Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
November 23, 2014 at 8:40 pm (This post was last modified: November 23, 2014 at 8:41 pm by dyresand.)
(November 23, 2014 at 8:02 pm)Stimbo Wrote:
(November 23, 2014 at 5:54 pm)Beccs Wrote: Well it's nice to think that someone will do that about me but I prefer chocolates. . .
Granted, but chocolates are just a nice treat to pop into your mouth, give you a buzz and leave a sticky mess on your face.
Whereas a dick...
Hang on, I need to rethink my approach.
there is chocolate that is hard candies that wont leave a mess... just throwing that out there.
Also someone had the great idea of making gummi schlongs heck i seen people eating them.
(November 23, 2014 at 8:46 pm)Losty Wrote: Chocolate is supposed to melt in your mouth anyways, not in your face. I always swallow my chocolate to avoid the mess.
November 24, 2014 at 2:27 am (This post was last modified: November 24, 2014 at 2:31 am by Wyrd of Gawd.)
(November 22, 2014 at 12:17 pm)Godschild Wrote:
(November 22, 2014 at 7:40 am)whateverist Wrote: Makes me wonder what the shelf life on the ten commandments might be which are also to be found in Gods marching orders to the Israelites for that time.
The Ten Commandments are timeless, I'm pretty sure I said they were. Seems you missed the statement about the punishment laws no longer in effect and they were for a certain time and place. The laws of love are still valid today and they apply to everyone since the advent of Christ.
GC
Did you redeem the firstborn of your donkey with a lamb? Did you do any work at all on the seventh day of the week? Did you boil a goat in its mother's milk? Have you been busy tearing down other people's religious shrines and temples?
Gotta obey the Ten Commandments. Exodus 34:11-28.
(November 23, 2014 at 5:16 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I can turn water into wine. Beer too. All I need is a homebrew kit.
(November 21, 2014 at 7:58 pm)Godschild Wrote: It's not the case, since the advent of Christ we have the blood of Christ to cover our sins and we have the Holy Spirit to guide us to stir clear of those things that could influence our lives.... So no we are not threatened by today's world.
I'm not sure that I get how Christians would not be threatened by today's world. The New Testament makes references to the 'yoke' of Christianity and the persecution (often violent) that can ensue. The NT has commands not to pair with unbelievers and it makes several references to Satan being the Prince of this world. I would think that Christians would see the modern world and secularism as a threat even if you feel that Jesus provides protection from that threat. However, at this point, the same could be said about OT theology: the unbelieving nations were a threat, but so long as the Israelites believed and obeyed, God would protect them.
(November 21, 2014 at 2:53 pm)Godschild Wrote: Were you a former Christian. I apologize for saying you didn't know the Bible, I wish I knew Greek so I wouldn't have to rely on others. Not read that many translation, but I do keep 4 or 5 around to help me in studying.
I wasn't ever a Christian, but I suppose I believed in God just because I don't know that I knew there was an alternative. About 10 years ago, I decided to actually sit down and read the Bible to see what it said. I've never understood why some Christians say that there is only one valid translation if they are all, in fact translations.
(November 21, 2014 at 2:53 pm)Godschild Wrote: You sound like Paul, he was constantly saying he wasn't boasting.
Wow, good irony, huh?... I missed that.
(November 21, 2014 at 2:53 pm)Godschild Wrote: But I still contend that most atheist here and elsewhere do not study the Bible. Atheist here have trouble with verses like the one calling for the stoning of a son, they use it to show how bad they think God is and they can't even see what it really says.
From what I have seen, atheists in general seem to be more likely to have actually read the Bible and to know what's in it. I know many atheists who have read the whole thing, but they stop studying it once they come to a conclusion. (I'm probably a bit of an anomoly in that sense) Christians may read it more frequently and 'study' it more, but it seems like most are very limited in their knowledge of the book as a whole. Bible studies usually focus on people's favorite parts, and large portions of the Bible are never read.
(November 21, 2014 at 2:53 pm)Godschild Wrote: Like I said they were relevant until the advent of Christ, the OT does refer to them as part of the old covenant and the OT states that there will be a new covenant through the Messiah.
There are actually more than just the two covenants-the covenant of circumcision, the law given to Moses, a covenant made with the animals (Hosea 2:18), etc. In Galatians 3:17, Paul gives the example that just because the laws of Moses came after Abraham's covenant, it didn't negate them. Thus, even if Jesus did bring a new covenant, it would seem that the old covenant wouldn't have been rendered obsolete (due to what is indicated to be the inviolability of God's word.)
