwhile assumption.
>
> > Having no belief is not an assumption. Furthermore, you seem to think
> > the Bible is the only valid religious text for no other reason than
> > because "you said so".
>
> Having no belief assumes there's nothing worthwhile to believe in.
No it doesn't. That's what you assume. There are plenty of things that
are worthwhile. Your family, just to name one.
> And yes I do believe the Bible stands up better to different types of
> scrutiny then others.
What "others"? And what scrutiny? The claims in the Bible do not even
come close to standing up to scrutiny. It attempts to explain
everything away by simply saying "goddidit". That isn't standing up to
scrutiny. That's avoiding scrutiny.
> Remarkably so. Consider the civilization
> produced by all the rest. At the same time I assert (wow and what a
> revelation) that western civilization is on the decline, much more so
> in Europe then here. But it seems our demise is not only likely but
> inevitable.
What the hell are you talking about? First you direct us to "consider
other civilizations" as if these others, because they are not
Christian, do not do as well. In the same paragraph you then
contradict yourself by saying that Western civilization is on the
decline. Is that because the U.S. is 85 percent Christian?
>
> > Atheism is the rejection of your god assumption. It is not an
> > assumption in and of itself. ATheists are atheists, not because they
> > "believe in nothing" but because they are looking for the truth. They
> > have discounted your god theory because its hopelessly invalid.
>
> Well I think it would be accurate to say an agnostic is likely more
> of a truth seeker than an atheist. To put it another way, an atheist
> has a greater assertion that there is no god then an agnostic.
What does that make the theist? A bullshitter?
An atheist still would say "I don't know, but I am discounting the
god theory for the fact that its frakin ridiculous." He/she has moved
past the god argument precisely because it has, time and again, proven
to be fruitless. It has no validity.
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>Scooter this guy lives in a fart fog . Evin my comments are less
smelly than his .
Ha Ha Ha
Psychonomist
Chris
<chrism3667@yahoo.com>On Apr 14, 2:42 pm, "scooter" <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Having no belief assumes there's nothing worthwhile to believe in.
>
> No it doesn't. That's what you assume. There are plenty of things that
> are worthwhile. Your family, just to name one.
When I speak of beliefs, I am referring to those which involve the
deepest issues of life. I do believe I'm going to grab some Chinese
food after I'm done here. But I don't simply for that reason count
myself among the faithful.
> What the hell are you talking about? First you direct us to "consider
> other civilizations" as if these others, because they are not
> Christian, do not do as well. In the same paragraph you then
> contradict yourself by saying that Western civilization is on the
> decline. Is that because the U.S. is 85 percent Christian?
Well f'rinstance Hindus believe in something like animism (maybe I'm
using a wrong term) where the life of a cow is valued as much as a
human's. Now, from my western Christian perspective, and despite that
fact that I love animals and wish I had the character to become a
vegetarian, I think that's insane. Now you can argue that my opinion
is subjective, but a book that promotes charity (and how often does
Dev bring up a thread based on that notion?) just makes so much more
sense.
I'll avoid the Koran for now. I will point out that all over the
internet the "startling similarities" between Christianity and Islam
are vociferously (and erroneously) proclaimed each and every day. If I
have to elucidate the marked differences ever again, I'm going to
freaking cry.
Take Japan, a people who's culture and history I find very
intriguing. But it's a brutal one, even up until the 20 century. The
newscasts of the more or less recent earthquake over there showed
people crying out in the streets for help, while their neighbors would
pass by barely noticing. Sorry, though I would love to visit Japan
someday, they aren't inherently uncharitable.
And regarding the decline of the west, it's not because we're 85%
Christian, but rather that we're departing from it. And when I refer
to the positive effects of the "Christening" of the west, Christian
morality was even imposed (oftentimes violently!) by the Catholic
church for instance, not a Christian faith for the most part if you
hold to the scriptures.
Probably 15% of the US is truly Christian.
Let's not forget the former USSR, nominally a "Christian" society,
but for the scourge of communism. What a panacea that was.
Honestly, would you rather live in a country that doesn't hold
biblical morality? (to whatever degree) Ok, which one?
> What does that make the theist? A bullshitter?
I don't know about theists in general, but Christians have drawn a
valuable conclusion regarding these issues.
thedeviliam@hotmail.com
<thedeviliam@hotmail.com>Because you people are out there and act on your beliefs and I want to
fuck with your delusions. That's exactly why. Good question, though.
Keith MacNevins
<kmacnevins@gmail.com>--
Ambassador From Hell
lawrey
<lawrenceel@btinternet.com>Just about everybody that has contended with you on
this post, has one way or another tried to instill into that
head, (I was going to say brain! but thought better of it,)
that the book you rely on and costantly quote from, was
devised for the sole purpose of impressing people like you;
gullible and naive:
That is not strictly true; please take this point.
It was written in the main for illiterate folk who were
easily persuaded and dwelt in a period when mysticism
was rife. It is reasonable to understand the reason behind
it, to impress so as to be able to control.
You, however have some other reason for believing
and I find it difficult to fathom why; (in spite of all the
evidence in the secular world, that the OT can be
traced back to ancient pagan stories, ) and what is more
that you still believe in the world-wide flood which science
has dismissed, the creation story, dreamed up by
Balylonian pagans), should we take you at all seriously?
The four Gospels according to Mark, Matthew, Luke and
John: The Gospel accorded to Mark, which is supposedly
based on Peter's story and shows close contact with both
Romans and the Jews, presents Jesus as the Great Martyr;
Matthew's Gospel describes Jesus as the fulfillment of the
Jewish messianic hope; (None of them belive it even today.)
Why should you? The Gospel according to Luke speaks
of him as the Universal Saviour; Johns Gospel points out
Jesus as the incarnation of the Principle of Reason in the
universe (the Logos of the Greeks), using phrases of the
kind employed by Philo.
THEY ALL TELL DIFFERENT STORIES of the same man.
Step away from it and wouldn't you just suppose for a
moment, that something here has been oddly engineered.
If your answer is no! you have to be blind.
This taken with the OT tells most Atheists that the WHOLE
of the book is engineered for but one purpose: To promote
christianity.
Chris
<chrism3667@yahoo.com>On Apr 15, 1:34 am, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe God created everything that could be conceived of by his infinite
> intellect. That is what Benedict Spinoza wrote. If yes then God created
> beings with every level of power and of perfection. There is the one all
> powerful creator God, and then there is a lesser demi-god just under him.
> And one just under that one and so on to the level of human beings.
I'm reading a book in which a chapter is at least half devoted to
some of this guy's thoughts Keith. I'll refrain from commenting at all
though until I've completed it.
Chris
<chrism3667@yahoo.com><thedevil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Because you people are out there and act on your beliefs and I want to
> fuck with your delusions. That's exactly why. Good question, though.
I'm fully aware of your intentions. They're obvious. But consider
that acting on my beliefs consists of more then just talking about it.
And I'm not here "sounding a trumpet" as the hypocritical pharisees
used to do, but a significant portion of my wages (significant
considering my wages!) does go to help the poor. I wasn't constrained
to do that before I was a believer. Therefore I can take none of the
credit, and in fact don't want any. The results are reward enough.
Chris
<chrism3667@yahoo.com>On Apr 15, 5:35 am, "lawrey" <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Chris,
>
> Just about everybody that has contended with you on
> this post, has one way or another tried to instill into that
> head, (I was going to say brain! but thought better of it,)
> that the book you rely on and costantly quote from, was
> devised for the sole purpose of impressing people like you;
> gullible and naive:
Right. I'm brainless. But the obvious merits (obvious to me, you're
not in close contact) of my conversion should convey nothing regarding
the Truth of the Holy Bible. Frankly, enough of the talk of evidence
and all the rest, no one can provide empirical evidence of anything,
and you stand to be at least honest about that. And if the obvious
merits that Christianity has brought to humanity aren't obvious
either, I don't know where you get off calling me gullible.
Why don't you try responding intelligently to some of my posts, in
this thread or the others?
> That is not strictly true; please take this point.
> It was written in the main for illiterate folk who were
> easily persuaded and dwelt in a period when mysticism
> was rife. It is reasonable to understand the reason behind
> it, to impress so as to be able to control.
The writers of both the OT and the NT were not part of an
organization. It was written over, oh I don't now, a period of 2,500
years.
> You, however have some other reason for believing
> and I find it difficult to fathom why; (in spite of all the
> evidence in the secular world, that the OT can be
> traced back to ancient pagan stories, ) and what is more
> that you still believe in the world-wide flood which science
> has dismissed, the creation story, dreamed up by
> Balylonian pagans), should we take you at all seriously?
I see much in the secular world that tells me they're often
delusional. I guess you need ears to hear and eyes to see, but frankly
it's plain. As to some of the other things you claim to be gospel,
I'll eventually find the time to examine, for as you see I've not been
in the faith (or rather back in the faith) for very long. I stand to
learn some things, and to attempt to speak on what I largely don't
know would be criminal
> The four Gospels according to Mark, Matthew, Luke and
> John: The Gospel accorded to Mark, which is supposedly
> based on Peter's story and shows close contact with both
> Romans and the Jews, presents Jesus as the Great Martyr;
> Matthew's Gospel describes Jesus as the fulfillment of the
> Jewish messianic hope; (None of them belive it even today.)
> Why should you? The Gospel according to Luke speaks
> of him as the Universal Saviour; Johns Gospel points out
> Jesus as the incarnation of the Principle of Reason in the
> universe (the Logos of the Greeks), using phrases of the
> kind employed by Philo.
To say none is a fallacy. Few granted. But few will admit that
there's little to believe in regarding Judaism, when the essence of
their faith is long dead. Examine it in the historical context.You
argue the inadequacy of Christianity by stating Jews don't accept it.
But this is wonky, because I'm sure you believe to be a religious Jew
is just as foolish (or more so?). But in your estimation of the rather
dim, non enlightened religious mind, doesn't it seem logical that
Jesus was indeed the Christ they *should* have been looking for?
> THEY ALL TELL DIFFERENT STORIES of the same man.
> Step away from it and wouldn't you just suppose for a
> moment, that something here has been oddly engineered.
> If your answer is no! you have to be blind.
Nevertheless, no. They are not different stories. On the surface
anyway they appear to differ, to you significantly to call them
"different stories". Yes granted, each was probably written with a
different purpose in mind, and thereby present different aspect of the
same story. 4 people standing on top of a mountain can have 4
different views, sometimes even if they were looking in the same
general direction.
> This taken with the OT tells most Atheists that the WHOLE
> of the book is engineered for but one purpose: To promote
> christianity.
So before Christ was even born, the OT was intended to promote
Christianity? Yes, I am in hearty agreement. The Engineer of the
universe indeed wrote it for that very purpose.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>On Apr 14, 10:54 am, "Chris" <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 13, 4:38 pm, "rappoccio" <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Actually in my experience, atheists are more familiar with the Bible
> > than Christians.
>
> Undoubtedly this is true. And my question of whether he had held a
> bible in his hand was not to infer he hadn't, but was to point out
> it's heft (w/it's accompanying complexity).
> But this brings up the question as to why an atheist (and any
> particular atheist has to answer it for themself) do they spend a
> considerable time with it at all.
In my experience most atheists come to that conclusion after very
careful consideration of the alternatives.
>
> > > God
> > > didn't "change his mind". In short, the NT is the fulfillment of what
> > > the OT proclaimed throughout it's pages. Some refer to this as "the
> > > scarlet thread" which comprises all the messianic prophecies beginning
> > > in the book of Genesis.
>
> > Or, they're reversed-engineered to appear so regardless.
>
> Like Psalm 22? There are a good number of them, it's pretty unlikely
> that someone would be able to weave a story that takes them all into
> account. And that the story becomes a world religion. Just an
> observation.
Mostly I was talking about the New Testament being engineered after
the fact to appear to coincide with OT "prophesies".
>
> > > As to why Christian's don't (or shouldn't!) hold to the civil aspects
> > > of the old testament takes a bit of explaining. God is a god of
> > > justice, one of his attributes. He cannot refrain from punishing evil.
> > > He's perfect, and perfectly holy. Sinfulness cannot even exist in his
> > > presence. To see God would be to die. But God is also a god of love.
> > > For he so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that
> > > whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting
> > > life. The OT and it's laws are a reflection (predominantly) of God's
> > > justice.
> > By "justice" you mean "killing innocent people to punish others for
> > their transgressions", and "punishing all of humanity forever because
> > Adam and Eve (who didn't exist anyway) ate an apple"?
>
> Omg dude, all humanity is represented in Adam.
OMG dude, Nothing is represented by Adam in the Bible, it's supposedly
an historical account (until it was disproven, and now it's an
allegory, sort of, but not really, and it's true, but it isn't).
> I'll wager you
> wouldn't tell me you've never broken his commandments.
What, "Don't eat that apple because then you might actually have
cognizance and critical thinking"? Yes, I'm guilty of critical
thinking. The fact that it's considered a sin by people like you
speaks volumes.
> We're all
> capable of evil acts, even if it takes a certain set of circumstances
> to be brought upon us (and many times even when they're not). But
> Christ loved even those who crucified him. And despite the fact that I
> don't have specific scientific proof he ever existed, you'll have to
> admit His life had a profound effect on the world.
No doubt he did, I'm not claiming he didn't. My point is that the OT
is mostly a bunch of superstition and myth-fable. There are some parts
that teach us moral lessons, but mostly it's "If you don't do things
*our* way, you're going to be punished severely". It's very childish.
The desire to do good acts should not be predicated upon the threat of
being caught and/or punished. Those that require such a divine
"spanker" are total hypocrites.
>
>
>
> > >The NT (era) is much much more a reflection of his love.
> > > Wishing to reconcile mankind to himself, he sent Christ to be the
> > > propitiation for our sins. The unjust cannot die, or pay for the sins
> > > of the unjust. It had to be someone w/o sin. This is why Christ came,
> > > to live the perfect life, totally fulfill God's righteous requirement,
> > > and to be slain in our place.
> > > I'd love to take the time to say that a little less awkwardly but
> > > that basically sums it up.
>
> > Not really. You didn't explain at all why you think the OT's smiting
> > and burning is consistent with the NT's peace and love. One says "God
> > is there to punish you" and the other is "God is there to save you".
> > You've assumed what God has done in the OT is just, you have no
> > argument for why it is. The only way people can get this out of the OT
> > is to fall back to "We can't question God's motives" or "We can't
> > understand God's motives". It's a bit of a cop-out. So either admit
> > that there is no logical consistency in the Bible, or just don't
> > bother arguing at all, since it requires a total logical fallout to
> > make it consistent in the first place.
