Seriously folks... Everyone claims to have read the Bible but very few recognise the FACT that the prophets AND Yeshua called the old "law" fake, lies, deceitful and traditions of men.
There is no need to be pissed at God as he obviously didn't make all of those stupid arbitrary rules... (regardless if you believe in God or not)

Jeremiah 8:8
New International Version (NIV)

8 “‘How can you say, “We are wise,
for we have the law of the Lord,”
when actually the lying pen of the scribes
has handled it falsely?


Ezekiel 22:28
New International Version (NIV)

28 Her prophets whitewash these deeds for them by false visions and lying divinations. They say, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says’—when the Lord has not spoken.


Jeremiah 7:22
King James Version (KJV)

22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:


John 7:22-23
New International Version (NIV)

22 Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a boy on the Sabbath. 23 Now if a boy can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing a man’s whole body on the Sabbath?

(January 29, 2013 at 4:17 am)catfish Wrote: Seriously folks... Everyone claims to have read the Bible but very few recognise the FACT that the prophets AND Yeshua called the old "law" fake, lies, deceitful and traditions of men.
There is no need to be pissed at God as he obviously didn't make all of those stupid arbitrary rules... (regardless if you believe in God or not)

Two things: Despite this claim that the old testament is a falsehood concocted by men, theists still tend to cherry pick from it the things they like (the commandments, for one. Leviticus, if you're a bigot ) so regardless of whether or not it represents the will of god, it certainly still represents the will of theists.

And as for god's responsibility for them... could he not- should he not- step in and intervene if he's being misrepresented? His lack of action in this represents, at the very least, a tacit acceptance of all the violence and death the old testament caused.

Could, should, would, ought... Those are not for me to decide?
I see people starving around the world, should you not feed them? Should not the POTUS feed them?

Do your part and worry not what others do. We're on our own here...
.

That Jews throughout the old testament denounced prior generations is no revelation. The Jews were like American politicians, blaming everything bad on the previous administration. These prophets who denounced prophecy weren't denouncing all prophecy, just the obviously false prophets whose activity preceded God reaching out his hand and blotting the Israelites into the landscape in prior years. None of these "denouncers" were denouncing their own prophecy, or even prophecy in general; they were skeptics, not of prophecy, but of the prophecies of other people. Since political regimes, like many diseases, have erratic and unpredictable courses, there is almost no point in old testament history when one Jew wasn't blaming another Jew for his or her collective misfortune. Some might say this is a trait they have yet to collectively outgrow.

Is it time to bring out the fact that there is no evidence the Exodus ever actually happened, so one half of Drich's entire argument is simply composed of "shit the Jews made up" ? The other half being the supposed dark ages, which weren't as dark as supposed, include both the Muslim flowering and the Carolingean renaissance, and have considerably more complex causal histories than church = darkness. (Including a mini ice age and a pandemic. Of course, this is all angels that dance on the head of a pin, because this "free will" that is supposedly divinely compromised is just yet more made up shit that doesn't exist.)

(January 29, 2013 at 12:31 am)Esquilax Wrote: No counter argument to my pointing to a very specific instance of violence- by Jesus- in the scriptures?

why does their need to be one?

Quote:So me one example of a theocracy where the people living under theocratic rule did not believe they had proof of their God?

The file under theocratic rule one must be sure. This however does not mean what one culture deems as 'proof' will indeed hold up to another cultures scrutiny. This is not what is being discussed. What is being discussed is, their are two examples of two very different people worshiping the Same God who (for them) had absolute proof of that God. My work has been focoused on how these people lived and eventually fell into corruption even with what they thought to be 'proof.' I also pointed out that by your own admission you would have fallen in with the crowd.

Quote:Just... No response at all to my disagreeing with your idea that true proof of god would deny free will? If your evidence doesn't pass muster, then my dismissing it isn't illegitimate. Improve the quality of your arguments, then maybe we'll be getting somewhere.

Your a fool. I gave you two legitmate well documented periods of Human History crossing two seperate cultures, centuries apart from one another, (Meaning the result was not curtural or nor a 'bronze age thing.') spanning nearly 2000 years, And what do you do with it? You trivialize it without addressing anything and move to dismiss. Your either not smart enough to make the connection or it is your hope that i am not smart enough to know a thousands years of documented human History trumps any foolish "what if" senerio you may have told yourself, and are trying to sell me.
Here's a little tip: If I am the one who brought the history of man and I am using it to dimiss what you have said, then you can safly assume that I am not the one who doesn't know what he is talking about.