(November 21, 2014 at 2:53 pm)Godschild Wrote: What Jesus was saying there, He was the completion of the law because He didn't break any of them as a man, He was sinless. I believe and this may not be what He was saying, but that He came to fill the law with love. The reason I think this is because of all his references to making some of the laws stricter and He did this by adding a point of love to them.
Although Jesus claimed that the law could be boiled down to "love God" and "love your neighbor," it is a stretch to say that his purpose was to "fill the law with love." He said he came to turn families against each other; he said he came to bring, not peace, but a sword (and instructed his disciples to arm themselves at one point); he ransacked the temple armed with whips and scourges. Yes, there are many accounts of healing and compassion in his ministry, but it was certainly not all so benign.
(November 21, 2014 at 2:53 pm)Godschild Wrote: That definition should apply to atheist alike, but I have yet to meet one here that will admit they were wrong about a verse.
I have no problem admitting that I have been wrong in several cases. For me though, the problem is there are many, many more verses for which I can't find a rational justification.
(November 21, 2014 at 2:53 pm)Godschild Wrote: There are some Christian denominations that still abide by the food laws and even say the rest are valid, yet they want explain to me why they do not use stoning in there churches.
This is a lot of what I was talking about as far as the subjectivity of the Bible. Every denomination seems, to a greater or leser extent, to select certain doctrines which are still applicable and others which are not. You have even reverted to vague phrases such as "most of the others" (referring to the OT laws) You said at one point, "I do not on my part believe he meant the entire law." Yes, you are fully entitled to beliefs, but what we atheists are generally looking for as an explanation is some sort of objective formula for 'If x, then it still applies else...
(November 21, 2014 at 2:53 pm)Godschild Wrote: The verses that call for a son to be stoned to death is used here all the time to make God look bad and, the reasoning, they claim God has given permission to kill small children. No verse in scripture refers to killing small children as a punishment. Yet when I prove to them that verse is about a grown son they reject it with every kind of nonsense.
What you have to realize (and I realize that this may seem like splitting hairs to a Christian) is that atheists are not trying to make God look bad. We don't believe in him, so realistically, he can't be proven to be bad or good. Yes, we cite these verses frequently, but the purpose is usually to point them out as contradictions: you can't claim get a supreme sense of morals from a book that condones such numerous atrocities, and you can't say that your God is all-loving and omnibenevolent when he has so much blood on his hands.
As for the verse about stoning your son to death, I don't see that there is any evidence that this is talking about a grown, adult son. I agree that it doesn't say child, but it also certainly doesn't specify an adult. Furthemore, there are a number of verses that talk about killing children--those that were to be slaughtered in conquering Canaan, the 42 children that God sends the she-bear to kill, and even in Psalm 137:9 where it extols smashing a child's head into a rock.
It's not the case, since the advent of Christ we have the blood of Christ to cover our sins and we have the Holy Spirit to guide us to stir clear of those things that could influence our lives.... So no we are not threatened by today's world.
I'm not sure that I get how Christians would not be threatened by today's world. The New Testament makes references to the 'yoke' of Christianity and the persecution (often violent) that can ensue. The NT has commands not to pair with unbelievers and it makes several references to Satan being the Prince of this world. I would think that Christians would see the modern world and secularism as a threat even if you feel that Jesus provides protection from that threat. However, at this point, the same could be said about OT theology: the unbelieving nations were a threat, but so long as the Israelites believed and obeyed, God would protect them.
Matt.11:29-30 Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30) For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light.
2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness.
From the OT Lev. 26:12 and Isa. 52:11 saying the same for the Israelites, they however did not have the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they had to rely on the law. It wasn't the the unbelieving nations that were a threat it was the weaknesses of the Israelites that was the threat, they proved this while they were wondering.
There is a threat to our ways and sometimes lives, mostly in countries that are basically Islamic. The scriptures say that we should not fear the threat to our lives because all anyone can do is kill the body and not the soul. We're (as in all peoples) also told that that we should fear the one who can destroy both body and soul. What I'm trying to say is we don't have to worry if we live the life that Christ asked us to. When threatened with death, for being a Christian, that would be frightening because it most likely want be an easy death.