>
> Arguing from a new testament era standpoint,
Arguing from a modern era standpoint, that is.
> with all the benefits Christian tenets produce on a society,
It's arguable that the Christian influence on society was beneficial
historically. In fact it was probably a blight. The 1000 years of
Christian rule stifled education, progress, and information flow not
in line with the Church's "party line".
> you're concluding his Laws were unjust.
I'm concluding that man's interpretation of God's will is incorrect in
the OT.
> I've already stated that even those who used his name would
> repeatedly fall into a state of decadency.
And what do you mean by "decadency"?
> I don't want to burn anyone
> personally, but basically I'll offer that the effects of sin and
> degradation were so great and debilitating in those times, stringent
> measures had to be put in place.
Proof of this would be what, exactly? What sins were so great that
society itself was debilitated?
> And yet despite them, people still chose to do their own thing.
Yes, that's called "rationality" and "freedom from fear".
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>On Apr 14, 11:08 am, "Chris" <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 12:44 am, "rappoccio" <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I hate this nonsense of "we don't get to question people's views of
> > God, or to question God's actions". We do get to question everything
> > we damned well please, in fact. No one (not even God) can stop us from
> > questioning anything (including God in and of itself). This is
> > ultimately a cop-out when people state they can't, or won't, question
> > God's actions.
>
> As to your first sentence, this I never said. I never even said we
> can't or shouldn't question the notions in the bible.
Your words are:
"Sure, some things beg to be asked, but ultimately the creation has to
accept that he is the Creator, and to ask to the point of finding
fault in Him (I've done it) is absurd."
So you say in one breath that you can't "find fault" in God, but in
the next you say you're allowed to. So which is it?
> I see that
> attitude alot myself. The point I was trying to make was that some
> questions will never be answered on this side of eternity. Not
> terribly many, but basically it doesn't make sense for certain ones to
> become a "stumbling stone". I certainly have asked the question why
> God created everything in the first place knowing the rather dismal
> outcome (for many). And MY conclusion as to asking question to which
> I'll probably never find answers is stupid - my own conclusion of my
> agonizing over them. I'm not calling anyone stupid. I'll compare it to
> demanding to know first all the intricacies of a helicopter while an
> impending disaster is about to occur, from which the helicopter can
> readily remove you from.
This attitude is still nonsensical. It's not a helicopter that's
coming to save you. It would be more like someone handing you a
pencil, and someone says "Just put it on! You can fly with it, if you
believe that you can!" You're damned right I'm going to take a good
look at the pencil before I jump over a cliff.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>If God has requirements at all (even self-imposed) then God is not
omnipotent.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>On Apr 15, 9:32 am, "Chris" <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 5:21 pm, "thedevil...@hotmail.com"
>
> <thedevil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Because you people are out there and act on your beliefs and I want to
> > fuck with your delusions. That's exactly why. Good question, though.
>
> I'm fully aware of your intentions. They're obvious. But consider
> that acting on my beliefs consists of more then just talking about it.
> And I'm not here "sounding a trumpet" as the hypocritical pharisees
> used to do, but a significant portion of my wages (significant
> considering my wages!) does go to help the poor. I wasn't constrained
> to do that before I was a believer.
Sure you are, as a member of the human race. So basically you're
saying that without the hope of divine reward, or the threat of divine
punishment, people have no reason to have morals at all.
> Therefore I can take none of the
> credit, and in fact don't want any. The results are reward enough.
So the results ARE reward enough, and therefore you don't need to be
Christian in order to do them. So which is it? Can man be moral
without the threat of a divine spanking or not?
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>On Apr 15, 9:55 am, "Chris" <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 15, 5:35 am, "lawrey" <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > Chris,
>
> > Just about everybody that has contended with you on
> > this post, has one way or another tried to instill into that
> > head, (I was going to say brain! but thought better of it,)
> > that the book you rely on and costantly quote from, was
> > devised for the sole purpose of impressing people like you;
> > gullible and naive:
>
> Right. I'm brainless. But the obvious merits (obvious to me, you're
> not in close contact) of my conversion should convey nothing regarding
> the Truth of the Holy Bible. Frankly, enough of the talk of evidence
> and all the rest, no one can provide empirical evidence of anything,
> and you stand to be at least honest about that.
Nonsense. Total nonsense. I can offer you empirical evidence of
-The rapid expansion of the early universe (14-15 billion years old).
-Star formation
-Planetary formation (including Earth, 4 billion years old)
-Evolution of species
-The heliocentric solar model
All of these are totally inconsistent with the literal interpretation
of the Bible. To escape them, you have to retreat to statements like
"Well, God's days are different from our days, so it was created in 6
of God's days, not 6 of ours". "Well, the order shown in the Bible of
how things were created was different from how it happened, but so
what, that doesn't mean it's wrong". "Evolution is okay for lower
animals, but for humans it was different. We were created from dust
and ribcages."
Ultimately the fact is, you have to discard a literal interpretation
of the Bible based on factual evidence. Once the literal
interpretation is shown to be false, then there's no way to recover.
The literal interpretation of the Bible is simply untenable.
> And if the obvious
> merits that Christianity has brought to humanity aren't obvious
> either, I don't know where you get off calling me gullible.
You mean
-The repression of non-religious thought and scientific inquiry for
1000 years, sometimes in brutal fashion.
-Wholesale murder of thousands of people in the name of reclaiming the
Holy Land.
-Burning at the stake of women who were thought to be "in league with
the devil".
-Restriction of education for everyone except for the religiously
cloistered.
And other terrible horrible things.
I'm not saying the impact of Christianity was *all* bad, but as a
societal tool, until quite recently it was a horrible curse on
civilization. A valid life philosophy was misconstrued as a political
tool, used by people to promote their own self-interests.
> Why don't you try responding intelligently to some of my posts, in
> this thread or the others?
>
> > That is not strictly true; please take this point.
> > It was written in the main for illiterate folk who were
> > easily persuaded and dwelt in a period when mysticism
> > was rife. It is reasonable to understand the reason behind
> > it, to impress so as to be able to control.
>
> The writers of both the OT and the NT were not part of an
> organization. It was written over, oh I don't now, a period of 2,500
> years.
Correct. But why are some books about Christ in the NT and not others,
for instance?
>
> > You, however have some other reason for believing
> > and I find it difficult to fathom why; (in spite of all the
> > evidence in the secular world, that the OT can be
> > traced back to ancient pagan stories, ) and what is more
> > that you still believe in the world-wide flood which science
> > has dismissed, the creation story, dreamed up by
> > Balylonian pagans), should we take you at all seriously?
>
> I see much in the secular world that tells me they're often
> delusional. I guess you need ears to hear and eyes to see, but frankly
> it's plain.
I'm curious as to what you think about the secular world is
delusional. It's not plain, not by a long shot.
> As to some of the other things you claim to be gospel,
> I'll eventually find the time to examine, for as you see I've not been
> in the faith (or rather back in the faith) for very long.
So what made you leave in the first place, and what made you go back?
> I stand to
> learn some things, and to attempt to speak on what I largely don't
> know would be criminal
>
> > The four Gospels according to Mark, Matthew, Luke and
> > John: The Gospel accorded to Mark, which is supposedly
> > based on Peter's story and shows close contact with both
> > Romans and the Jews, presents Jesus as the Great Martyr;
> > Matthew's Gospel describes Jesus as the fulfillment of the
> > Jewish messianic hope; (None of them belive it even today.)
> > Why should you? The Gospel according to Luke speaks
> > of him as the Universal Saviour; Johns Gospel points out
> > Jesus as the incarnation of the Principle of Reason in the
> > universe (the Logos of the Greeks), using phrases of the
> > kind employed by Philo.
>
> To say none is a fallacy. Few granted. But few will admit that
> there's little to believe in regarding Judaism, when the essence of
> their faith is long dead.
So people who don't believe in Christ as the Messiah have a dead
faith? Interesting take. Tell that to the Jewish people here and
elsewhere.
> Examine it in the historical context.
Sure, let's. A people that had been conquered repeatedly throughout
their history found themselves the subjects of yet another foreign
ruler, the Roman Empire. Stories of "Messiahs" abounded all the time,
since they were supposed to be the ones to take the Israelites out
from the thumb of Roman rule. Historically many such "Messiahs"
existed. One particular Messiah, Joshua of Nazareth, developed quite a
large following, and mostly taught about spiritual freedom rather than
actual freedom. His message was well-received because it focused on
peace and hope, and his message spread throughout the Western world.
He was probably crucified by the Romans. Whether he was actually
resurrected has no evidence other than what is written in the Bible.
> You
> argue the inadequacy of Christianity by stating Jews don't accept it.
> But this is wonky, because I'm sure you believe to be a religious Jew
> is just as foolish (or more so?). But in your estimation of the rather
> dim, non enlightened religious mind, doesn't it seem logical that
> Jesus was indeed the Christ they *should* have been looking for?
What proof do you have that Christ was actually the "Messiah" they
were all looking for? (Christ was a Greek word meaning anointed, as
you know). All we have are Biblical accounts, written years after his
death.
>
> > THEY ALL TELL DIFFERENT STORIES of the same man.
> > Step away from it and wouldn't you just suppose for a
> > moment, that something here has been oddly engineered.
> > If your answer is no! you have to be blind.
>
> Nevertheless, no. They are not different stories. On the surface
> anyway they appear to differ, to you significantly to call them
> "different stories". Yes granted, each was probably written with a
> different purpose in mind, and thereby present different aspect of the
> same story. 4 people standing on top of a mountain can have 4
> different views, sometimes even if they were looking in the same
> general direction.
But you have to admit, even factual information such as Christ's last
words are not consistent. It doesn't mean they're necessarily totally
wrong, but details were, in all probability, embellished to a large
extent.
>
> > This taken with the OT tells most Atheists that the WHOLE
> > of the book is engineered for but one purpose: To promote
> > christianity.
>
> So before Christ was even born, the OT was intended to promote
> Christianity? Yes, I am in hearty agreement. The Engineer of the
> universe indeed wrote it for that very purpose.
The engineer of the universe didn't write it. People wrote it. And if
the engineer of the universe wrote it, that engineer did a pretty
lousy job of describing what that engineer actually did. So you've
reduced God to a shoddy lab scientists, who couldn't actually document
what was actually done to save a damn.
Stephen
<stephen.p.craig@gmail.com>On Apr 14, 3:32 am, "thedevil...@hotmail.com"
<thedevil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ATHEIST: It says in Deuteronomy that nonbelievers and fags should be
> killed.
>
> CHRISTIAN: Jesus invalidated the Old Testament.
>
> ATHEIST: Why do you still use it if it's obsolete?
>
> CHRISTIAN: Well, it has historical importance.
>
> ATHEIST: Well, it _influenced_ history...but that doesn't mean what
> happened in it is true, does it?
>
> CHRISTIAN: It's true.
>
> ATHEIST: Evidence?
>
> CHRISTIAN: The Bible. Faith. The flood thing.
>
> ATHEIST: Um, that isn't evidence. None of that is evidence. The Bible
> is assertions, religious faith is a substitute for evidence and the
> alleged evidence of the flood thing has been refuted repeatedly.
>
> CHRISTIAN: Well, as a Christian I follow Christ's teachings anyway.
>
> ATHEIST: Didn't Christ say in Matthew 5 that he didn't intend to
> devalue the laws of the prophets?
>
> CHRISTIAN: Yes, "until it is finished". When he died, his last words
> were "it is finished".
>
> ATHEIST: Well...Matthew 27 says: And about the ninth hour Jesus cried
> with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to
> say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he
> cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost." And Luke 23:46
> says: And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father,
> unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up
> the ghost. And John 19:30 says: When Jesus therefore had received the
> vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up
> the ghost.
>
> CHRISTIAN: Well, they were standing at different distances from the
> cross so they heard different things.
>
> ATHEIST: Maybe, but damn--Christ sure seems to have some mixed
> sentiments there. Anyway, let's assume that God did want the laws
> changed from the Old Testament.
>
> CHRISTIAN: Thank you.
>
> ATHEIST: Very welcome. It's not like you have a chance without a
> handicap anyway. My question to you is: why did God change His mind?
>
> CHRISTIAN: Because the world changed.
>
> ATHEIST: So God's nature is influenced by the world?
>
> CHRISTIAN: Um, um...sure. Yes, I mean no, I mean yes.
>
> ATHEIST: So how has His nature changed since the New Testament?
>
> CHRISTIAN: It hasn't.
>
> ATHEIST: Why not?
>
> CHRISTIAN: Because the world hasn't changed in the past two millenia.
>
> ATHEIST: Okaaay. Well, isn't the God of the Old Testament a hypocrite
> anyway--with the genocide and the not killing people and all that?
>
> CHRISTIAN: God's a nice guy now. He just burns people forever anyway
> because that's what you do when someone you love disagrees with you.
S: The following is one attempt to help clarify the answer to the
topic's question of Why Did God Change his Mind - Old Testament to New
Testament.
The answer is this. The OT is weak, useless, faulty, and inferior to
the NT, will soon disappear, but will remain forever, is not true, and
is true, has been abolished and has not been abolished. You see, God
decided to reveal his weak, faulty, useless, and inferior, soon to
disappear, established forever, not true, true, abolished and not
abolished covenant first, and then superseded it with grace and the
truth a couple of thousand years later.
Heb 7:18-19
"The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless
(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced,
by which we draw near to God."
Heb 8:6-7
"But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the
covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is
founded on better promises. For if there had been nothing wrong with
that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another."
John 1:17
"For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through
Jesus Christ."
It is clear that grace and truth were non existent until circa 30 AD.
Hebrews 8:13
"By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete;
and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."
The law has been abolished according to Paul's teaching in Ephesians
2:14-16, talking about the Gentiles and Jews, "For [Jesus] himself is
our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the
dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with
its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself
one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to
reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to
death their hostility."
The law has not been abolished according to Jesus' teaching in Mat
5:17-20, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the
Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
According to the OT, the laws of God have been established for all
eternity. Psa 119:151-152, 160, "Yet you are near, O LORD, and all
your commands are true. Long ago I learned from your statutes that you
established them to last forever." "All your words are true; all your
righteous laws are eternal."
According to Hebrews, the laws of God have not been established for
all eternity, and in fact are about to disappear.
Hebrews 8:13
"By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete;
and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."
The whole point of evangelism is moot, because Christian no longer
need to tell us about God. We all already know God and God has
forgiven us all.