Quote:You could start by explaining to me what, in these established historical events, classes as undeniable proof of god. All you've given is the accouterments of a theocracy, nothing more. Stone tablets are proof of nothing but stone tablets. A theocracy is proof of nothing but a theocracy.

Now take a step back, and ask yourself why did Israel establish a theocracy? What event or series of events established the existance of God in their minds? (The end of Genesis and the whole book of exodus outlines these events. Starting with the plagues, the parting of the red sea, the destruction of Egypt's army, bread raining down from heaven 6 days a week for 40 years to sustain them in the desert, water from rocks, Pillars of fire to light their way by night, enemies being handed over to them, the walls of Jericho crumbling before them at the sounf of a trumpet blast, and on, and on, and on, and on... All the way up to Christ who ended this period.

Again you accepting this 'evidence' as absolute proof is not what is up for debate. For we are not speaking of your belief but the belief that established and sustained almost a 1400 year theocratic rule in OT Israel.

(January 30, 2013 at 2:39 pm)Drich Wrote: why does their need to be one?

Because you started talking about how nonviolent the scriptures were.

Quote: I also pointed out that by your own admission you would have fallen in with the crowd.

I did no such thing. In fact, I spent numerous posts explaining to you the nonviolent means by which I don't follow the crowd currently. I know I said I wouldn't go so far as violence, but that's hardly the same thing as blithely accepting the situation. Remember, peaceful means can bring about results, no matter what the bible may have to say on the matter.

Quote:Your a fool. I gave you two legitmate well documented periods of Human History crossing two seperate cultures, centuries apart from one another, (Meaning the result was not curtural or nor a 'bronze age thing.') spanning nearly 2000 years, And what do you do with it? You trivialize it without addressing anything and move to dismiss. Your either not smart enough to make the connection or it is your hope that i am not smart enough to know a thousands years of documented human History trumps any foolish "what if" senerio you may have told yourself, and are trying to sell me.
Here's a little tip: If I am the one who brought the history of man and I am using it to dimiss what you have said, then you can safly assume that I am not the one who doesn't know what he is talking about.

Okay, please listen to me, very carefully: I fully accept that theocracies exist. But, crucially, there is a difference between theocracies existing, and absolute, untarnished proof of god existing. You bring up these real world examples, but they don't match with the theoretical channel to heaven that you use elsewhere. And by the way, the fact that none of these theocracies became worldwide phenomena sort of indicates that people fucking disagreed with their proofs for god and therefore that their proof was hardly absolute in the way you're claiming. If it's proof that someone can deny and debunk, it's no more proof than the ad hoc apologist fripperies that christians employ today.

No, you specifically mentioned jesus opening up a direct line between earth and heaven, which would class as the "undeniable proof" that you started off this discussion mentioning. Now, would that- aka, the thing you were actually arguing- deny free will? I have already voiced my disagreement.

Despite what you might think, somebody dismissing your arguments doesn't always mean they're somehow not getting it. Mostly it just means you aren't arguing effectively, or addressing the point you think you are. But please, keep calling me a fool. I'm sure I could find that post you made earlier about insults meaning one has no further arguments, if you like.

Quote:Again you accepting this 'evidence' as absolute proof is not what is up for debate. For we are not speaking of your belief but the belief that established and sustained almost a 1400 year theocratic rule in OT Israel.

You're right, it's not up to debate, but not for the reasons you're thinking of. It's not up for debate because absolute proof is something very nicely defined, and your examples simply don't measure up.

And that's assuming I'm willing to take your talk of the Genesis account at face value, and I'm not. Verifiable historical facts only, please! Let's not start devolving into fiction.

Quote:No counter argument to my pointing to a very specific instance of violence- by Jesus- in the scriptures?

why does their need to be one?


There needs to be one because Jesus is on trial as is god, in my eyes. Anything else you said in your post is muted because you refuse to acknowledge this very question, in my humble opinion. If my children are doing the most horrific of things, it still doesn't mean I'm going to fabricate a barbed whip and whip them with it. And I certainly couldn't justify that even for murderers.

(January 29, 2013 at 2:41 am)Ryantology Wrote: Why keep the OT around if its laws and edicts are not supposed to apply to Christians? Why is only half of the Holy Bible relevant to the Christian religion?