(November 21, 2014 at 2:53 pm)Godschild Wrote:
Were you a former Christian. I apologize for saying you didn't know the Bible, I wish I knew Greek so I wouldn't have to rely on others. Not read that many translation, but I do keep 4 or 5 around to help me in studying.
Quote:I wasn't ever a Christian, but I suppose I believed in God just because I don't know that I knew there was an alternative. About 10 years ago, I decided to actually sit down and read the Bible to see what it said. I've never understood why some Christians say that there is only one valid translation if they are all, in fact translations.
I think most people grow up that way unless taught otherwise, that is believing there is God.
Most Christians who believe that the King James version is the only one have been taught that, mostly by uneducated people who do not understand the reality of translations. Many Christians and so called Christians are followers of other people and not Christ. To many Christians or so called Christians are involved in Christianity to get out of it what they want or believe they need, instead of service to Christ. So they turn a blind eye and spout things that cause Christians who are interested in serving Christ many problems.
(November 21, 2014 at 2:53 pm)Godschild Wrote: You sound like Paul, he was constantly saying he wasn't boasting.
Quote:Wow, good irony, huh?... I missed that.
I seem to notice things others miss from time to time, people at church use to say this about me. I believe you were not boasting by the way.
(November 21, 2014 at 2:53 pm)Godschild Wrote:
But I still contend that most atheist here and elsewhere do not study the Bible. Atheist here have trouble with verses like the one calling for the stoning of a son, they use it to show how bad they think God is and they can't even see what it really says.
Quote:From what I have seen, atheists in general seem to be more likely to have actually read the Bible and to know what's in it. I know many atheists who have read the whole thing, but they stop studying it once they come to a conclusion. (I'm probably a bit of an anomoly in that sense) Christians may read it more frequently and 'study' it more, but it seems like most are very limited in their knowledge of the book as a whole. Bible studies usually focus on people's favorite parts, and large portions of the Bible are never read.
I still disagree, atheist in general use the opinions of those they claim as their hero, those who have nothing else on their minds but to destroy Christianity, they get off on having followers. When it comes down to being a follower of another person I fell sorry for them, at least I chose to follow a perfect being, one greater than any man could even hope to be.
Yes you are an anomaly, it's refreshing to know someone who studies.
There are a lot of Christians that do not study or limit their studies, as for me I love to study and learn, I like studying those parts of scripture that make me uncomfortable, it helps me to grow in Christ.
(November 21, 2014 at 2:53 pm)Godschild Wrote: Like I said they were relevant until the advent of Christ, the OT does refer to them as part of the old covenant and the OT states that there will be a new covenant through the Messiah.
Quote:There are actually more than just the two covenants-the covenant of circumcision, the law given to Moses, a covenant made with the animals (Hosea 2:18), etc.
You're correct, but the OT covenants were all for the purpose of exposing sin and the need to bring the Messiah into the world to remedy the sin problem through redemption through Christ. One finial sacrifice, this one from God, to cover the sins of those who desired forgiveness and salvation. The OT is a massive statement about the need of Christ and, God chose a people and made a nation of them to bring this to light to redeem the world. God said many times in the OT He cared not for the sacrifices of the animals, because it was only a ritual to the Israelites, not an action of remorse for their sins.
Quote: In Galatians 3:17, Paul gives the example that just because the laws of Moses came after Abraham's covenant, it didn't negate them.
Because the law of Moses were a planned addition to the covenant given to Abraham. Abraham was the beginning, the covenant given to him was to begin a long journey through time for a chosen people to reveal the need of Christ Jesus.
Quote:Thus, even if Jesus did bring a new covenant, it would seem that the old covenant wouldn't have been rendered obsolete (due to what is indicated to be the inviolability of God's word.)
I believe I see what you are saying but, the birth of Christ was the fulfillment of the OT covenant, Christ himself said, He was the fulfillment of the old law, that's why it wasn't destroyed, it couldn't be or it would have negated Christ's purpose. He came to save man, because man proved he could not obey the laws and save himself. Jesus hinted that through the priest, pharisees and sadducees the law for all intents and purposes was being destroyed by the Israelites.
The OT has never been rendered useless, the disciples used it to teach the people about the need for Christ and that it predicted the Messiahs coming. Many people then were saved because of the testimony of the OT.
(November 21, 2014 at 2:53 pm)Godschild Wrote:
What Jesus was saying there, He was the completion of the law because He didn't break any of them as a man, He was sinless. I believe and this may not be what He was saying, but that He came to fill the law with love. The reason I think this is because of all his references to making some of the laws stricter and He did this by adding a point of love to them.