Jeremiah 31:31-34
"The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new
covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will
not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took
them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my
covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. "This is
the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,"
declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on
their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No
longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying,
'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them
to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their
wickedness and will remember their sins no more."
I might have mentioned the following story on this group before, but
it is worth repeating.
A Christian mother was reading to her child about the God of the Old
Testament's hobby of killing all the enemies of Israel. The child was
confused by how this could be consistent with Jesus' command to "love
our enemies". The mother explained that God dealt with people before
Christ differently. The child, being now enlightened, states, "Now I
understand, the New Testament explains how God became a Christian".
"Out of the mouth of babes", Matthew 21:16.
Keith MacNevins
<kmacnevins@gmail.com>scooter
<scooter.leto@yahoo.com>post you don't want to respond to, I'm going to paste them back into
this thread.
On Apr 14, 1:15 pm, "Chris" <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 11:29 am, "scooter" <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I can't read this sentence because it isn't grammatically coherent.
> Sorry, I'm human, but I must imagine you caught my drift nonetheless.
> To rephrase that question is probably asked by most or all thinking
> people.
Actually, I didn't know what you meant. Thats why I responded by
saying I didn't know what you meant.
> > > Let me know when you find the answer, because I've agonized over it in
> > > the past.
> > I've already given you the answer. Its the part wherein i said "...the
> > answer is..."
> Your assertion.
Its not an assertion. Its a fact. The fact is the Bible is a bunch of
stories. If you think they are anything other than stories, then tell
me what you think they are instead of avoiding my answer. Answer the
question unless you're a wimp. What do you think the stories in the
Bible are?
> > > If not the bible, and possibly look over a few of the other threads
> > > regarding the resurrection and the virgin birth, then what? Some would
> > > rather just believe in nothing, but I don't feel this is a valid or
> > > worthwhile assumption.
> > Having no belief is not an assumption. Furthermore, you seem to think
> > the Bible is the only valid religious text for no other reason than
> > because "you said so".
On Apr 14, 2:29 pm, "Chris" <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 2:42 pm, "scooter" <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Having no belief assumes there's nothing worthwhile to believe in.
>
> > No it doesn't. That's what you assume. There are plenty of things that
> > are worthwhile. Your family, just to name one.
>
> When I speak of beliefs, I am referring to those which involve the
> deepest issues of life. I do believe I'm going to grab some Chinese
> food after I'm done here. But I don't simply for that reason count
> myself among the faithful.
Family is one of the deepest issues of life. What you are referring to
is religion. Why don't you just say it instead of obfuscating? I
believe there is no afterlife. That after we die, that's it. There's
nothing left for you. That doesn't mean my life has no purpose, as you
try to suggest. You and your ilk are constantly trying to deride
atheists and agnostics by claiming such falsities. Let me just say:
Fuck off. I'm sick of you psycho pricks trying to label atheists as
being some sort of zombies.
>
> > What the hell are you talking about? First you direct us to "consider
> > other civilizations" as if these others, because they are not
> > Christian, do not do as well. In the same paragraph you then
> > contradict yourself by saying that Western civilization is on the
> > decline. Is that because the U.S. is 85 percent Christian?
>
> Well f'rinstance Hindus believe in something like animism (maybe I'm
> using a wrong term) where the life of a cow is valued as much as a
> human's. Now, from my western Christian perspective, and despite that
> fact that I love animals and wish I had the character to become a
> vegetarian, I think that's insane. Now you can argue that my opinion
> is subjective, but a book that promotes charity (and how often does
> Dev bring up a thread based on that notion?) just makes so much more
> sense.
You think that if your not a Christian then you're anti-charity? Are
you freakin retarded?
> I'll avoid the Koran for now. I will point out that all over the
> internet the "startling similarities" between Christianity and Islam
> are vociferously (and erroneously) proclaimed each and every day. If I
> have to elucidate the marked differences ever again, I'm going to
> freaking cry.
> Take Japan, a people who's culture and history I find very
> intriguing. But it's a brutal one, even up until the 20 century. The
> newscasts of the more or less recent earthquake over there showed
> people crying out in the streets for help, while their neighbors would
> pass by barely noticing. Sorry, though I would love to visit Japan
> someday, they aren't inherently uncharitable.
I'm not going to defend the Japanese culture other than to say you are
so full of shit. At least the Japanse have the compassion enough to
provide health care for all its citizens.
> And regarding the decline of the west, it's not because we're 85%
> Christian, but rather that we're departing from it. And when I refer
> to the positive effects of the "Christening" of the west, Christian
> morality was even imposed (oftentimes violently!) by the Catholic
> church for instance, not a Christian faith for the most part if you
> hold to the scriptures.
Hahahaha. You are a psycho cop-out. Devil already pointed you to
SPECIFIC passages that promote violence against others but you simply
choose to ignore them because they don't fit your marketing strategy.
Did you even read the original post?
> Probably 15% of the US is truly Christian.
Really? What survey data did you use? Or, did you just make this shit
up from your highly immoral values? I'm betting on the latter.
> Let's not forget the former USSR, nominally a "Christian" society,
> but for the scourge of communism. What a panacea that was.
In case you didn't know this, communism and religion are mutually
exclusive.
> Honestly, would you rather live in a country that doesn't hold
> biblical morality? (to whatever degree) Ok, which one?
Morality is not the product of your Bible. On the contrary, the Bible
is a product of morality--for better or for worse.
>
> > What does that make the theist? A bullshitter?
>
> I don't know about theists in general, but Christians have drawn a
> valuable conclusion regarding these issues.
Funny how you "don't know about theists in general", but have the
immoral audacity to label all other religions and cultures (e.g.
Japan) as inferior and/or immoral.
"Valuable conclusions" regarding what issues?
lawrey
<lawrenceel@btinternet.com>On Apr 15, 2:55 pm, "Chris" <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 15, 5:35 am, "lawrey" <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > Chris,
>
> > Just about everybody that has contended with you on
> > this post, has one way or another tried to instill into that
> > head, (I was going to say brain! but thought better of it,)
> > that the book you rely on and costantly quote from, was
> > devised for the sole purpose of impressing people like you;
> > gullible and naive:
>
>
> Right. I'm brainless. But the obvious merits (obvious to me, you're
> not in close contact) of my conversion should convey nothing regarding
> the Truth of the Holy Bible. Frankly, enough of the talk of evidence
> and all the rest, no one can provide empirical evidence of anything,
> and you stand to be at least honest about that. And if the obvious
> merits that Christianity has brought to humanity aren't obvious
> either, I don't know where you get off calling me gullible.
> Why don't you try responding intelligently to some of my posts, in
> this thread or the others?
>
>
> > > I have not said you are brainless and my incredulity
> > > stems from the fact that I assume you to have a
> > > brain, and that was not intended as an insult.
> > > I believe most would have recognised that some of the
> > > book you mention is not without some merit. It is
> > > undermined however by inconsistency and falacious
> > > rubbish we need not repeat. The reason I do not respond
> > > in the main is because I just do not have the time
> > > and being perfectly honest because I am what has been
> > > refered to as a strong atheist, I find it difficult to take
> > > what is said seriously.
>
>
> > That is not strictly true; please take this point.
> > It was written in the main for illiterate folk who were
> > easily persuaded and dwelt in a period when mysticism
> > was rife. It is reasonable to understand the reason behind
> > it, to impress so as to be able to control.
>
>
> The writers of both the OT and the NT were not part of an
> organization. It was written over, oh I don't now, a period of 2,500
> years.
>
>
> > > Oh! come on Chris don't make me use that word
> > > naive again; even you must know that the bible
> > > was edited many many times, and please don't
> > > pretend you don't know by whom.
>
>
> > You, however have some other reason for believing
> > and I find it difficult to fathom why; (in spite of all the
> > evidence in the secular world, that the OT can be
> > traced back to ancient pagan stories, ) and what is more
> > that you still believe in the world-wide flood which science
> > has dismissed, the creation story, dreamed up by
> > Balylonian pagans), should we take you at all seriously?
>
>
> I see much in the secular world that tells me they're often
> delusional. I guess you need ears to hear and eyes to see, but frankly
> it's plain. As to some of the other things you claim to be gospel,
> I'll eventually find the time to examine, for as you see I've not been
> in the faith (or rather back in the faith) for very long. I stand to
> learn some things, and to attempt to speak on what I largely don't
> know would be criminal
>
>
> > > You use a word I would never presume to use when
> > > refering to truth; gospel, is certainly not one of them
> > > and is the last word I would choose. As far as I am
> > > concerned precious little in the Gospel is true.
> > > I make no such claims, I do express doubt and
> > > cite contrary eevidence. The same evidence is out
> > > there for you to consider, but it requires effort on
> > > your part; so yes you need eyes to see and ears
> > > to hear and a little intelligence to sift.
> > > NO! not criminal just presumptuous.
>
> > The four Gospels according to Mark, Matthew, Luke and
> > John: The Gospel accorded to Mark, which is supposedly
> > based on Peter's story and shows close contact with both
> > Romans and the Jews, presents Jesus as the Great Martyr;
> > Matthew's Gospel describes Jesus as the fulfillment of the
> > Jewish messianic hope; (None of them belive it even today.)
> > Why should you? The Gospel according to Luke speaks
> > of him as the Universal Saviour; Johns Gospel points out
> > Jesus as the incarnation of the Principle of Reason in the
> > universe (the Logos of the Greeks), using phrases of the
> > kind employed by Philo.
>
> To say none is a fallacy. Few granted. But few will admit that
> there's little to believe in regarding Judaism, when the essence of
> their faith is long dead. Examine it in the historical context.You
> argue the inadequacy of Christianity by stating Jews don't accept it.
> But this is wonky, because I'm sure you believe to be a religious Jew
> is just as foolish (or more so?). But in your estimation of the rather
> dim, non enlightened religious mind, doesn't it seem logical that
> Jesus was indeed the Christ they *should* have been looking for?
>
>
> > > No! because I do not believe a word of it, you
> > > obviously do and it intrigues me to know why
>
>
> > THEY ALL TELL DIFFERENT STORIES of the same man.
> > Step away from it and wouldn't you just suppose for a
> > moment, that something here has been oddly engineered.
> > If your answer is no! you have to be blind.
>
>
>
> Nevertheless, no. They are not different stories. On the surface
> anyway they appear to differ, to you significantly to call them
> "different stories". Yes granted, each was probably written with a
> different purpose in mind, and thereby present different aspect of the
> same story. 4 people standing on top of a mountain can have 4
> different views, sometimes even if they were looking in the same
> general direction.
>
>
> > > Depends what you are capable of seeing. Even a blind man
> > > was heard to say "I see" when he bumped into a lamp-post.
> > > You forgot the editors again. NO! I won't say it.
>
>
> > This taken with the OT tells most Atheists that the WHOLE
> > of the book is engineered for but one purpose: To promote
> > christianity.
>
> So before Christ was even born, the OT was intended to promote
> Christianity? Yes, I am in hearty agreement. The Engineer of the
> universe indeed wrote it for that very purpose.
>
>
> > > Come on for christ sake chris, the bible was written long
> > > after he was dead, years and years and years.
> > > Plenty time to sript and write whatever Rome wanted.
> > > Have you never heard of reverse engineering, the OT
> > > was edited, I can't remember how mant times and
> > > the NT was edited to fit.
> > > All to simple to be possible? Just think about it.
> > > Look at ALL the evidence, I do not expect you to
> > > take my word even you are not that gullible.
Chris
<chrism3667@yahoo.com>deleted it, something that typically doesn't happen to me on this
keyboard. Some pathetic hotkey sequence that I'd like to banish from
my presence. I've copied this last page into a document, and
will...attempt to reconstruct the replies, and answer the rest, as I
know you're all waiting with bated breath. It's getting late here
though.
And I generally don't simply refuse to answer some things, sometimes
they seem redundant, spurious, or *gasp* I don't really know. There's
a number of mine that go unanswered, or are not answered
satisfactorily, so we'll have to live with some things.
bob600
<bobs@nireland.com>there Devil, just remember what side to return to. Good post, can't
think of a thing to object to, wait a minute, does that not make it a
bad post?
On 13 Apr, 19:32, "thedevil...@hotmail.com" <thedevil...@hotmail.com>
Chris
<chrism3667@yahoo.com> I will take the time to answer your post, as time allows, and frankly
I must have missed it, just read parts of it over briefly. I answered
the prior one, no? And it seems one of my replies yesterday
mysteriously disappeared. In the virgin Mary thread, a reply seems to
have appeared 4 times, or at least it looked that way earlier this
afternoon.
But frankly, you, and possibly a few others are going to need to
exercise a little more civility. I really don't need to my name being
played with, nor do I need to be called a wimp. Reason - well, I
didn't come here to take abuse, and frankly I'm well within my rights
to remove myself from it, or just stop acknowledging some people
altogether ( But of course that'll make me a wimp). Scriptural basis -
well, it just might be I'm casting my pearls before swine, with all
it's accompanying "benefits"). So stop patting yourselves on the back
and claiming you are such noble, fearless truth seekers. Because you
actually do exhibit a lot of hatred. It's so easy to say you know it
all, and have all the answers. But if you choose to shut yourselves
off to a possibility regarding these discussions, and proceed to call
Christ a homosexual, and other assorted nonsense, well it just might
be you're not worth the time. You have to admit I'm at least making an
honest attempt to answer, to the best of my ability, some of the
questions. And if you carefully consider some of it, well you just
might stand to learn something. Someday it may even come in handy.
thedeviliam@hotmail.com
<thedeviliam@hotmail.com>and violates science whenever its back is turned. Take some
responsibility and grow up.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>On Apr 15, 10:39 pm, "Chris" <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 15, 2:12 pm, "scooter" <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I will take the time to answer your post, as time allows, and frankly
> I must have missed it, just read parts of it over briefly. I answered
> the prior one, no? And it seems one of my replies yesterday
> mysteriously disappeared. In the virgin Mary thread, a reply seems to
> have appeared 4 times, or at least it looked that way earlier this
> afternoon.
>
> But frankly, you, and possibly a few others are going to need to
> exercise a little more civility. I really don't need to my name being
> played with, nor do I need to be called a wimp. Reason - well, I
> didn't come here to take abuse, and frankly I'm well within my rights
> to remove myself from it, or just stop acknowledging some people
> altogether ( But of course that'll make me a wimp). Scriptural basis -
> well, it just might be I'm casting my pearls before swine, with all
> it's accompanying "benefits"). So stop patting yourselves on the back
> and claiming you are such noble, fearless truth seekers. Because you
> actually do exhibit a lot of hatred.
