Fucking ninjas!

(November 25, 2014 at 10:27 am)JonDarbyXIII Wrote:

(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."

you know its sad because its awfully true because Christianity is invading uganda quite easily. and yes its trying to get to far eastern countries when they have it but its not already doing that great.

(November 25, 2014 at 9:49 am)dyresand Wrote:

(November 25, 2014 at 4:00 am)Godschild Wrote:

---

Code:

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.


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.


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.



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.


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.



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.



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.


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.


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.



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.


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.


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.

What makes you believe I feel bad, I see things about Christianity that you can't, and why, because you couldn't possibly understand.

GC

(November 25, 2014 at 12:15 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Fucking ninjas!

Note: I posted this earlier but then accidentally deleted it as I was screwing with another post. (go figure) I tried to recreate it as best as possible.

(November 25, 2014 at 4:00 am)Godschild Wrote: 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.

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?

(November 25, 2014 at 4:00 am)Godschild Wrote: 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.

It didn't have that in Matthew but it did in John 2:14-14

(November 25, 2014 at 4:00 am)Godschild Wrote: 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.

This is the exact problem for many atheists. Any time life is wonderful, it is attributed to the magnificence of God; yet, and time something horrible happens or there are things that don't make sense, God gets a total pass with the "mysterious ways" or the "God's ways are greater than ours" defenses. Also if understanding comes as a result of the relationship, and the relationship requires belief, then this means that we have to start out by blindly believing with the hopes that, at some time we might actually gain understanding.

(November 25, 2014 at 4:00 am)Godschild Wrote: 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.

Yes, but considering the large focus on God and the sanctity of life, it seems rather fallacious to equate human life to a painting that can be destroyed on a whim.

(November 25, 2014 at 4:00 am)Godschild Wrote: 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.

If God is not omnibenevolent, are you saying that you think he is (at least at times) malicious--malevolence being the counterpart of benevolence

(November 25, 2014 at 4:00 am)Godschild Wrote: 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.

OK, now I get what you were asking about the daughters. I didn't see where you were going with that, and I see why you thought I was evading that point. I actually have never heard that argument before, but I'm not sure I agree with it. There are many places in the Bible where females weren't mentioned, not because they had no part in the story or because the point was not applicable to them, but rather because they were considered to be of such less value than men. Also, the belief of the women would not have been as important than that of the men. This can be seen in that men could marry foreign wives (though it was often looked down upon, and it often had bad consequences). The theory was that men, as heads of the households controled the religion. Foreign wives were ok (sort of) because they would convert to Judaism. Hebrew daughters, however, were never married out to foreign husbands since they would logically be converted to heathen religions in the process. Therefore it would have been much more important to control the belief of the sons (child or adult).

Quote:protip, if you're going to make a small reply to a large wall of text, used the [hide] tags

This. Alternatively, you might try selecting only the parts to which you intend to respond and only quoting those, instead of quoting the whole post and making us guess. We've just read the damn thing; we don't need to wade through it again.

If your reply doesn't address any specific part of the post at all, the Quick Reply box is your friend.

(November 25, 2014 at 12:57 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(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.

What makes you believe I feel bad, I see things about Christianity that you can't, and why, because you couldn't possibly understand.

GC

Maybe its a good thing i don't... and hopefully never will.

If god existed, it would send GC two months into hell, just for being an aged member and still make the same mistakes over and over. FFS, bbcode isn't that hard.

Thread's gone on far too long without this...

(November 25, 2014 at 1:42 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Thread's gone on far too long without this...

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z04XZXCLDtU

---

It fits in all two well for this post.