Quote:Although Jesus claimed that the law could be boiled down to "love God" and "love your neighbor," it is a stretch to say that his purpose was to "fill the law with love." He said he came to turn families against each other; he said he came to bring, not peace, but a sword
I still believe He came to show us that the law was purposed for the love of mankind, I know that might sound strange to those who do not understand the purpose of some parts of the law, it deals with a specific time and people. I believe this is the most misunderstood verse in the NT. What Christ was saying is, His coming would bring families turning against each other, and bring the sword instead of the peace hoped for, and if you look at history after Christ's death this makes sense. Christ's mission was to save the lost through His death and resurrection, not to start wars between people, His ministry does not point that way. He was saying even though I come, man will continue to be man and most will follow their own will and not Mine for their lives.
Quote:(and instructed his disciples to arm themselves at one point); he ransacked the temple armed with whips and scourges. Yes, there are many accounts of healing and compassion in his ministry, but it was certainly not all so benign.
How benign could such a radical change in religion be. Nothing on this scale has ever happened nor will it.
I do not remember Jesus using any thing in the temple except His hands and voice, none of the accounts in the Gospels say He did. Read Matthews account in chapter 21: 12-17. Jesus identifies himself as God when He says "My house," He's tired of seeing the abuses of the temple. Then He goes on to do what the temple was meant for teaching and to show He was correct in what He did and was saying He answered the priest and scribes with a verse from the OT, Psalm 8:2. Everyone wants to bring up this incident to discredit Jesus or make Him look bad, when Jesus was trying to make a point, that the temple was meant to bring people closer to God, it wasn't ever meant to be used as a profit mongering place for the priest. Why do I say the priest, because no one could have done this without their permission and that permission wouldn't come unless there was a price. I say all this to defend my position that atheist do not try and understand what the scriptures teach, all they see is Jesus stirring up trouble, when He was trying to teach the people what they were doing wrong, He was trying to set them on a better path.
(November 21, 2014 at 2:53 pm)Godschild Wrote: That definition should apply to atheist alike, but I have yet to meet one here that will admit they were wrong about a verse.
Quote:I have no problem admitting that I have been wrong in several cases. For me though, the problem is there are many, many more verses for which I can't find a rational justification.
Maybe we can have a discussion of them, don't know if I can help but I will try. There are verses that I have questioned God about, meaning I was asking for His reason, I wanted to know what was His purpose in these verses that made no sense to me, some He has shown me some are yet unresolved. What I do accept, He is God and whatever His reason it can only be right. God can do no wrong.
(November 21, 2014 at 2:53 pm)Godschild Wrote: There are some Christian denominations that still abide by the food laws and even say the rest are valid, yet they want explain to me why they do not use stoning in there churches.
Quote:This is a lot of what I was talking about as far as the subjectivity of the Bible. Every denomination seems, to a greater or leser extent, to select certain doctrines which are still applicable and others which are not.
This is where Christians hurt the message of Christ, for me I try to ignore the differences as long as they do not interfere with the basic tenants of Christ's message. In other words I can live with them because I want allow them to keep me from God's truth. In the end it's not God's word that's wrong, it's the people who want things to be their way, for some reason it seems they need to exert some kind of power over others and this is totally against Christ's teachings. "He who would be first will be last and he who is the least will be first. Notice the word least, meaning humble.
Quote:You have even reverted to vague phrases such as "most of the others" (referring to the OT laws) You said at one point, "I do not on my part believe he meant the entire law."
Yes I did use "most of the others," because I believe common sense would tell which ones and if it gets down to confusion we have to find the answer in the NT. Also I wasn't going to go through and pick out all those laws.
As far as the last quote, what I meant is I wasn't taught that by people, I came to that through the entirety of the scriptures, way to long of a discussion for a forum, it would constitute breaking down most of the Bible.
Quote:Yes, you are fully entitled to beliefs, but what we atheists are generally looking for as an explanation is some sort of objective formula for 'If x, then it still applies else...
All I can say is God's plan is solely His and when He decides to end a thing it is for a greater purpose, I can't see being burdened with trying to figure out the complete mind of an infinite, omniscient being. Once a person comes into a personal relationship with God he will give us understanding that could only come from Him. Believe me He has changed my mind on many things.