I'm going to clue you in to a little phenomenon on this board (and
every internet board on the planet). People are ruthless, on both
sides of the issue. I have been called irrational, stupid, a Radish, a
Braggadocio, a liar, a loser, a godless atheist, a delusional
Christian, and several choice words not fit for repeating in front of
my son. So let's just deal with the fact that people will name call
(on both sides of the issue). I've seen so-called Christians threaten
bodily harm to people, insult them, call for the mass destruction of
millions of civilians because they didn't agree with their country,
and countless other things.
> It's so easy to say you know it
> all, and have all the answers. But if you choose to shut yourselves
> off to a possibility regarding these discussions, and proceed to call
> Christ a homosexual, and other assorted nonsense, well it just might
> be you're not worth the time.
You're assuming people on this board want to be converted. They don't.
Many people here just want to poke fun at the other side, and point
out the fallacies intrinsic in their arguments. That's all fun and
games here. In some cases, we've come to some rational middle ground
that crosses the "border".
> You have to admit I'm at least making an
> honest attempt to answer, to the best of my ability, some of the
> questions. And if you carefully consider some of it, well you just
> might stand to learn something. Someday it may even come in handy.
I dunno, I've brought up some points you haven't answered.
Chris
<chrism3667@yahoo.com>> I'm going to clue you in to a little phenomenon on this board (and
> every internet board on the planet)...
Undoubtedly. But messing up my name in the future just might get that
person consigned to the iggy bin. And I address some of this in my
follow up. But you're ultimately right, though I'm sure it'll take a
period of adjustment.
> You're assuming people on this board want to be converted. They don't.
> Many people here just want to poke fun at the other side, and point
> out the fallacies intrinsic in their arguments. That's all fun and
> games here. In some cases, we've come to some rational middle ground
> that crosses the "border".
I'm gonna clue you in on something. People generally don't want to be
converted. Therefore, for me to look for "a sign" as to that, I'd
truly be deluded. But I do take solace in the notion that "one plants,
another waters"...
Hey I wouldn't be here either if I didn't like thrashing stuff around
some.
> I dunno, I've brought up some points you haven't answered.
So I'll continue.
>In my experience most atheists come to that conclusion after very
>careful consideration of the alternatives.
Maybe your experience, but nah, my tells me most have only a cursory
understanding
of the bible, accentuate all the "hard stuff", and convert to a
delusional group of
beliefs, science falsely so called, and insist that they can prove it.
But I'll concede some have certain issues to resolve. That may
involve a jaundiced view of the text.
And so on and so forth.
>> Like Psalm 22? There are a good number of them, it's pretty unlikely
>> that someone would be able to weave a story that takes them all into
>> account. And that the story becomes a world religion. Just an
>> observation.
>Mostly I was talking about the New Testament being engineered after
>the fact to appear to coincide with OT "prophesies".
But to engineer would suggest there was an attempt to deceive. More
of a valid
argument (conceivably) if it was carried out by an organization. Far
less plausible when the
authors, if we're to believe the accounts, some by secular writers,
were slaughtered
for these "deceptions".
>OMG dude, Nothing is represented by Adam in the Bible, it's supposedly
>an historical account (until it was disproven, and now it's an
>allegory, sort of, but not really, and it's true, but it isn't).
I'll accept the Genesis account, even though I haven't personally
witnessed it.
Cuz I've found the bible reliable in many other ways. And no reason to
reject it.
Evilution on the other hand is a big pile of doggy-do. And it's been
stinking up
the earth for way too long.
>> I'll wager you
>> wouldn't tell me you've never broken his commandments.
>What, "Don't eat that apple because then you might actually have
>cognizance and critical thinking"? Yes, I'm guilty of critical
>thinking. The fact that it's considered a sin by people like you
>speaks volumes.
Not the commandment/s I was talking about. But realize, although I do
be-
lieve it's literal, the fruit was simply illustrative of man's will to
disregard
God's will. I believe that the instance could have been any number of
other "tests",
and Adam and Eve would have still committed the disobedience.
>No doubt he did, I'm not claiming he didn't. My point is that the OT
>is mostly a bunch of superstition and myth-fable. There are some parts
>that teach us moral lessons, but mostly it's "If you don't do things
>*our* way, you're going to be punished severely". It's very childish.
>The desire to do good acts should not be predicated upon the threat of
>being caught and/or punished. Those that require such a divine
>"spanker" are total hypocrites.
The desire to do good is not predicated on threat of punishment so
much as doing the
bad stuff. Laws are universal throughout society, intended to do just
that, keep bad
people in line. We'd all attempt to get away with a bit more, you know
what make that
ALOT more if there wasn't the threat of retribution. God rather
compels people to do
good, sometimes w/a little encouragement on the end of his boot. No
big deal. We're
told not to despise the chastening of the Lord, for he does it to
everyone he loves.
And what parent wouldn't seek to teach their children the best way to
live. I'm sure
you'll agree, children aren't always automatically compliant.
> > Not really. You didn't explain at all why you think the OT's smiting
> > and burning is consistent with the NT's peace and love. One says "God
> > is there to punish you" and the other is "God is there to save you".
> > You've assumed what God has done in the OT is just, you have no
> > argument for why it is. The only way people can get this out of the OT
> > is to fall back to "We can't question God's motives" or "We can't
> > understand God's motives". It's a bit of a cop-out. So either admit
> > that there is no logical consistency in the Bible, or just don't
> > bother arguing at all, since it requires a total logical fallout to
> > make it consistent in the first place.
I've addressed some of these points already, but I guess I'll have to
try again.
If we can believe the accounts, some chose IMMEDIATELY to defy his
directives.
And I touched on the abominations the pagans committed back then.
Harsh penalties
were put into place for those reasons I guess.
You also seem fixated with the thought that God punished people in
the OT. Didn't
he show any mercy? What about Cain?
Have you actually read the OT through? Followed by the NT?
And why the fixation w/practices that were carried out thousands of
years ago? Is there a companion
group "Atheism vs. Islam"? They're still doing it today. And 40% of
the Muslims in Canada want to live
under Sharia law.
>> Arguing from a new testament era standpoint,
>Arguing from a modern era standpoint, that is.
Largely a product of NT beliefs. And I really can't say what
modernity would con-
sist of if history has not been presumed upon by Jesus Christ.
>> with all the benefits Christian tenets produce on a society,
>It's arguable that the Christian influence on society was beneficial
>historically. In fact it was probably a blight. The 1000 years of
>Christian rule stifled education, progress, and information flow not
>in line with the Church's "party line".
There were undoubtedly excesses during the "reign" of the RC church.
Now that
was inconsistent w/new testament teachings to say the least. To equate
it with
true Christianity would be a mistake. Remember Tyndale was burned at
the stake
for attempting to make the scriptures available to the common man. And
others.
But understand even during this period, a certain degree of knowledge
was pre-
served, and a more or less Christian type of morality was held by the
masses.
So if the early Christians had not propagated the faith, and
admittedly it de-
generated in the following millenia, what would have taken it's place?
Should
we belive the absolutely brutal pagans of Ireland and elsewhere would
have been
rehabilitated otherwise?
>> you're concluding his Laws were unjust.
>I'm concluding that man's interpretation of God's will is incorrect in
>the OT.
All I can say is again consider it in light of the excesses that
abounded.
>> I've already stated that even those who used his name would
>> repeatedly fall into a state of decadency.
>And what do you mean by "decadency"?
>Proof of this would be what, exactly? What sins were so great that
>society itself was debilitated?
Burning babies for one. And if I have to comment on the homosexual
thing, tell
me why in this age they have to force their lifestyle down everyone's
throat,
lobby to get ministers locked up for simply stating what their faith
requires
(and frankly common sense), and claim that everyone else is a nazi. If
we're
to believe the bible, homosexuality is not hereditary, but rather
lust gone
wild. It was rampant in the latter days of the Roman empire, and many
feel it's
an indication that society is in it's death throws. Let's be real,
they're ultimate
decline was the result of internal excesses and accompanying weakness
brought on by
moral decline. Are things so different in the US and other countries
in this day?
And keep in mind I don't hate gays. I grew up in Long Island LOL.
Many appear to
be extemely troubled, and for good reason, and I know you'll say this
is due largely
to rejection by family, friends, and religion. But consider the study
the French
gov't recently conducted in which it was determined a child is best
served when they
have a mother and father. So...we can'treally have it both ways,
either it's natural or not.
And admittedly the French may be locking up pastors and whatnot like
many other countries.
I'll wager that many people in this group would deem that unjust.
>> And yet despite them, people still chose to do their own thing.
>Yes, that's called "rationality" and "freedom from fear".
There are consequences to actions. By God imposing certain strictures,
in the hope
that the inevitable consequences won't ruin lives and society, he's
unjust? I guess
we're not soon going to agree that the OT is the true account of God
and his dealings
w/people. But to rationalize that we can and should be able to do
whatever we want
(we are indeed able), and suffer no consequences, inevitable or
imposed, isn't real-
istic, nor does it stand up to scrutiny in the light of history and
common sense often.
>So you say in one breath that you can't "find fault" in God, but in
>the next you say you're allowed to. So which is it?
What I was trying to convey was that I'm convinced of the divine
inspiration of the
bible. Had questions after that fact, some were bothersome, but since
I wasn't pre-
pared to abandon my core beliefs, those questions I had to lay aside.
But frankly,
some of the questions I've seen in this room, and put forth rather
forcefully, are
simply held out for the simple reason the "askers" really don't want
to believe, and
essence use them as a excuse against it. Just my opinion. But probably
true in some
cases.
>This attitude is still nonsensical. It's not a helicopter that's
>coming to save you. It would be more like someone handing you a
>believe that you can!" You're damned right I'm going to take a good
>look at the pencil before I jump over a cliff.
Whoops made a booboo there (cut some text). In the absence of
persecution, there's
no cliff to jump off of by accepting Christianity. There's always "the
cost of
discipleship". And I have never known a single Christian who hasn't
seen God start
to work in their life following their conversion. If you've ever
witnessed a person
convert to faith in Christ, I think you'd honestly have to admit that
something had
happened that wasn't a matter of simply "joining a new religion".
>If God has requirements at all (even self-imposed) then God is not
>omnipotent.
The argument, if valid, would have more to do with self reliance then
omnipotence
if you ask me.
> I'm fully aware of your intentions. They're obvious. But consider
> that acting on my beliefs consists of more then just talking about it.
> And I'm not here "sounding a trumpet" as the hypocritical pharisees
> used to do, but a significant portion of my wages (significant
> considering my wages!) does go to help the poor. I wasn't constrained
> to do that before I was a believer.
>Sure you are, as a member of the human race. So basically you're
>saying that without the hope of divine reward, or the threat of divine
>punishment, people have no reason to have morals at all.
I never mentioned being threatened at all. I had said before
conversion I did not feel
constrained to do these things, but afterwards I did. There's probably
statistical data
on the web somewhere. I'm not suggesting that Christians are the only
ones who give.
But I'll wager considerably more then anyone else. And please don't
include donations to
liberal foundations *necessarily* on par with feeding starving
children in Africa.
> Therefore I can take none of the
> credit, and in fact don't want any. The results are reward enough.
>So the results ARE reward enough, and therefore you don't need to be
>Christian in order to do them. So which is it? Can man be moral
>without the threat of a divine spanking or not?
Because the love of Christ constrains me. I didn't have it before.
There are moral
non-Christians living in this heavily Christian influenced society.
But chances are
they donate to some college fund or what have you. Not a terrible
thing in and of
itself though of course.
Of course the results are reward enough. But there was an absence of
giving prior to
conversion.
"Nonsense. Total nonsense. I can offer you empirical evidence of
-The rapid expansion of the early universe (14-15 billion years old)."
You might be able to provide empirical evidence of the expansion of
the present
universe (and I'll point out that in several OT passages it's said
that God stretched
out the heavens like a curtain). But to state that you can provide
empirical evidence
for those *events* is contradictory. You weren't there.
-Star formation
ditto
-Planetary formation (including Earth, 4 billion years old)
ditto
-Evolution of species
mega ditto. I'm actually tempted to use an explitive here, albeit a
mild one :)
-The heliocentric solar model
And the bible contradicts this, or was it the medieval church? And
please don't refer to
Paul stating that we shouldn't let the sun set on our wrath. It's
normal everyday parlance
even now. The bible isn't a textbook.
"All of these are totally inconsistent with the literal interpretation
of the Bible. To escape them, you have to retreat to statements like
"Well, God's days are different from our days, so it was created in 6
of God's days, not 6 of ours". "Well, the order shown in the Bible of
how things were created was different from how it happened, but so
what, that doesn't mean it's wrong". "Evolution is okay for lower
animals, but for humans it was different. We were created from dust
and ribcages.""
There actually is some data that seems to support that the earth
could
be several thousand years old. You'll have to wait for the specifics.
I
want to do it right.
"Correct. But why are some books about Christ in the NT and not
others,
for instance?"
I'm not sure what you mean here. If you're asking why have some of
the
"other accounts" been discarded, like the Gnostic gospels, it's
because
they're dopey as all getout. Many are just so weird. I haven't looked
at alot I'll have to admit, but I imagine that if I did, I'd draw the
very same conclusion as were at the council of Nice.
"I'm curious as to what you think about the secular world is
delusional. It's not plain, not by a long shot."
Oh, communism. IMHO sprang from the same root as Darwinism and the
trends
towards atheism of the 19th century. Heck, the retired Jewish school
teacher
I used to work with who claims Israel should negotiate with Hamas (At
least
you guys are honest about the bibles condemnation of homosexuality. He
claims
it's open to interpretation somehow). Really nice guy, but delusional,
and in
more ways then that. Nancy Pilosi deluding herself by thinking she can
accomplish
meaningful dialogue with the murderous king of Syria. Global warming.
I'm free-
zing as I speak here in the middle of April. Somehow the facts that
the UK had a
thriving wine industry about the time of Christ, and also about 900
years ago is
altogether absent from the debate. And that I've heard 7 of the other
planets of
our ss are experiencing warming trends. To state a few examples of
delusional
thinking rife in the secular realm.
> As to some of the other things you claim to be gospel,
> I'll eventually find the time to examine, for as you see I've not been
> in the faith (or rather back in the faith) for very long.
>So what made you leave in the first place, and what made you go back?
I was deluded into thinking such a course of action was in my
interests.
I then had the "oppurtunity" to contemplate on eternity.
> > The four Gospels according to Mark, Matthew, Luke and
> > John: The Gospel accorded to Mark, which is supposedly
> > based on Peter's story and shows close contact with both
> > Romans and the Jews, presents Jesus as the Great Martyr;
> > Matthew's Gospel describes Jesus as the fulfillment of the
> > Jewish messianic hope; (None of them belive it even today.)