Because the Laws of the OT are what Christianity are built on, but not in the way you seem to think. When I say law most of you only look to a list of do's and don'ts. But the Law also allowed for attonement when people fell under the 'don't' list. That is how Christianity differs from OT Judaism. It is no longer about the do and don't list and subsequently is not a 'new' do and don't list. It is freedom from lists all together based on a provision God made in the OT. That is why they had animal sacerfice. Basically when Christ gave Himself to atone for the sin of Man, He became the last animal sacerfice needed. (For those who seek to love and worship God) That is why Christ said not one letter shall pass from the law until His Kingdom comes. It's not that Christians are justified by following christian rules. No we find grace and forgiveness from our in ablity to follow the law perfectly. All of the law, as a whole. Again Christ did not strike down the law he made is so impossiable to follow that no one (if the are honest with themselves) can not ever hope to earn their way into Heaven.

Quote:That it appeals to two different religions is obvious, it seems very much like completely different Gods in each Testament, the stupid brutish maniac of the Old and the "Disregard That I Suck Cocks" New. But, they are (allegedly) the same, and you can't escape what that means: your God, and your Christ, is still the stupid, brutish maniac he was in the OT, and himself states that those stupid, brutish laws of his would remain in effect until the end of heaven and earth.

No, just two sides of the same coin. On one side of the coin you have the perfect standard (or what it takes to deserve Heaven) and on the otherside you have what God provided for all of those who can admit they will never be 'good' enough to deserve anything God offers them.
That is why Christ said blessed are the Meek and poor in spirit for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. This is exactly what He was talking about. Meek does not translate into weak. Meek is humble, this is magnified by the next phrase. "poor in spirit." to be rich in spirit means to be proud of self. Those who are proud in self look to justify their short commings so the can still 'deserve' heaven. While the humble and poor in spirit know they deserve nothing therefoe they are the ones who will inhearet the Kingdom of Heaven.

Quote:I know where you go from here, "But Jesus fulfilled the law". Even if I take that to mean what you insist it means, that Christians aren't forced to follow all those old rules, it is your unwillingness to follow them that makes you the sinner you are, the sin for which you are supposed to atone.

Freedom from the Law does not mean one's heart yearns to break the law. Even Paul recognizes this and addresses it in the book of Romans. No what freedom from the law means is one has the freedom to do his Best litteral best in worship and it will be counted as righteousness even if he falls short.

If one yearns to sin in his new found freedom, then he is not living a life consistent with how the bible/NT identifies as being Christian.
Christ tells us we can judge them(Wolves in sheeps clothing/christians by proclaimnation only) by their fruit. For a fig tree can not bear grapes, nor can a thorn bush bear apples. If one is truly trying to serve and worship God his deeds will reflect the law as far as his will and ablities will allow.

(January 29, 2013 at 4:17 am)catfish Wrote: Seriously folks... Everyone claims to have read the Bible but very few recognise the FACT that the prophets AND Yeshua called the old "law" fake, lies, deceitful and traditions of men.
There is no need to be pissed at God as he obviously didn't make all of those stupid arbitrary rules... (regardless if you believe in God or not)

Jeremiah 8:8
New International Version (NIV)

8 “‘How can you say, “We are wise,
for we have the law of the Lord,”
when actually the lying pen of the scribes
has handled it falsely?


Ezekiel 22:28
New International Version (NIV)

28 Her prophets whitewash these deeds for them by false visions and lying divinations. They say, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says’—when the Lord has not spoken.


Jeremiah 7:22
King James Version (KJV)

22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:


John 7:22-23
New International Version (NIV)

22 Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a boy on the Sabbath. 23 Now if a boy can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing a man’s whole body on the Sabbath?

This is a great example of red flag exegesis. Where one makes a proclamation, and seeks out single or even a partial verse from all over the bible to support the wild claim. 10 times out of 10 a simple contextual overview will dismiss any crazy claim made, that is based on several single verses that have to be taken out of their intended context to make a point. If you want proof of this I ask that you cut and paste 5 verses before and 5 verses after each one and lets see if anything you quoted still supports what you've said here.

---

(January 29, 2013 at 8:40 am)Esquilax Wrote: Two things: Despite this claim that the old testament is a falsehood concocted by men, theists still tend to cherry pick from it the things they like (the commandments, for one. Leviticus, if you're a bigot ) so regardless of whether or not it represents the will of god, it certainly still represents the will of theists.

Actually no. I can only think of One expression of Christianity who doctrinally support all The 10 Commandments.

Quote:And as for god's responsibility for them... could he not- should he not- step in and intervene if he's being misrepresented? His lack of action in this represents, at the very least, a tacit acceptance of all the violence and death the old testament caused.

duh.. He commanded all of the death and destruction caused in the OT.

(January 30, 2013 at 11:31 pm)Drich Wrote: duh.. He commanded all of the death and destruction caused in the OT.

I know you think that. But if you look, I was responding to catfish's post where he was arguing that the Old Testament is fraudulent and written by men, not historically accurate to your god.