(November 21, 2014 at 2:53 pm)Godschild Wrote:
The verses that call for a son to be stoned to death is used here all the time to make God look bad and, the reasoning, they claim God has given permission to kill small children. No verse in scripture refers to killing small children as a punishment. Yet when I prove to them that verse is about a grown son they reject it with every kind of nonsense.
Quote:What you have to realize (and I realize that this may seem like splitting hairs to a Christian) is that atheists are not trying to make God look bad. We don't believe in him, so realistically, he can't be proven to be bad or good. Yes, we cite these verses frequently, but the purpose is usually to point them out as contradictions: you can't claim get a supreme sense of morals from a book that condones such numerous atrocities, and you can't say that your God is all-loving and omnibenevolent when he has so much blood on his hands.
First thing, God has no blood on His hands, it is His creation to do with as pleases Him. If you paint a picture that everyone considers a master piece, it's still your privilege to destroy it. Also the scriptures never refer to God as omnibenevolent, I have no idea where that term comes from, I know I've never heard it used in church.
I disagree, some here have stated that very thing and no people I'm not searching through this site to find where you did.
Yes I can say God is completely loving, yes somethings are hard to understand and you have to ask God, I did and have been given answers but, like I said not to everything.
Quote:As for the verse about stoning your son to death, I don't see that there is any evidence that this is talking about a grown, adult son. I agree that it doesn't say child, but it also certainly doesn't specify an adult.
Then why were the daughters not mentioned in this verse, it's rather simple when you apply the times and how life was lived then. We must remember that people then on average lived much shorter lives. This is why the daughters were never mention, they could only bring money to the family through a marriage, they were married as soon as 13, but by comparison with life expectancy they had to marry early to have children and raise a family. The sons on the other hand went to work and supplied money for the family and the sons married at an older age than the daughters, yet by the time the sons were 15 they were considered men. That's why the verse says things like lazy and drunkards, families wouldn't allow their young ones to be drunkards nor lazy, life was way to hard for such nonsense. So you see it does specify an older child, I'm my father's child and I'm 60. Common sense and a little history makes for some good logic.
Quote:Furthemore, there are a number of verses that talk about killing children--those that were to be slaughtered in conquering Canaan, the 42 children that God sends the she-bear to kill, and even in Psalm 137:9 where it extols smashing a child's head into a rock.
Been through those and explained each one as they came up. I'll deal with Psalms 137:9. First of all this is not God speaking, it is an Israelite who is distraught over the death of children and family members to the enemy and he cries out that the revenge should be this smashing of children's heads, it is the words of a distraught father, not God, please read it as it is written.
GC
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
I'm not sure that I get how Christians would not be threatened by today's world. The New Testament makes references to the 'yoke' of Christianity and the persecution (often violent) that can ensue. The NT has commands not to pair with unbelievers and it makes several references to Satan being the Prince of this world. I would think that Christians would see the modern world and secularism as a threat even if you feel that Jesus provides protection from that threat. However, at this point, the same could be said about OT theology: the unbelieving nations were a threat, but so long as the Israelites believed and obeyed, God would protect them.[/quote]
Matt.11:29-30 Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30) For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light.
2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness.
From the OT Lev. 26:12 and Isa. 52:11 saying the same for the Israelites, they however did not have the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they had to rely on the law. It wasn't the the unbelieving nations that were a threat it was the weaknesses of the Israelites that was the threat, they proved this while they were wondering.
There is a threat to our ways and sometimes lives, mostly in countries that are basically Islamic. The scriptures say that we should not fear the threat to our lives because all anyone can do is kill the body and not the soul. We're (as in all peoples) also told that that we should fear the one who can destroy both body and soul. What I'm trying to say is we don't have to worry if we live the life that Christ asked us to. When threatened with death, for being a Christian, that would be frightening because it most likely want be an easy death.
[quote='Godschild' pid='801320' dateline='1416596024']
Were you a former Christian. I apologize for saying you didn't know the Bible, I wish I knew Greek so I wouldn't have to rely on others. Not read that many translation, but I do keep 4 or 5 around to help me in studying.[/quote]
[quote]I wasn't ever a Christian, but I suppose I believed in God just because I don't know that I knew there was an alternative. About 10 years ago, I decided to actually sit down and read the Bible to see what it said. I've never understood why some Christians say that there is only one valid translation if they are all, in fact translations.[/quote]
I think most people grow up that way unless taught otherwise, that is believing there is God.