> > Why should you? The Gospel according to Luke speaks
> > of him as the Universal Saviour; Johns Gospel points out
> > Jesus as the incarnation of the Principle of Reason in the
> > universe (the Logos of the Greeks), using phrases of the
> > kind employed by Philo.
> To say none is a fallacy. Few granted. But few will admit that
> there's little to believe in regarding Judaism, when the essence of
> their faith is long dead.
>So people who don't believe in Christ as the Messiah have a dead
>faith? Interesting take. Tell that to the Jewish people here and
>elsewhere.
That comment was pretty insensitive. I therefore repent in sackcloth
and ashes.
Regarding the fact that the temple was destroyed (central to the
worship conducted
in the scriptures) was what I was referring to. And the fact that
their Messiah has
come, "but his own wouldn't receive Him". I do realize that Judaism
has redefined
itself, and that's their privilege.
> Examine it in the historical context.
"Sure, let's. A people that had been conquered repeatedly throughout
their history found themselves the subjects of yet another foreign
ruler, the Roman Empire. Stories of "Messiahs" abounded all the time,
since they were supposed to be the ones to take the Israelites out
from the thumb of Roman rule. Historically many such "Messiahs"
existed. One particular Messiah, Joshua of Nazareth, developed quite a
large following, and mostly taught about spiritual freedom rather than
actual freedom. His message was well-received because it focused on
peace and hope, and his message spread throughout the Western world.
He was probably crucified by the Romans. Whether he was actually
resurrected has no evidence other than what is written in the Bible."
Nevertheless, it follows quite logically that Jesus was their Christ.
And
God foresaw their rejection, and used it for Him to become "a light to
the
gentiles". Notice though that the NT teached the gospel is "to the Jew
first,
and then the gentile".
> You
> argue the inadequacy of Christianity by stating Jews don't accept it.
> But this is wonky, because I'm sure you believe to be a religious Jew
> is just as foolish (or more so?). But in your estimation of the rather
> dim, non enlightened religious mind, doesn't it seem logical that
> Jesus was indeed the Christ they *should* have been looking for?
>What proof do you have that Christ was actually the "Messiah" they
>were all looking for? (Christ was a Greek word meaning anointed, as
>you know). All we have are Biblical accounts, written years after his
>death.
I feel that it's proof positive he was the Christ, considering his
over-
whelming effect on history. It would have been more evident that he
was
indeed the Christ to those who were living in that time.
>But you have to admit, even factual information such as Christ's last
>words are not consistent. It doesn't mean they're necessarily totally
>wrong, but details were, in all probability, embellished to a large
>extent.
I'm led to believe the different gospels are meant to be taken as a
composite.
>The engineer of the universe didn't write it. People wrote it. And if
>the engineer of the universe wrote it, that engineer did a pretty
>lousy job of describing what that engineer actually did. So you've
>reduced God to a shoddy lab scientists, who couldn't actually document
>what was actually done to save a damn.
Nevertheless there are a number of reasons to conclude the bible is
of
supernatural origin. This reply is becoming very long. I'm not copping
out.
I'll doubtless have oppurtunity to state them along_the_way.
"Heb 7:18-19
"The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless
(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced,
by which we draw near to God.""
The law in this instance indicative of the former covenant, which
purpose
was to reveal to man his sinfulness. There's different aspects of the
law.
The moral, ceremonial, and civil components. The law was also a
covenant.
Heb 8:6-7
"But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the
covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is
founded on better promises. For if there had been nothing wrong with
that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another."
Again contrasting the superiority of the NC in relation to the OC.
And
keep in mind he's talking to converted Jews who in some cases were
ret-
urning to the former practices, due to persecution, and needed to be
reminded
Christ freed us from trying to persue righteousness in our own
strength, which
was futile. The OC didn't provide grace. Present in the NC is an abun-
dance of grace. "for he is able to save to the utmost them that come
to God
by Him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them".
"John 1:17
"For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through
Jesus Christ."
It is clear that grace and truth were non existent until circa 30 AD."
John 1:14 - And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us (and we
beheld
his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of
grace
and truth.
Jesus also said, in the gospel of John, that he was the way, the
Truth, and
the life.
Again, the law in this case of 1:17 referring to the old covenant,
which did
not administer grace, hence the practice of slaying the Passover lamb.
The Jews
were aware that "something better" was to come, it's all over the OT.
And to
suggest that John was saying there was no truth before Christ is a
misreading.
The advent of Christ was in one aspect an unveiling of all the OT
promises, "things which angels desired to look into".
"Hebrews 8:13
"By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete;
and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."
The law has been abolished according to Paul's teaching in Ephesians
2:14-16, talking about the Gentiles and Jews, "For [Jesus] himself is
our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the
dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with
its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself
one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to
reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to
death their hostility."
The law has not been abolished according to Jesus' teaching in Mat
5:17-20, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the
Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.""
Clever use of translations, I'm not even going to figure out which
ones you used.
Destroy is used in the KJV in Matt 5:17. And understand "the law and
the prophets"
is collectively the OT scriptures. This is elucidated in verse 18 -
"For verily I
say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass , one jot or one tittle shall
in no wise
pass from the law, till all be fulfilled".
"According to the OT, the laws of God have been established for all
eternity. Psa 119:151-152, 160, "Yet you are near, O LORD, and all
your commands are true. Long ago I learned from your statutes that you
established them to last forever." "All your words are true; all your
righteous laws are eternal.""
"Thou are near, O Lord; and all thy commandments are truth. Concerning
they test-
imonies, I have known of old thou hast founded them forever." "Thy
word is true
from the beginning: and every one of the righteous judgements endureth
forever"
Luke 21:33 "Heaven and Earth shall pass away: but my words shall not
pass away".
"According to Hebrews, the laws of God have not been established for
all eternity, and in fact are about to disappear.
Hebrews 8:13
"By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete;
and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.""
Yes, the old covenant has been abolished. But all his words are
eternal never-
theless.
The whole point of evangelism is moot, because Christian no longer
need to tell us about God. We all already know God and God has
forgiven us all.
"Jeremiah 31:31-34
"The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new
covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will
not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took
them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my
covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. "This is
the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,"
declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on
their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No
longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying,
'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them
to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their
wickedness and will remember their sins no more.""
Many OT passages jump from the first advent to the second advent and
beyond. Taking passages like this and setting them all by themselves
is needless
to say not an effective way to examine a book as complex as the
bible. And
would it have been such a bad idea to present this particular verse
much earlier
in the thread?
"I might have mentioned the following story on this group before, but
it is worth repeating.
A Christian mother was reading to her child about the God of the Old
Testament's hobby of killing all the enemies of Israel. The child was
confused by how this could be consistent with Jesus' command to "love
our enemies". The mother explained that God dealt with people before
Christ differently. The child, being now enlightened, states, "Now I
understand, the New Testament explains how God became a Christian".
"Out of the mouth of babes", Matthew 21:16."
So I suppose the enemies of OT Israel were not to be vanquished, so
as God's
legacy through Israel couldn't be realized, ultimately through Christ.
Is this
what I'm to understand? And I shouldn't have to point out that some
feel killing
someone in defence of self, or of a loved one, is as criminal an act
as the un-
warranted aggressions of the attacker. So all types of logic can be
deemed faulty,
despite the presentation of cute little stories. And understand, God
didn't become
a Christian, but provided the means by which people can live as such.
And history
bears it out.
"Benedict Spinoza was called, "The God-intoxicated man." He was
something of
an authority on God! Of course, he was just a man and I don't agree
with
everything he wrote, but he wrote utterly fascinating stuff. He called
God
an "it," and described his properties and the laws of its being. I
regard
Spinoza as worthwhile to give consideration to because he supposedly
drew
conclusions based on mathematical principles. For instance, that
anything
from God must be God. As he and his brother in spirit Rene Descartes
might
have said, nothing is more certain than mathematics. Two plus two
equals
four even on the other side of the universe in all likelihood. To
prove
God's existence based on laws of mathematics is certainly worthy of
looking
into."
More then likely treacherous ground to tread. To suggest God is bound
by math,
and I realize you're not really stating this, rather then He creating
it, and
rather in essence, "exists" outside of it, seems more consistent with
an Omnipotent
God. It's truly a slippery slope to try to justify the existence of
God or define
his attributes in terms of naturalism. It's the essence of paganism.
"Its not an assertion. Its a fact. The fact is the Bible is a bunch of
stories. If you think they are anything other than stories, then tell
me what you think they are instead of avoiding my answer. Answer the
question unless you're a wimp. What do you think the stories in the
Bible are?"
Uhuh, and I'm sure you'll suggest that evolution is also factual.
We'll have a
problem relating if that's the case. And yes I do believe the
"stories" of the
bible are a progressive revelation of Him and his intentions for
mankind.
"Family is one of the deepest issues of life. What you are referring
to
is religion. Why don't you just say it instead of obfuscating? I
believe there is no afterlife. That after we die, that's it. There's
nothing left for you. That doesn't mean my life has no purpose, as you
try to suggest. You and your ilk are constantly trying to deride
atheists and agnostics by claiming such falsities. Let me just say:
Fuck off. I'm sick of you psycho pricks trying to label atheists as
being some sort of zombies."
I did say it. We are in fact talking about religious beliefs here.
There are
other sorts of beliefs. But in this forum talk of beliefs in family
and chinese
food are not really on topic.
No, I don't know anything about family though. My father passed on 6
months ago
and I barely left the ccu for 8 days while he dwindled.
And frankly, why do you even participate in a forum when it's frankly
common
place for people to disagree on this stuff? I'm a villain for
participating, by
sharing my views? Please explain.
> > What the hell are you talking about? First you direct us to "consider
> > other civilizations" as if these others, because they are not
> > Christian, do not do as well. In the same paragraph you then
> > contradict yourself by saying that Western civilization is on the
> > decline. Is that because the U.S. is 85 percent Christian?
> Well f'rinstance Hindus believe in something like animism (maybe I'm
> using a wrong term) where the life of a cow is valued as much as a
> human's. Now, from my western Christian perspective, and despite that
> fact that I love animals and wish I had the character to become a
> vegetarian, I think that's insane. Now you can argue that my opinion
> is subjective, but a book that promotes charity (and how often does
> Dev bring up a thread based on that notion?) just makes so much more
> sense.
>You think that if your not a Christian then you're anti-charity? Are
>you freakin retarded?
Not what I said. I said that charities were largely absent outside of
OT/NT
thought, and societies, and that is largely true today also.
I simply stated some facts. Why I believe Christianity is the true
faith. Well,
I look around for starters. Because I stated some facts, which are
inarguably true,
again I'm a psycho. So I guess then I'm also a psycho if I state the
gov't of
Mexico is corrupt, even though many of their own nationals say the
exact same thing?
Perhaps not politically correct to state some things. But facts are
facts.
> I'll avoid the Koran for now. I will point out that all over the
> internet the "startling similarities" between Christianity and Islam
> are vociferously (and erroneously) proclaimed each and every day. If I
> have to elucidate the marked differences ever again, I'm going to
> freaking cry.
> Take Japan, a people who's culture and history I find very
> intriguing. But it's a brutal one, even up until the 20 century. The
> newscasts of the more or less recent earthquake over there showed
> people crying out in the streets for help, while their neighbors would
> pass by barely noticing. Sorry, though I would love to visit Japan
> someday, they aren't inherently uncharitable.
>I'm not going to defend the Japanese culture other than to say you are
>so full of shit. At least the Japanse have the compassion enough to
>provide health care for all its citizens.
Right. Well there are good arguments for and against socialized
medicine.
Some of the bad ones you'll hear from people who live under such
systems.
England, Canada for instance. But stick to what I said. I said the
Japanese
people are largely uncharitable. Look at the statistics. But I'm
retarded
and a pycho for simply pointing it out.
> And regarding the decline of the west, it's not because we're 85%
> Christian, but rather that we're departing from it. And when I refer
> to the positive effects of the "Christening" of the west, Christian
> morality was even imposed (oftentimes violently!) by the Catholic
> church for instance, not a Christian faith for the most part if you
> hold to the scriptures.
>Hahahaha. You are a psycho cop-out. Devil already pointed you to
>SPECIFIC passages that promote violence against others but you simply
>choose to ignore them because they don't fit your marketing strategy.
>Did you even read the original post?
Oi. Corporal and capitol punishment in certain contexts is NOT a
promotion
of violence. Rather it's intended to reduce violence. But I see need
to repeat
that stuff all over again. And what in blazes is with the marketing
strategy?
Tell me, what would I personally have to gain. But I'm called
delusional.
> Probably 15% of the US is truly Christian.
>Really? What survey data did you use? Or, did you just make this shit
>up from your highly immoral values? I'm betting on the latter.
Just a highly immoral guess.
> Let's not forget the former USSR, nominally a "Christian" society,
> but for the scourge of communism. What a panacea that was.
>In case you didn't know this, communism and religion are mutually
>exclusive.
O is that a fact. Consider:
"The thing that bothers me about faith-based altruism is that it is
contaminated
with religious ideas that have nothing to do with the relief of human
suffering.
So you have a Christian minister in Africa who's doing really good
work, helping
those who are hungry, healing the sick. And yet, as part of his job
description,
he feels he needs to preach the divinity of Jesus in communities where
literally
millions of people have been killed because of interreligious conflict
between
Christians and Muslims. It seems to me that that added piece causes
unnecessary
suffering. I would much rather have someone over there who simply
wanted to feed
the hungry and heal the sick." - Harris from the God Debate w/Rick
Warren
To this delusional person, religion has accomplished nothing but
secure untold
death. Sounds frighteningly similar to the rantings of Marx and Lenin,
the outcome
of their substitute for religion (nature abhors a vacuum) which caused
millions
of deaths in a very short time. Try to pin that much carnage on any
religion, I
challenge you. And keep in mind that Christianity far more often then
not, is not
the aggressor in such conflicts. To Muslims, Christians and atheists
would be
considered infidels.
And this simple logic seems to have escaped Mr. Harris. If a person
who feeds a
poor person, and perchance converts them to Christianity, maybe that
person
will feel compelled to devote his energies to do the same. No, because
his thinking
is underpinned by a philosophy rather then rationale. And the two
don't necessarily
coincide in the case of radical atheism.
> Honestly, would you rather live in a country that doesn't hold
> biblical morality? (to whatever degree) Ok, which one?
>Morality is not the product of your Bible. On the contrary, the Bible
>is a product of morality--for better or for worse.
O really. That statement sounds to me like the antithesis of this
thread.
> > What does that make the theist? A bullshitter?
> I don't know about theists in general, but Christians have drawn a
> valuable conclusion regarding these issues.
>Funny how you "don't know about theists in general", but have the
>immoral audacity to label all other religions and cultures (e.g.
>Japan) as inferior and/or immoral.
I absolutely do believe that Christianity has given birth to a
superior set of
ideals in this country and others, and that are constantly assailed by
those
who see them as immoral somehow. Some authors and whoever even go as
far as to say that Christian missionaries (and in fairness this can
possibly
even include Catholics) do more to spread democracy then any other
methods.
>"Valuable conclusions" regarding what issues?
Like I said those that we've presumed to discuss in this forum.
Basically those
having to do with eternal welfare.
PD
<TheDraperFamily@gmail.com>On Apr 14, 10:29 am, "scooter" <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I've given you valid questions to answer concerning the validity of
> your god claims. Instead of providing answers, you invoke the "you
> can't scrutinize God" nonsense. To the contrary, I have scrutinized
> and your religion has come up woefully short of any kind of rational
> explanation. In fact, you don't even provide an explanation.
>
> The only thing absurd is the fact that you accept, without question,
> these fantastic stories that defy the laws ofphysicsand common sense.
I notice that you implicitly require that everything should follow the
rules of the laws of physics and common sense. If it doesn't seem to
do that, then you demand a "rational explanation" which would of
course place it back to where it follows the laws of physics and
common sense.
Now, suppose I told you about a law of physics that defies common
sense. Then what would be your standard for judging which is true --
your common sense or the law of physics? And how would you tell?
PD
PD
<TheDraperFamily@gmail.com>On Apr 14, 7:49 am, "thedevil...@hotmail.com"
<thedevil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If you don't want to play just stay home, man. I've held lots of
> Bibles in my hand. It's just that if you're defending a book that says
> to kill people, you should do a little better than "you just don't
> understand" with no further explanation.
>
And the US Constitution says it's illegal to purchase or consume
alcohol. Do you obey the US Constitution?
Oh, wait, later on in the Constitution it says it's OK to purchase or
consume alcohol. And so do you take the contradictory information in
the Constitution to give you the excuse to pick and chooose what you
want to obey in the Constitution?
Oh... were you going to say something about taking something in the
Constitution out of context?
PD
Stephen
<stephen.p.craig@gmail.com>S: According to Jesus, the greatest moral teacher of all history,
"Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death". Mat
15:4.
God said it, I believe it, that settles it!
It is disappointing that so many Christians are making us doubt that
God has established his holy laws for all eternity. Christians are
teaching us that it is okay to disobey God! It is clear that we are
_morally obliged_ to kill all Christians who teach us that it is okay
to rebel against God's commandments he has established for all
eternity.
Whenever a Christian tells you it is okay to _not_ go stoning people
at your local shopping mall on Saturday, just remember: "The LORD your
God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your
heart and with all your soul. It is the LORD your God you must follow,
and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and
hold fast to him. That Christian blasphemer must be put to death,
because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God; he has tried
to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow.
You must purge the evil from among you." Deut 13:3-5. "We must obey
the LORD our God, keeping _all_ his commands, and doing what is right
in his eyes". Deut 13:18.
Come, one and all, join with me at the local shopping mall on Saturday
for some stoning! Don't worry about wondering whether it is okay to
commit a stoning on Saturdays, for Jesus said it is lawful to do good
on Saturdays! It is good to stone all who work on Saturday because God
has told commanded us to!
Hallelujah!
PD
<TheDraperFamily@gmail.com>> Hallelujah!-
And you'll recall how Jesus responded to the crowd that had assembled
to stone the adulteress.
Oh, let's see, you must have been focusing on that part of the
Constitution that forbids the purchase and consumption of alcohol.
PD
cathyb
<cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au>He wasn't exactly consistent, was he?
>
> Oh, let's see, you must have been focusing on that part of the
> Constitution that forbids the purchase and consumption of alcohol.
The difference being, of course, that your Constitution can be and is
amended when the more ridiculous or unenforceable aspects of it become
apparent.
The Bible, of course, is not. It's, um, inerrant. So presumably, we
should still be stoning people who curse their parents, as per Jesus
words.
>
> PD- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Stephen
<stephen.p.craig@gmail.com>S: It is my understanding that the earliest and most reliable
manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11,
the story of the woman caught in adultery. If this is so, then it is a
shame. The account is one of my favourite stories that is attributed
to Jesus. I was tempted to mention "he who is without sin, cast the
first stone" in my stoning of Saturday shopkeepers, but decided
against it.
The problem with the OT is that it contains commands by God that we
today would consider immoral to obey. This is a problem specifically
because the Bible explicitly states that God has established these
laws for all eternity. On that basis, it seems we are required to
accept one of three things. 1. Accept that we are, in fact, morally
obliged to kill those who work on Saturday as well as kill those who
would have us rebel against this law. 2. Accept that the authors of
the OT attributed their own morality to God, but were mistaken - God
has since corrected his errant word. 3. Accept that the parts of the
Bible which state that God has established his law for all eternity
actually mean that God intended to obsolete his law at some point.
Do you agree that these are our only options?
>
> Oh, let's see, you must have been focusing on that part of the
> Constitution that forbids the purchase and consumption of alcohol.
S: Exactly. If you focus on the OT, you will (hopefully!) realize what
a poor basis of morality the Bible actually is. Most fundamentalistic
Christians would have us believe God's laws as recorded in the Bible
are the best basis for determining what constitutes moral behaviour. I
do not think many Christians are actually willing to take this belief
to it's logically conclusions.
Are you?
>
> PD
PD
<TheDraperFamily@gmail.com>Not on the surface, maybe. Perhaps he was pointing out that obeying
the letter of the law misses the heart of the law, and that
superficial understanding is not sufficient for the task.
There are many who feel the same way about the Twin Paradox in special
relativity. They say, "How can there be anything paradoxical in a
successful theory." The response, of course, is that there is no
paradox, that the "paradox" is only a false one, arising from a weak
understanding of special relativity, and the whole point of it is as a
*teaching exercise*.
>
>
>
> > Oh, let's see, you must have been focusing on that part of the
> > Constitution that forbids the purchase and consumption of alcohol.
>
> The difference being, of course, that your Constitution can be and is
> amended when the more ridiculous or unenforceable aspects of it become
> apparent.
Ah, so the document upon which we base our entire system of laws and
the way that we act as a nation, and in which we have so much faith
that we have a whole arm of the government devoted to reconciling laws
against it, is ridiculous and unenforceable? Does that reduce its
credibility or value to you?
>
> The Bible, of course, is not. It's, um, inerrant.
You mean like a carefully authored and edited and accuracy-checked
physics textbook, which says one thing about momentum in chapter 5 and
then completely the opposite thing about momentum in chapter 35 -- on
purpose?
PD
<TheDraperFamily@gmail.com>Depends on what you call the logical conclusions. As a Christian, I
recognize that the Bible is confusing and perplexing. So is the Twin
Paradox in special relativity, especially when someone with a good
understanding says there is no paradox, really. In the latter case, an
engaged student will scratch her head and try to figure out why the
apparent paradox is due to a shallow understanding. Of course, there
are also many students who give up almost immediately and cannot
really believe in a physical law that leads to apparent
contradictions.
So, are you an engaged student or a student that has given up?
PD
>
>
>
>
>
> > PD- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Stephen
<stephen.p.craig@gmail.com>S: I'm a student who finds it difficult to accept that a loving God
will condemn those students who have given up, especially if those
students who gave up still seek to abide in love. I am willing to
accept that there is an antinomy for certain doctrines like
predestination and free will, but I'm less inclined to accept the laws
in the OT which excuse immoral behaviour.
I would like to think that God, if he exists, is able to forgive me
for considering the OT to be an inaccurate portrayal of him.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>I think this is almost entirely untrue. In my experience, the more
educated a person is, the more likely they are to be an atheist (and
there is data I've seen to confirm that this is true). This isn't to
say that all theists are stupid and all atheists are smart, but there
certainly is a correlation that is embarrassing to theists like
myself.
> and convert to a delusional group of beliefs,
Technically atheism is non-belief. The theist is the one making
inferences.
> science falsely so called,
> and insist that they can prove it.
Exactly what science is false, as you see it?
> But I'll concede some have certain issues to resolve.
Some people have issues to resolve? No, in my experience (and this is
certainly true of the people on this board), people do not disbelieve
in God after catastrophic circumstances. They simply don't belive. No
hatred. No anger. No "issues". The only hatred, anger and "issues"
that bear are brought about by illogical people that are theists, that
advance stupid arguments like "morals don't exist without God", "God
can be proven and here's the mashed potatoes that prove it",
"evolution is wrong because the Bible says so", and a host of other
fallacies.
> That may
> involve a jaundiced view of the text.
I don't have a jaundiced view of the text. I really wanted the Bible
to be true. It just isn't all true. It's that simple. I have no horse
in the race against upturning the Bible's interpretation as the
literal word of God. It simply does not stand up to any scrutiny
without moving through asinine rhetorical hoops like "well, slavery is
really bad, it was a different time, and this other Bible verse says
all men have worth, so it's really saying slavery is bad even though
it clearly outlines the proper way to treat a slave", "well, it's not
immoral to eat shellfish, but it's immoral to have extramarital sex",
"it was 6 of God's days, not 6 of man's days", "well, we really can't
understand God's motives, so even though he kills infant children as
retribution and smiting punishment, he means well and who are we to
question him". I've seen ALL of these arguments presented here in
defense of the Bible, by various different people. Ultimately,
logically, there is one answer: The Bible is NOT the literal word of
God. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. It would be great if it were. It
just isn't. It's that simple.
> And so on and so forth.
>
> >> Like Psalm 22? There are a good number of them, it's pretty unlikely
> >> that someone would be able to weave a story that takes them all into
> >> account. And that the story becomes a world religion. Just an
> >> observation.
> >Mostly I was talking about the New Testament being engineered after
> >the fact to appear to coincide with OT "prophesies".
>
> But to engineer would suggest there was an attempt to deceive.
Precisely. That whole "Church as a political institution" comes to
mind.
> More of a valid argument (conceivably) if it was carried out by an organization.
Yes, exactly true.
> Far
> less plausible when the
> authors, if we're to believe the accounts, some by secular writers,
> were slaughtered
> for these "deceptions".
Which of the authors of the Bible were killed, exactly? I know Paul
was supposedly martyred, but I've never heard of any of the rest being
so.
>
> >OMG dude, Nothing is represented by Adam in the Bible, it's supposedly
> >an historical account (until it was disproven, and now it's an
> >allegory, sort of, but not really, and it's true, but it isn't).
>
> I'll accept the Genesis account, even though I haven't personally
> witnessed it.
I'll disregard the Genesis account because it's proven to be a bunch
of bullshit. No Adam and Eve. No garden of eden. No creation from dust
and ribcages. No tree of knowledge. No world flood. No people that
lived more than 800 years. No stars made from water. No flat earth. No
geocentric solar model. Nada. Nothing. Every piece of information we
have shows this is all totally, utterly, completely false. The only
people that still believe it are misinformed, deliberately
misconstruing the results, delusional, or insane.
I'll assume you're not insane. You haven't promoted any of the usual
lies about evolution's falsity, so I won't consider you to be
deliberately misconstruing the results either. But of the other two, I
don't have any idea. Maybe you just don't understand. In that case, go
to talk.origins and learn. If you're delusional I can't help you.
Maybe it's a combination of the two.
> Cuz I've found the bible reliable in many other ways.
Like what?
> And no reason to reject it.
Other than the fact that it's been proven false, you mean?
> Evilution on the other hand is a big pile of doggy-do.
And now you've shown your true colors: A fundamentalist Bible-thumping
literalist. See above. I hope you're just misinformed and not
delusional. Misinformation can be corrected. Delusion is dangerous and
cannot be corrected, simply because the deluded wish to remain that
way.
> And it's been
> stinking up
> the earth for way too long.
Yes, the truth sometimes has a way of pissing people off that have a
vested interest in the opposite outcome.
>
> >> I'll wager you
> >> wouldn't tell me you've never broken his commandments.
> >What, "Don't eat that apple because then you might actually have
> >cognizance and critical thinking"? Yes, I'm guilty of critical
> >thinking. The fact that it's considered a sin by people like you
> >speaks volumes.
>
> Not the commandment/s I was talking about.
The 10 commandments? The Golden Rule? Love thy neighbor as thyself?
Obviously everyone makes mistakes. I own up to them and try to learn
from them. I also don't consider myself eternally damned because of
them. For what I've done wrong, I am sorry. However that is true for
all people. It's a little nonsensical for someone to do something they
recognize as being wrong and are not sorry for it. Only amoral people
would do such a thing, and the only amoral people are actually
clinically insane.
> But realize, although I do
> be-
> lieve it's literal, the fruit was simply illustrative of man's will to
> disregard
> God's will. I believe that the instance could have been any number of
> other "tests",
> and Adam and Eve would have still committed the disobedience.
Adam and Eve didn't exist. In any case, if they did, why are we still
being punished for it? Your interpretation of God is that he's a
vindictive prick. Mine isn't.
>
> >No doubt he did, I'm not claiming he didn't. My point is that the OT
> >is mostly a bunch of superstition and myth-fable. There are some parts
> >that teach us moral lessons, but mostly it's "If you don't do things
> >*our* way, you're going to be punished severely". It's very childish.
> >The desire to do good acts should not be predicated upon the threat of
> >being caught and/or punished. Those that require such a divine
> >"spanker" are total hypocrites.
>
> The desire to do good is not predicated on threat of punishment so
> much as doing the
> bad stuff.
> Laws are universal throughout society, intended to do just
> that, keep bad
> people in line.
Yes, that is what we have collectively decided over 5 million years of
evolution to do... remove people that threaten our society from said
society. We're not the only species to do so.
> We'd all attempt to get away with a bit more, you know
> what make that
> ALOT more if there wasn't the threat of retribution.
Maybe people like yourself would. If there were no threat of
retribution, people like yourself would apparently be raping,
pillaging, murdering, stealing, and pushing drugs on children. You've
got a very terrible moral compass if you make this argument. Just
recognize that not all people are as self-serving and intrinsically
bad as yourself. Given no divine retribution whatsoever, I consider it
a positive end unto itself of helping people and making the world a
better place.
> God rather
> compels people to do
> good, sometimes w/a little encouragement on the end of his boot.
> No big deal.