Most Christians who believe that the King James version is the only one have been taught that, mostly by uneducated people who do not understand the reality of translations. Many Christians and so called Christians are followers of other people and not Christ. To many Christians or so called Christians are involved in Christianity to get out of it what they want or believe they need, instead of service to Christ. So they turn a blind eye and spout things that cause Christians who are interested in serving Christ many problems.
[quote='Godschild' pid='801320' dateline='1416596024']
You sound like Paul, he was constantly saying he wasn't boasting.[/quote]
[quote]Wow, good irony, huh?... I missed that.[/quote]
I seem to notice things others miss from time to time, people at church use to say this about me. I believe you were not boasting by the way.
[quote='Godschild' pid='801320' dateline='1416596024']
[hide]But I still contend that most atheist here and elsewhere do not study the Bible. Atheist here have trouble with verses like the one calling for the stoning of a son, they use it to show how bad they think God is and they can't even see what it really says.[/hide][/quote]
[quote]From what I have seen, atheists in general seem to be more likely to have actually read the Bible and to know what's in it. I know many atheists who have read the whole thing, but they stop studying it once they come to a conclusion. (I'm probably a bit of an anomoly in that sense) Christians may read it more frequently and 'study' it more, but it seems like most are very limited in their knowledge of the book as a whole. Bible studies usually focus on people's favorite parts, and large portions of the Bible are never read.[/quote]
I still disagree, atheist in general use the opinions of those they claim as their hero, those who have nothing else on their minds but to destroy Christianity, they get off on having followers. When it comes down to being a follower of another person I fell sorry for them, at least I chose to follow a perfect being, one greater than any man could even hope to be.
Yes you are an anomaly, it's refreshing to know someone who studies.
There are a lot of Christians that do not study or limit their studies, as for me I love to study and learn, I like studying those parts of scripture that make me uncomfortable, it helps me to grow in Christ.
[quote='Godschild' pid='801320' dateline='1416596024']
Like I said they were relevant until the advent of Christ, the OT does refer to them as part of the old covenant and the OT states that there will be a new covenant through the Messiah.[/quote]
[quote]There are actually more than just the two covenants-the covenant of circumcision, the law given to Moses, a covenant made with the animals (Hosea 2:18), etc.[/quote]
You're correct, but the OT covenants were all for the purpose of exposing sin and the need to bring the Messiah into the world to remedy the sin problem through redemption through Christ. One finial sacrifice, this one from God, to cover the sins of those who desired forgiveness and salvation. The OT is a massive statement about the need of Christ and, God chose a people and made a nation of them to bring this to light to redeem the world. God said many times in the OT He cared not for the sacrifices of the animals, because it was only a ritual to the Israelites, not an action of remorse for their sins.
[quote] In Galatians 3:17, Paul gives the example that just because the laws of Moses came after Abraham's covenant, it didn't negate them.[/quote]
Because the law of Moses were a planned addition to the covenant given to Abraham. Abraham was the beginning, the covenant given to him was to begin a long journey through time for a chosen people to reveal the need of Christ Jesus.
[quote]Thus, even if Jesus did bring a new covenant, it would seem that the old covenant wouldn't have been rendered obsolete (due to what is indicated to be the inviolability of God's word.)[/quote]
I believe I see what you are saying but, the birth of Christ was the fulfillment of the OT covenant, Christ himself said, He was the fulfillment of the old law, that's why it wasn't destroyed, it couldn't be or it would have negated Christ's purpose. He came to save man, because man proved he could not obey the laws and save himself. Jesus hinted that through the priest, pharisees and sadducees the law for all intents and purposes was being destroyed by the Israelites.
The OT has never been rendered useless, the disciples used it to teach the people about the need for Christ and that it predicted the Messiahs coming. Many people then were saved because of the testimony of the OT.
[quote='Godschild' pid='801320' dateline='1416596024'][hide]
What Jesus was saying there, He was the completion of the law because He didn't break any of them as a man, He was sinless. I believe and this may not be what He was saying, but that He came to fill the law with love. The reason I think this is because of all his references to making some of the laws stricter and He did this by adding a point of love to them.[/hide][/quote]
[quote]Although Jesus claimed that the law could be boiled down to "love God" and "love your neighbor," it is a stretch to say that his purpose was to "fill the law with love." He said he came to turn families against each other; he said he came to bring, not peace, but a sword[/quote]
I still believe He came to show us that the law was purposed for the love of mankind, I know that might sound strange to those who do not understand the purpose of some parts of the law, it deals with a specific time and people. I believe this is the most misunderstood verse in the NT. What Christ was saying is, His coming would bring families turning against each other, and bring the sword instead of the peace hoped for, and if you look at history after Christ's death this makes sense. Christ's mission was to save the lost through His death and resurrection, not to start wars between people, His ministry does not point that way. He was saying even though I come, man will continue to be man and most will follow their own will and not Mine for their lives.
[quote](and instructed his disciples to arm themselves at one point); he ransacked the temple armed with whips and scourges. Yes, there are many accounts of healing and compassion in his ministry, but it was certainly not all so benign.[/quote]
How benign could such a radical change in religion be. Nothing on this scale has ever happened nor will it.
I do not remember Jesus using any thing in the temple except His hands and voice, none of the accounts in the Gospels say He did. Read Matthews account in chapter 21: 12-17. Jesus identifies himself as God when He says "My house," He's tired of seeing the abuses of the temple. Then He goes on to do what the temple was meant for teaching and to show He was correct in what He did and was saying He answered the priest and scribes with a verse from the OT, Psalm 8:2. Everyone wants to bring up this incident to discredit Jesus or make Him look bad, when Jesus was trying to make a point, that the temple was meant to bring people closer to God, it wasn't ever meant to be used as a profit mongering place for the priest. Why do I say the priest, because no one could have done this without their permission and that permission wouldn't come unless there was a price. I say all this to defend my position that atheist do not try and understand what the scriptures teach, all they see is Jesus stirring up trouble, when He was trying to teach the people what they were doing wrong, He was trying to set them on a better path.
[quote='Godschild' pid='801320' dateline='1416596024']
That definition should apply to atheist alike, but I have yet to meet one here that will admit they were wrong about a verse.[/quote]
[quote]I have no problem admitting that I have been wrong in several cases. For me though, the problem is there are many, many more verses for which I can't find a rational justification.[/quote]
Maybe we can have a discussion of them, don't know if I can help but I will try. There are verses that I have questioned God about, meaning I was asking for His reason, I wanted to know what was His purpose in these verses that made no sense to me, some He has shown me some are yet unresolved. What I do accept, He is God and whatever His reason it can only be right. God can do no wrong.
[quote='Godschild' pid='801320' dateline='1416596024']
There are some Christian denominations that still abide by the food laws and even say the rest are valid, yet they want explain to me why they do not use stoning in there churches.[/quote]
[quote]This is a lot of what I was talking about as far as the subjectivity of the Bible. Every denomination seems, to a greater or leser extent, to select certain doctrines which are still applicable and others which are not.[/quote]
This is where Christians hurt the message of Christ, for me I try to ignore the differences as long as they do not interfere with the basic tenants of Christ's message. In other words I can live with them because I want allow them to keep me from God's truth. In the end it's not God's word that's wrong, it's the people who want things to be their way, for some reason it seems they need to exert some kind of power over others and this is totally against Christ's teachings. "He who would be first will be last and he who is the [u]least[/u] will be first. Notice the word least, meaning humble.
[quote]You have even reverted to vague phrases such as "[u]most[/u] of the others" (referring to the OT laws) You said at one point, "I do not on my part believe he meant the entire law."[/quote]
Yes I did use "most of the others," because I believe common sense would tell which ones and if it gets down to confusion we have to find the answer in the NT. Also I wasn't going to go through and pick out all those laws.
As far as the last quote, what I meant is I wasn't taught that by people, I came to that through the entirety of the scriptures, way to long of a discussion for a forum, it would constitute breaking down most of the Bible.
[quote]Yes, you are fully entitled to beliefs, but what we atheists are generally looking for as an explanation is some sort of objective formula for 'If [i]x[/i], then it still applies [i]else[/i]...[/quote]
All I can say is God's plan is solely His and when He decides to end a thing it is for a greater purpose, I can't see being burdened with trying to figure out the complete mind of an infinite, omniscient being. Once a person comes into a personal relationship with God he will give us understanding that could only come from Him. Believe me He has changed my mind on many things.