It is a very big deal that the only reason you do good things is "the
carrot or the stick". At best, you're a self-serving sycophant. At
worst, you're an immoral horrible person kept in line only by the
threat of punishment. Either way, don't you think it misses the
message of "Love your neighbor as yourself"?
> We're
> told not to despise the chastening of the Lord, for he does it to
> everyone he loves.
> And what parent wouldn't seek to teach their children the best way to
> live. I'm sure
> you'll agree, children aren't always automatically compliant.
I'm not a child. Neither are you. I understand basic human principles
of decency, and have the moral compass developed enough to tell the
difference between right and wrong. Children do not. They are
literally not complicated enough to understand the concepts. I am, and
so are you. So you should actually seek to do right action for it's
own end anyway, because you should be able to recognize that it is a
benefit to yourself and society without any other threat or reward.
>
> > > Not really. You didn't explain at all why you think the OT's smiting
> > > and burning is consistent with the NT's peace and love. One says "God
> > > is there to punish you" and the other is "God is there to save you".
> > > You've assumed what God has done in the OT is just, you have no
> > > argument for why it is. The only way people can get this out of the OT
> > > is to fall back to "We can't question God's motives" or "We can't
> > > understand God's motives". It's a bit of a cop-out. So either admit
> > > that there is no logical consistency in the Bible, or just don't
> > > bother arguing at all, since it requires a total logical fallout to
> > > make it consistent in the first place.
>
> I've addressed some of these points already, but I guess I'll have to
> try again.
> If we can believe the accounts, some chose IMMEDIATELY to defy his
> directives.
Such as?
> And I touched on the abominations the pagans committed back then.
> Harsh penalties
> were put into place for those reasons I guess.
Harsh penalties are not consistent with Christ's message, in case you
hadn't noticed.
> You also seem fixated with the thought that God punished people in
> the OT.
Well, considering it plasters the text, it's hard not to be. I have no
problem with God punishing people. I have a problem with God actully
punishing DIFFERENT people than who actually committed the crime. It
happens ALL THE TIME in the OT, and if you think otherwise, you're
misinformed or delusional.
> Didn't
> he show any mercy? What about Cain?
How about Cain's parents who were cast out of the garden of eden
forever for having human curiosity, and oh yeah, let's put an
additional strain on all females of the species and make them bear
painful labor, good, another way to keep them in line and under the
heel of men. Punishing children for what their parents do... yeah,
that's a just attitude.
> Have you actually read the OT through?
Several times, yes.
> Followed by the NT?
Even more, yes.
> And why the fixation w/practices that were carried out thousands of
> years ago?
Because it is the description of "God". Unless God changed his mind
sometime around 2000 years ago, it's inconsistent, illogical,
downright immoral and certainly not a God I want anything to do with.
> Is there a companion
> group "Atheism vs. Islam"?
They've been superceded... our group is really "Atheism v Theism".
> They're still doing it today. And 40% of
> the Muslims in Canada want to live
> under Sharia law.
>
> >> Arguing from a new testament era standpoint,
> >Arguing from a modern era standpoint, that is.
>
> Largely a product of NT beliefs.
I'm really interested in how you arrived at this conclusion... the
period of time when people actually lived under Biblical law was
considered to be the absolute worst time in Western history (those
Dark Ages where people led sucha miserable life that it was barely
worth living at all). I'd LOVE to hear your argument as to how the
Christian political machine actually helped society.
> And I really can't say what
> modernity would con-
> sist of if history has not been presumed upon by Jesus Christ.
Probably about 800 years further along in technology, science,
understanding, and problem-solving. Instead we're stuck with a world
where people kill each other over unprovable assumptions. I'll take my
chances iwth the secular world, thanks.
>
> >> with all the benefits Christian tenets produce on a society,
> >It's arguable that the Christian influence on society was beneficial
> >historically. In fact it was probably a blight. The 1000 years of
> >Christian rule stifled education, progress, and information flow not
> >in line with the Church's "party line".
>
> There were undoubtedly excesses during the "reign" of the RC church.
> Now that
> was inconsistent w/new testament teachings to say the least.
And yet that was the sum-total of the contribution of the Church to
society.
> To equate it with true Christianity would be a mistake.
Really? Now why would that be? It was the policy of all of
Christianity for almost it's entire existence.
> Remember Tyndale was burned at
> the stake
> for attempting to make the scriptures available to the common man. And
> others.
> But understand even during this period, a certain degree of knowledge
> was pre-
> served,
By barely literate scribes who copied symbols by hand. Yes, this was
clearly better than widespread availability of information that was
available during, say, the Classical period where many people were
educated and the arts and sciences flourished.
> and a more or less Christian type of morality was held by the
> masses.
Yes, stay in line and if you don't, your leige lord will kill you. And
oh, you're poor because God wants you to be poor. Now stay off my
land, don't hunt in my fields, if you do, I'll kill you, your family,
and everyone associated with the incident. How does a nice Inquisition
sound, now?
> So if the early Christians had not propagated the faith, and
> admittedly it de-
> generated in the following millenia, what would have taken it's place?
Reason? Accountability? Education? I don't know. We weren't there to
check it out. The Islamic world at the time was nowhere near as brutal
as the Christian, and they contributed more to the arts and sciences
during that time.
> Should
> we belive the absolutely brutal pagans of Ireland and elsewhere would
> have been
> rehabilitated otherwise?
You mean the pagans in the British Isles and Ireland that were (at
times) subdued by the pagans in Rome?
>
> >> you're concluding his Laws were unjust.
> >I'm concluding that man's interpretation of God's will is incorrect in
> >the OT.
>
> All I can say is again consider it in light of the excesses that
> abounded.
I've considered it in lots of lights. They all point to one thing: The
OT God is a vindictive prick that changed his mind 2000 years ago.
>
> >> I've already stated that even those who used his name would
> >> repeatedly fall into a state of decadency.
> >And what do you mean by "decadency"?
> >Proof of this would be what, exactly? What sins were so great that
> >society itself was debilitated?
>
> Burning babies for one. And if I have to comment on the homosexual
> thing, tell
> me why in this age they have to force their lifestyle down everyone's
> throat,
How is requesting to live their own lives the way they want to live it
privately in any way shoving it down your throat?
> lobby to get ministers locked up for simply stating what their faith
> requires
If they act in a way that violates the First Amendment, they're not
allowed to act that way. And frankly, I think you're full of shit.
There has been no preacher or religous person locked up for any reason
other than actually breaking the law (Kent Hovind, anyone?).
> (and frankly common sense),
The common sense of the delusional bigot is certainly not common.
> and claim that everyone else is a nazi.
> If
> we're
> to believe the bible, homosexuality is not hereditary, but rather
> lust gone
> wild.
If we believe science, it is hereditary. But hey, you've ignored every
other branch of science and instead took the word of a bunch of desert
nomads 4000 years ago on it instead, so hey, why would we expect you
to behave differently here? I guess delusion and predisposition toward
misinformation are consistent among your type.
> It was rampant in the latter days of the Roman empire, and many
> feel it's
> an indication that society is in it's death throws.
Actually the fact that the economy was in decline is the primary
indicator.
> Let's be real,
> they're ultimate
> decline was the result of internal excesses and accompanying weakness
> brought on by
> moral decline.
Not really. They just got lazy and disinterested in the rest of their
empire. A few wealthy people threw their weight around the rest of the
world without regard for the people's well-being. Sound familiar?
> Are things so different in the US and other countries
> in this day?
No, they're not. We still have a few wealthy people throwing their
weight around the rest of the world without regard for the people's
well-being.
> And keep in mind I don't hate gays.
Oh, you don't hate them, but you just want those godless bastard
fuckers to deny their very existence, shut up, have sex with people
they're not attracted to, go to Church and get in line like the rest
of those bastard liberals. Now go make me a sandwich, bitch, I'm a man
and God gave me the right to do so.
Yeah, I can see you don't hate the gays.
> I grew up in Long Island LOL.
> Many appear to
> be extemely troubled,
Not at all, most gay people I knwo (and I know a lot) are perfectly
happy, well-adjusted people for whom I have a great deal of respect.
In fact, many are probably reading this right now. Hi guys and gals!
> and for good reason, and I know you'll say this
> is due largely
> to rejection by family, friends, and religion.
You think it might have to do with the fact that misguided and stupid
family members, and equally misguided and stupid Church members
basically threw them out, and they want to be accepted for who they
are?
> But consider the study
> the French
> gov't recently conducted in which it was determined a child is best
> served when they
> have a mother and father.
I'm not familiar with this study.
> So...we can'treally have it both ways,
> either it's natural or not.
Guess what? If it's biologically predisposed, it's natural.
> And admittedly the French may be locking up pastors and whatnot like
> many other countries.
You keep talking about this. I'm interested in documentation of a
single incident where a pastor or any other religious figure was
locked up without actually breaking the law.
You know what? I'm not interested in the rest of what you have to say.
If it's anything like the mindless drivel you've expounded here, I'd
just as soon not be offended any further.
<snip the rest of this nonsense for brevity>
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>There's a difference here that needs to be pointed out. The
constitution was written by people that were not omnipotent, not
omniscient, not omnibenevolent, and simply flawed. They created
something that made a law at one point that was subsequently repealed
(hence invalidating that part of the law). In effect, the people
writing the Constitution DID change their minds about the issue,
spelled out their change in opinion, and enacted it into law.
Now look at the OT versus the NT. Both were supposedly inspired by an
omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being. Now, either that being
changed his/her/its mind between the OT and NT, or they are
intrinsically non-contradictory, or the information contained in the
OT or NT is false.
We can clearly say that they are intrinisically contradictory by using
verses contained in the Bible, so now we're left with the case that
either God changed stance between the OT and the NT, or some
information contained in either the OT or the NT is false.
Now, if God changed stance between the OT and the NT, God (being
omnipotent and omniscient) would have known ahead of time about such a
change in stance, and wouldn't have needed to have done it. Therefore,
the God of the Bible is inconsistent in changing stance between OT and
NT.
Therefore, we're left with the only logical conclusion: there is some
information in either the OT or the NT that is false. We must
determine via our own judgment which we think is false, and which we
think is true. However, that leaves us practiacally nowhere: We can
use the Bible as a moral tool, but we must use our own moral compass
to determine when. So what have we arrived at? That our morality must
come from within ourselves and our society, and therefore it is open
to debate and opinion.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>So do people who disobey their parents have to be stoned to death or
not? It's God's word (presumably), so why must we disobey?
scooter
<scooter.leto@yahoo.com>On Apr 17, 2:24 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 10:29 am, "scooter" <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I've given you valid questions to answer concerning the validity of
> > your god claims. Instead of providing answers, you invoke the "you
> > can't scrutinize God" nonsense. To the contrary, I have scrutinized
> > and your religion has come up woefully short of any kind of rational
> > explanation. In fact, you don't even provide an explanation.
>
> > The only thing absurd is the fact that you accept, without question,
> > these fantastic stories that defy the laws ofphysicsand common sense.
>
> I notice that you implicitly require that everything should follow the
> rules of the laws of physics and common sense. If it doesn't seem to
> do that, then you demand a "rational explanation" which would of
> course place it back to where it follows the laws of physics and
> common sense.
Actually, I don't. If the thing in question happens to be rather
benign, like astrology, I don't bother subjecting it to verification
because it's not looked to for authoritative [mis]guidance (any
longer). My father once asked me, after getting into trouble with a
friend, "If John jumped off a cliff, would you follow him just because
he did it?" What he meant was, don't just believe what anyone tells
you, demand evidence because it may not be in your best interest and
it may not be the truth. For me, this model applies to religion, too.
>
> Now, suppose I told you about a law of physics that defies common
> sense. Then what would be your standard for judging which is true --
> your common sense or the law of physics? And how would you tell?
Judgement is always made on particulars. And, veracity is dependant
upon the empirical evidence and what we already know about the
subject. They are localized, individual judgements. For example, if
someone tells me a story about a man who was born of a virgin, I call
on my knowledge of past events as well as my laymen's knowledge of
biology (you could ask DGG for a more in-depth explanation of sexual
reproduction) and conclude that story is BS. So, instead of playing
word games, go ahead and tell me about this law of physics that defies
common sense and I'll tell you what I think.
PD
<TheDraperFamily@gmail.com>If a student says he abandons SR because he doesn't understand the
paradox, but nevertheless earnestly tries to understand the behavior
of time and space and the universality of the speed of light, where do
you think the student will eventually end up?
> I am willing to
> accept that there is an antinomy for certain doctrines like
> predestination and free will, but I'm less inclined to accept the laws
> in the OT which excuse immoral behaviour.
>
> I would like to think that God, if he exists, is able to forgive me
> for considering the OT to be an inaccurate portrayal of him.
Well, that's for God to judge. I'm certainly not going to do it for
him.
PD
PD
<TheDraperFamily@gmail.com>I'm not so fast to presume. Jesus did not pick up a stone to hurl at
the adulteress, even though he was without sin and could satisfy his
own challenge to the others. It seems more complicated than the simple
thing you suggest.
PD
cathyb
<cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au>> to debate and opinion.- Hide quoted text -
Hey, that's what I was gonna say!:)
Beaten again by someone who put it far better than I would. This group
is so damned humbling sometimes.
PD
<TheDraperFamily@gmail.com>On Apr 17, 11:32 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 10:33 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> There's a difference here that needs to be pointed out. The
> constitution was written by people that were not omnipotent, not
> omniscient, not omnibenevolent, and simply flawed. They created
> something that made a law at one point that was subsequently repealed
> (hence invalidating that part of the law). In effect, the people
> writing the Constitution DID change their minds about the issue,
> spelled out their change in opinion, and enacted it into law.
And the value of the Constitution was in no way lessened because of
this reversal, right? We didn't say, "Well, that tears it. It's no
good now. Let's send the Supreme Court home. Nothing worthwhile left
to defend."
>
> Now look at the OT versus the NT. Both were supposedly inspired by an
> omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being. Now, either that being
> changed his/her/its mind between the OT and NT, or they are
> intrinsically non-contradictory, or the information contained in the
> OT or NT is false.
I don't know why you think God must have *intended* to write something
that is clear and unambiguous and clearly consistent from front to
back. Granted, that would have been convenient for us. Something tells
me that God hasn't designed either us or our environment to serve at
our convenience.
>
> We can clearly say that they are intrinisically contradictory by using
> verses contained in the Bible, so now we're left with the case that
> either God changed stance between the OT and the NT, or some
> information contained in either the OT or the NT is false.