[Quote='Godschild' pid='801320' dateline='1416596024'][hide]
The verses that call for a son to be stoned to death is used here all the time to make God look bad and, the reasoning, they claim God has given permission to kill small children. No verse in scripture refers to killing small children as a punishment. Yet when I prove to them that verse is about a grown son they reject it with every kind of nonsense.[/hide][/quote]
[quote]What you have to realize (and I realize that this may seem like splitting hairs to a Christian) is that atheists are not trying to make God look bad. We don't believe in him, so realistically, he can't be proven to be bad or good. Yes, we cite these verses frequently, but the purpose is usually to point them out as contradictions: you can't claim get a supreme sense of morals from a book that condones such numerous atrocities, and you can't say that your God is all-loving and omnibenevolent when he has so much blood on his hands.[/quote]
First thing, God has no blood on His hands, it is His creation to do with as pleases Him. If you paint a picture that everyone considers a master piece, it's still your privilege to destroy it. Also the scriptures never refer to God as omnibenevolent, I have no idea where that term comes from, I know I've never heard it used in church.
I disagree, some here have stated that very thing [u]and no people I'm not searching through this site to find where you did[/u].
Yes I can say God is completely loving, yes somethings are hard to understand and you have to ask God, I did and have been given answers but, like I said not to everything.
[quote]As for the verse about stoning your son to death, I don't see that there is any evidence that this is talking about a grown, adult son. I agree that it doesn't say child, but it also certainly doesn't specify an adult.[/quote]
Then why were the daughters not mentioned in this verse, it's rather simple when you apply the times and how life was lived then. We must remember that people then on average lived much shorter lives. This is why the daughters were never mention, they could only bring money to the family through a marriage, they were married as soon as 13, but by comparison with life expectancy they had to marry early to have children and raise a family. The sons on the other hand went to work and supplied money for the family and the sons married at an older age than the daughters, yet by the time the sons were 15 they were considered men. That's why the verse says things like lazy and drunkards, families wouldn't allow their young ones to be drunkards nor lazy, life was way to hard for such nonsense. So you see it does specify an older child, I'm my father's child and I'm 60. Common sense and a little history makes for some good logic.
[quote]Furthemore, there are a number of verses that talk about killing children--those that were to be slaughtered in conquering Canaan, the 42 children that God sends the she-bear to kill, and even in Psalm 137:9 where it extols smashing a child's head into a rock.
[/quote]
Been through those and explained each one as they came up. I'll deal with Psalms 137:9. First of all this is not God speaking, it is an Israelite who is distraught over the death of children and family members to the enemy and he cries out that the revenge should be this smashing of children's heads, it is the words of a distraught father, not God, please read it as it is written.
GC
Don't feel bad that religion is becoming irrelevant in a first world country.
i heard its all the rage in poor third world countries and doing mediocre in the far east.
November 25, 2014 at 10:27 am (This post was last modified: November 25, 2014 at 10:32 am by JonDarbyXIII.)
(November 25, 2014 at 9:49 am)dyresand Wrote: Don't feel bad that religion is becoming irrelevant in a first world country.
i heard its all the rage in poor third world countries and doing mediocre in the far east.
It goes: "Oh, you haven't eaten in two weeks. I'll give you a cup of rice if you let me tell you about how Jesus just bought me a new Lexus."
(November 25, 2014 at 10:27 am)JonDarbyXIII Wrote: That's actually another thing I have found peculiar. God repeatedly says that it's not the sacrifices that are important to him; yet Jesus was the sacrifice. Christians say that he was necessary as a blood sacrifice because he was going to be the sacrifice to end all sacrifices (hence all the references to him as the lamb). If sacrifices weren't the important thing to begin with, then why all the focus on Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice?
It also implies that god's hands are tied in some way, as if he is unable to see his plans through unless he offers an all-encompassing blood sacrifice. If this is not the case --if god can forgive sins without requiring a blood sacrifice-- then the crucifixion is really just a representation of god's pain and his generosity.
That actually sounds more reasonable: god uses an effigy to express his great sorrow and personal anguish at man's fall, and his willingness to go to the extreme length of forgiving everyone if they return to the fold. This fits in much better with the story of the prodigal son, for whom the father throws aside tradition out of sheer joy that his child has returned.
Mind you, it's still a 180-degree turn from how he deals with humanity in the old testament. But it's more consistent with the idea that he is almighty and that no one can stay his divine hand or hinder his plans.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
thank you.. thank you so much you made my day.
![[Image: heathens-guide.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.theheathensguide.com%2Fheathens-guide.png)