>
> Now, if God changed stance between the OT and the NT, God (being
> omnipotent and omniscient) would have known ahead of time about such a
> change in stance, and wouldn't have needed to have done it. Therefore,
> the God of the Bible is inconsistent in changing stance between OT and
> NT.
>
> Therefore, we're left with the only logical conclusion: there is some
> information in either the OT or the NT that is false. We must
> determine via our own judgment which we think is false, and which we
> think is true. However, that leaves us practiacally nowhere: We can
> use the Bible as a moral tool, but we must use our own moral compass
> to determine when. So what have we arrived at? That our morality must
> come from within ourselves and our society, and therefore it is open
> to debate and opinion.- Hide quoted text -
>
cathyb
<cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au>Perhaps he wasn't very bright and missed the fact that he was
contradicting himself. Who knows.
>
> There are many who feel the same way about the Twin Paradox in special
> relativity. They say, "How can there be anything paradoxical in a
> successful theory." The response, of course, is that there is no
> paradox, that the "paradox" is only a false one, arising from a weak
> understanding of special relativity, and the whole point of it is as a
> *teaching exercise*.
So? Because you have an apparent contradiction that can only be
understood as not being a contradiction with further study inj physics
does not mean that another apparent contradiction is not simply a
contradiction.
>
>
>
> > > Oh, let's see, you must have been focusing on that part of the
> > > Constitution that forbids the purchase and consumption of alcohol.
>
> > The difference being, of course, that your Constitution can be and is
> > amended when the more ridiculous or unenforceable aspects of it become
> > apparent.
>
> Ah, so the document upon which we base our entire system of laws and
> the way that we act as a nation, and in which we have so much faith
> that we have a whole arm of the government devoted to reconciling laws
> against it, is ridiculous and unenforceable?
That's not what I said.
> Does that reduce its
> credibility or value to you?
It really doesn't have any value to me. It's basically a document,
written by men, not claimed to be either inspired by or the inerrant
word of god, on which the US bases its system of laws, and that is
amended when you realise you got something wrong, or something isn't
working the way you want it too.
The difference between that and the Bible, which is never (any more)
amended is bleeding obvious.
>
>
>
> > The Bible, of course, is not. It's, um, inerrant.
>
> You mean like a carefully authored and edited and accuracy-checked
> physics textbook, which says one thing about momentum in chapter 5 and
> then completely the opposite thing about momentum in chapter 35 -- on
> purpose?
No, I don't mean that at all. Think.
>
> > So presumably, we
> > should still be stoning people who curse their parents, as per Jesus
> > words.
>
cathyb
<cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au>write this outstanding post, so that I could enjoy it over my
croissants.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Stephen
<stephen.p.craig@gmail.com>S: A student who is confused by the twin paradox but keeps on studying
physics will end up realizing that the literal interpretation of the
OT is wrong and hence have cause to doubt the inerrancy of God's word.
PD
<TheDraperFamily@gmail.com>Well, of course, you can choose to believe the worst.... :-)
>
>
> > There are many who feel the same way about the Twin Paradox in special
> > relativity. They say, "How can there be anything paradoxical in a
> > successful theory." The response, of course, is that there is no
> > paradox, that the "paradox" is only a false one, arising from a weak
> > understanding of special relativity, and the whole point of it is as a
> > *teaching exercise*.
>
> So? Because you have an apparent contradiction that can only be
> understood as not being a contradiction with further study inj physics
> does not mean that another apparent contradiction is not simply a
> contradiction.
>
Which is exactly what those who walk away from special relativity say
about the perceived contradiction. The perception drives the choice to
walk away, and that choice is certain up to the perceiver, but that
doesn't necessarily have any bearing on the truth of special
relativity, does it?
>
>
> > > > Oh, let's see, you must have been focusing on that part of the
> > > > Constitution that forbids the purchase and consumption of alcohol.
>
> > > The difference being, of course, that your Constitution can be and is
> > > amended when the more ridiculous or unenforceable aspects of it become
> > > apparent.
>
> > Ah, so the document upon which we base our entire system of laws and
> > the way that we act as a nation, and in which we have so much faith
> > that we have a whole arm of the government devoted to reconciling laws
> > against it, is ridiculous and unenforceable?
>
> That's not what I said.
No, you didn't. You said *some parts* of the Constitution are
ridiculous and unenforceable. As is, I believe, the critique of some
about the Bible.
>
> > Does that reduce its
> > credibility or value to you?
>
> It really doesn't have any value to me.
Really? Then you wouldn't mind if the Supreme Court got disbanded?
> It's basically a document,
> written by men, not claimed to be either inspired by or the inerrant
> word of god, on which the US bases its system of laws, and that is
> amended when you realise you got something wrong, or something isn't
> working the way you want it too.
Really? So if the president decides there is something he doesn't like
in the Constitution then he can change it? Like the process for
amending the Constitution? Or simply replacing it?
> The difference between that and the Bible, which is never (any more)
> amended is bleeding obvious.
Gee, it's not so obvious to me. The Bible was amended some three
hundred years after the events that produced the gospels. Compare that
with the timeline of the Constitution.
>
> > > The Bible, of course, is not. It's, um, inerrant.
>
> > You mean like a carefully authored and edited and accuracy-checked
> > physics textbook, which says one thing about momentum in chapter 5 and
> > then completely the opposite thing about momentum in chapter 35 -- on
> > purpose?
>
> No, I don't mean that at all. Think.
I'm trying to. What's the difference?
PD
PD
<TheDraperFamily@gmail.com>Where is it said by God in the Bible that this is his inerrant word?
>
>
>
>
>
> > > I am willing to
> > > accept that there is an antinomy for certain doctrines like
> > > predestination and free will, but I'm less inclined to accept the laws
> > > in the OT which excuse immoral behaviour.
>
> > > I would like to think that God, if he exists, is able to forgive me
> > > for considering the OT to be an inaccurate portrayal of him.
>
> > Well, that's for God to judge. I'm certainly not going to do it for
> > him.
>
Stephen
<stephen.p.craig@gmail.com>S: The inerrancy passages I am aware of are attributed to David, Paul
(assuming by God-breathed Paul means inerrant), Moses, and Jesus.
There are passages littered throughout the Pentateuch in which God
implies the inerrancy of the laws gave, e.g. Deut 4.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>So Jesus disobeyed God's (his own?) will, then, if we are to take the
OT verbatim. So which is it? Do we stone them, or not? Did God change
his mind about the issue or not?
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>On Apr 17, 8:13 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 11:32 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 17, 10:33 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There's a difference here that needs to be pointed out. The
> > constitution was written by people that were not omnipotent, not
> > omniscient, not omnibenevolent, and simply flawed. They created
> > something that made a law at one point that was subsequently repealed
> > (hence invalidating that part of the law). In effect, the people
> > writing the Constitution DID change their minds about the issue,
> > spelled out their change in opinion, and enacted it into law.
>
> And the value of the Constitution was in no way lessened because of
> this reversal, right? We didn't say, "Well, that tears it. It's no
> good now. Let's send the Supreme Court home. Nothing worthwhile left
> to defend."
No, but it's clear there is a *mistake*. People *changed their minds*.
We can't say something like "The Constitution is verbatim true by
divine will", because we *KNOW* there are inconsistencies that were
later corrected. The Bible can make no such claim. People indeed claim
"The Bible is verbatim true by divine will". When inconsistencies are
brought up, we cannot say that they don't exist. I'm not saying that
the entire Bible is false, just that the parts that are inconsistent
are *definitely* false (or at least one of them) because they can't be
true and false at the same time.
>
>
>
> > Now look at the OT versus the NT. Both were supposedly inspired by an
> > omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being. Now, either that being
> > changed his/her/its mind between the OT and NT, or they are
> > intrinsically non-contradictory, or the information contained in the
> > OT or NT is false.
>
> I don't know why you think God must have *intended* to write something
> that is clear and unambiguous and clearly consistent from front to
> back. Granted, that would have been convenient for us. Something tells
> me that God hasn't designed either us or our environment to serve at
> our convenience.
That's not the issue. The issue is with the premise that the Bible is
the word of God, verbatim. A work that represents a verbatim
declaration of God's Will should at least be internally consistent. It
isn't. So therefore we conclude that the Bible is not the verbatim
declaration of God's will. There's no other logical alternative. It
doesn't mean that *ALL* of it is wrong, or that it is all worthless,
but it does mean that these contradictory PARTS are wrong, and at
least one of them is worthless. I think it's clear that the NT
outlines a moral theology that is more in line with a more enlightened
attitude about humanity, so don't you think we should take the NT over
the OT? Even Christ tells us to do this. He overturned a whole bunch
of older "laws" that were thought to be God's will. So which is it?
Did God change his mind, or is the OT false? Maybe both.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>> ...
>
> read more »
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>This is the stance of many Christians (in fact all Christian sects
that I know of, personally). I don't take this stance, although I
consider myself a Christian. The Bible is flawed. It is man's
interpretation of God's will. It is wrong in many places. I accept
that.
Chris
<chrism3667@yahoo.com>> That's not the issue. The issue is with the premise that the Bible is
> the word of God, verbatim. A work that represents a verbatim
> declaration of God's Will should at least be internally consistent. It
> isn't. So therefore we conclude that the Bible is not the verbatim
> declaration of God's will. There's no other logical alternative. It
> doesn't mean that *ALL* of it is wrong, or that it is all worthless,
> but it does mean that these contradictory PARTS are wrong, and at
> least one of them is worthless. I think it's clear that the NT
> outlines a moral theology that is more in line with a more enlightened
> attitude about humanity, so don't you think we should take the NT over
> the OT? Even Christ tells us to do this. He overturned a whole bunch
> of older "laws" that were thought to be God's will. So which is it?
> Did God changehismind, or is the OT false? Maybe both.
I have to wonder whether some people are even qualified to discuss
whether the bible is internally consistent or not, despite the
resounding broken record, despite claims of having read and reread it,
despite claims of being a Christian. GOD SAID 31:31- that there was
going to be a paradigm shift (a very fancy word, I'd prefer to use
another, but nothing comes to mind). So you still insist the OT and NT
are "internally inconsistent". This is really just so tiresome. By
virtue of the fact that the old is old and the new is new, and reread
the above verses, and that HE STATED his dealings with man would be
altered, there is no inconsistency. And consider that the OT addresses
a nation (for the utter most part), while the NT addresses individuals
or a relatively small assemblage within any number of nations/
societies.
> > > Now, if Godchangedstance between the OT and the NT, God (being
> > > omnipotent and omniscient) would have known ahead of time about such a
> > > change in stance, and wouldn't have needed to have done it. Therefore,
> > > the God of the Bible is inconsistent in changing stance between OT and
> > > NT.
Despite the fact that he announced a change, you still insist this is
inconsistent, or at least inconsistent w/omniscience or omnipotence?
Care to state why? The OT is prophetic in nature, and many many verses
foretell of a coming messiah, age, etc. Your view of a god and his
behavior is based solely on your choosing and limited understanding
and rationale.
Chris
<chrism3667@yahoo.com>On Apr 18, 6:59 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> GOD SAID 31:31-
whoops :)
Jeremiah 31:31-34
"The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new
covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will
not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took
them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my
covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. "This is
the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,"
declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on
their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No
longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying,
'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them
to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their
wickedness and will remember their sins no more."
ALLARA ADAM
<allaraadam@yahoo.com>Chris <chris...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.
dgp
<vorax.pye@gmail.com>god is a loving god, while claiming that in the OT his punishments
were swift and harsh. This is the change that many people refer to.
Why did god mellow? Why make a new covenant? Why not get it right
the first time? If he is all knowing, he should have known the OT way
wasn't going to cut it and people would end up going away from him,
worshiping idols, etc...still he ploded on for several hundred years
and killed millions in the process. Seems he's just not to bright for
an omniscient being in the OT so he decides to try a different
approach, come up with a new plan, then launch christ onto the people
as a new covenenant. Putting down his unforgiving ways and becoming a
kinder, genteler, all forgiving kind of god. Plan wasn't thought out,
so it was reworked...no sweat, happens to humans all the time...but
this book was supposed to have been written in part by a god...seems
maybe it wasn't if you look at this stuff to much.
ALLARA ADAM
<allaraadam@yahoo.com>dgp <vora...@gmail.com> wrote:
Most christians subscribe to the idea that the NT is the new way and
god is a loving god, while claiming that in the OT his punishments
were swift and harsh. This is the change that many people refer to.
Why did god mellow? Why make a new covenant? Why not get it right
the first time? If he is all knowing, he should have known the OT way
wasn't going to cut it and people would end up going away from him,
worshiping idols, etc...still he ploded on for several hundred years
and killed millions in the process. Seems he's just not to bright for
an omniscient being in the OT so he decides to try a different
approach, come up with a new plan, then launch christ onto the people
as a new covenenant. Putting down his unforgiving ways and becoming a
kinder, genteler, all forgiving kind of god. Plan wasn't thought out,
so it was reworked...no sweat, happens to humans all the time...but
this book was supposed to have been written in part by a god...seems
maybe it wasn't if you look at this stuff to much.
On Apr 18, 6:59 pm, Chris wrote:
PD
<TheDraperFamily@gmail.com>On Apr 18, 8:52 pm, dgp <vorax....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Most christians subscribe to the idea that the NT is the new way and
> god is a loving god, while claiming that in the OT his punishments
> were swift and harsh. This is the change that many people refer to.
>
> Why did god mellow? Why make a new covenant? Why not get it right
> the first time? If he is all knowing, he should have known the OT way
> wasn't going to cut it and people would end up going away from him,
> worshiping idols, etc...still he ploded on for several hundred years
> and killed millions in the process. Seems he's just not to bright for
> an omniscient being in the OT so he decides to try a different
> approach, come up with a new plan, then launch christ onto the people
> as a new covenenant. Putting down his unforgiving ways and becoming a
> kinder, genteler, all forgiving kind of god. Plan wasn't thought out,
> so it was reworked...no sweat, happens to humans all the time...but
> this book was supposed to have been written in part by a god...seems
> maybe it wasn't if you look at this stuff to much.
>
I just love the way folks make a habit of second-guessing God's
actions. "Well, if it were ME, then I certainly would have done it
differently."
Let me ask you a simple question. Suppose God did things *exactly* the
way that makes most sense to you, so that you had no reason to
question his wisdom about anything. Do you think that everyone on
Earth would agree with you that those actions and creations are
*exactly* the right thing to do? Do you think that everyone has the
common idea of what the *exactly* right thing is? If not, then what
makes you special?
PD
ALLARA ADAM
<allaraadam@yahoo.com>PD <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote: