Jesus, Least Fit Moral Judge

[Ryantology]

It is because I have the persepective provided by the very same christians you mentioned and their failed legalistic worship, to know this is not what God wants.

How can you say that genocide is "not what God wants" when there are so many examples, in scripture, where he directly calls for it?

That said some of the commands do carry over, as they are directly mentioned in the NT again. While others do not. Matter of fact in some cases we have been intentionally liberated from keeping certain commandments. I can think of 2 off the top of my head if you want to discuss them through book chapter and verse.

I repeat, from Matthew:

I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

I think Jesus is pretty unambiguous about which commands carry over. Either Jesus is a liar, the Gospel communicates a falsehood, or you are trying to change the rules to avoid roasting with the rest of us. There is no way you can spin the above passage to purport that some of the rules no longer apply.

The law serves only one purpose. It is not provide a rule that we all strive to up hold as a way to earn righteousness before God. the purpose of the law is to show that all have sinned.

I have seriously tried a dozen different approaches to indicate to you how fucking deluded these three sentences are, and I've come up empty.

This is why your religion needs to be destroyed, root and branch. This is some seriously dangerous insanity.

[paultakgu]

Then maybe you should be glad he let you right this message. Obviously you somewhat believe and respect him because you said "for sake of argument" that he lets all these terrible things happen like people dying in sunamies. So what. If I die in a sunami then so be it. Are you so worried about death? A bold statement by myself as well. I guess things can't be perfect. If you don't want people to die and for everyone to live in perpetual happiness, would it then be happiness. I personally don't think happiness can exist without sadness and hurt. There must be a balance. I really don't know if God (god as you call it) exists or not but I am glad there is ambiguity in life.

[Cinjin]

---

You like nicknames Drich? I would prefer that we call each other by our chosen names, as the word cinny has a certain implication of friendship and although I do not consider you my enemy, you are definitely not my friend. Unless of course you want me to come up with a clever nickname for a word that already sounds like 'dick.'

---

Sorry Cinjin doesn't have the same ring as Sorey cinny, but if your getting your feelings hurt i will stop.

Pathetic attempt at a deflection, and not even close to what I said. Please try some reading comprehension:

... the word cinny has a certain implication of friendship ...

[Esquilax]

Uh... yeah, the poe ended up saying what I wanted to say better than I would have been able to. Thanks, YahwehIsTheWay!

What happened? did you just see away out of a bible study or were you afraid to put your version of christianity up against the bible?

---

I just don't feel the need to continue speaking when my sentiments have already been expressed. But then, I get the idea that the very concept of remaining silent when you have nothing to say is pretty alien to you.

Another reason I didn't say anything further is that it's fairly pointless to continue a debate with someone willing to contort their position into any shape they need it to be in order to continue talking. Now, would you care to illuminate us all as to whether the bible is contradicting itself with regards to the old testament, or just whether you are contradicting yourself? Or will you just crow over some imagined victory again?

[Drich]

you need to go the atheist meetings more,

There are no atheist meetings, shithead.

...or maybe you buddies just haven't told you...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08...32911.html

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christandpo...-atheists/

http://www.examiner.com/article/british-...ist-church

You guys are douche bags.

---

I kinda like it when a theological discussion ends in name calling. It usally means you can no longer question or attack the biblical principle, and all your left with is the one who brought you the message.

Those who can do, those who can't call people names. ;P

Or maybe some people just can't deal with your irrational support of immoral acts.

The insults are not what I am addressing. It is the contradictory and sparratic nature of the insult. If things were as you said then they should be uniformed, and the hate would be focoused on "My irrational support of immoral acts." As it is Minnie tells me A, You tell me B, and Ryhme thells me both A, and B. Which covers all the bases, meaning the content is no long being discussed, but a foolish attempt to attack my character.

Which again tells me you all have run out of topical content, but still feel the need to dominate the conversation. That is an indicator that your theological questions have been answered to the point where you can no longer argue them, and only your pride is left to be saciated.

---

How can you say that genocide is "not what God wants" when there are so many examples, in scripture, where he directly calls for it?

Because we as Christians do not have any examples or instruction in the NT to call us to kill a certain people. That and when the dark ages church took it upon themselves to do this very thing, God stop supporting the church and even sent a man to divide it. Allowing us to ultimatly worship God has He orginally intended.


I repeat, from Matthew:
In order to 'repeat from matthew' you must IGNORE What Christ says about fulfillment of the law. Ignore or selectivly maintain a willfull ignorance of what fulfillment of the Law means.

I think Jesus is pretty unambiguous about which commands carry over. Either Jesus is a liar, the Gospel communicates a falsehood, or you are trying to change the rules to avoid roasting with the rest of us. There is no way you can spin the above passage to purport that some of the rules no longer apply.

If your interpertation of Mt. 5 is correct then how do you explain the appearent contradiction between the commandment "Honor your Father and Mother." and what Christ said in Mt 10:37, luke 14:26, where Christ says:"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

Will you foolishly argue that their can be honor in hate? or will you question your understanding of mat 5?

The law serves only one purpose. It is not provide a rule that we all strive to up hold as a way to earn righteousness before God. the purpose of the law is to show that all have sinned.

I have seriously tried a dozen different approaches to indicate to you how fucking deluded these three sentences are, and I've come up empty.

Those "deluded sentences" Are THE CORE OF CHRISTIANITY. The BIBLE SPELLS It Out. Christianity is unlike every other religion on the planet as it is NOT a list of rules to follow to earn Heaven. It is conviction that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and that all need to seek attonement for sin. allowing us to love God with all of our being.

This is why your religion needs to be destroyed, root and branch. This is some seriously dangerous insanity.

wow. do you not see the irony in this statement?

---

Sorry Cinjin doesn't have the same ring as Sorey cinny, but if your getting your feelings hurt i will stop.

Pathetic attempt at a deflection, and not even close to what I said. Please try some reading comprehension:

... the word cinny has a certain implication of friendship ...

I wasn't deflecting anything. You made the observation that we weren't friends. I thought that maybe you got your feelings hurt because i will not call you friend.

---

What happened? did you just see away out of a bible study or were you afraid to put your version of christianity up against the bible?

---

I just don't feel the need to continue speaking when my sentiments have already been expressed. But then, I get the idea that the very concept of remaining silent when you have nothing to say is pretty alien to you.

Another reason I didn't say anything further is that it's fairly pointless to continue a debate with someone willing to contort their position into any shape they need it to be in order to continue talking.

But you did speak when you had nothing to say topically. That was the REASON I challenged you. For your comments went from the absolution of the OT law to jumping on minnie's Christian hate bandwagon. If you have nothing more to say the simply stop all together. I make it a point NOT to beat or kick you all when I leave a post that you do not respond to. I did it in this thread at least twice, by other memebers. If you reamin on this web site long enough you will notice that my efforts will match your own. If you wish to bully and call names, I can do the same. If you have a serious question, I am willing to put in the time to give a serious response. If you have nothing more to say, then I will respect that.

Now, would you care to illuminate us all as to whether the bible is contradicting itself with regards to the old testament, or just whether you are contradicting yourself? Or will you just crow over some imagined victory again?

This is known as begging the question. Care to rephrase?

[FallentoReason]

Look Drich, I'm just going to say it as it is from my perspective:

The bottom line from all this discussion is that you are ok with all the countless people who have died in the name of your god. I don't need to debate with you anymore because your words alone prove that religion is the root of all evil -- which is truly a shame because I usually give you theists the benefit of the doubt on that one (as I used to be there once and always believed with my heart it was ultimately for the greater good). You've taken it too far and it just makes me sick to hear how you're ok with your god throwing souls by the bucketload into hell just so that the bloody Church could sort its kinks out. That's low man, that's real low.

Your "work" here seems to push me further and further away from the faith I once cherished so dearly. I'm actually glad I don't have to stand by your side and convert those heathens together because I would be a little embarrassed to call you my team mate.

[Esquilax]

This is known as begging the question. Care to rephrase?

Well, okay: How do you justify the contradiction between the idea that the old testament somehow no longer applies, and the insistence within the text that not a word of god's law will be altered? Beyond this, how would you explain the idea of an inerrant book of laws being made obsolete or selectively read from? You're clearly personally fine with it, I guess I'm wondering how you reached that point, because to me it seems like a point of cognitive dissonance, given that your god is supposed to be perfect: why would his laws change and, if they have, what does that say about his morality?

[Drich]

Look Drich, I'm just going to say it as it is from my perspective:

The bottom line from all this discussion is that you are ok with all the countless people who have died in the name of your god.

Why? Because for us Death is not an end to anything but our birth into eternity. So why should I fear or villify death as you do? Death is not evil it is just as much apart of life as birth. Do you curse pregnate women as well?

I don't need to debate with you anymore because your words alone prove that religion is the root of all evil --

If you mean to say religion undermines the self worship this life allows then i completely agree. But to call this evil is a matter of moral realitism. Something that does not need to be discussed. for you has yours and I has mine.

which is truly a shame because I usually give you theists the benefit of the doubt on that one (as I used to be there once and always believed with my heart it was ultimately for the greater good). You've taken it too far and it just makes me sick to hear how you're ok with your god throwing souls by the bucketload into hell just so that the bloody Church could sort its kinks out.

Why do you persume that just because the darkages church condemned people to Hell, that God would do the same? The worst thing this church could do is end a person's life. The church had no say to those people's eternal fate. Let God be God and allow Him to judge as He sees fit to judge.

Your "work" here seems to push me further and further away from the faith I once cherished so dearly.

I am not here to sway you one way or another. I understand this life to be all about where we choose to spend eternity. I am here to help facilitate an educated choice. If God allows you to choose to be seperated from Him for all eternity, then who am i to argue with your choice, or the God who allow you the freedom to choose in the first place?? The choice is yours I am just here to provide truth and persepective for all who seek it. So if you choose Hell, the who am I to argue? The one thing I took from my Hell experience was, that I knew by my own life experiences, what I choose and why. I am here to help all of you cement or Change your choice. Nothing more nothing less.

I'm actually glad I don't have to stand by your side and convert those heathens together because I would be a little embarrassed to call you my team mate.

Maybe because you do not completely understand the team configuration, the object of the game, or how it is played. It seems as if you heard about it 2nd or 3rd hand so you know enough just to get the jist of it, but somehow believe your a professional player, or rather know enough to referee/judge the game.

---

Well, okay: How do you justify the contradiction between the idea that the old testament somehow no longer applies, and the insistence within the text that not a word of god's law will be altered?

The passage does not say God's law will never be altered. It says: "Not one letter of the law will pass away," until His kingdom comes.

Again the Law still applies, all of it. (Pay attention and ask questions about this next part because it is what most of you do not seem to get) Because Christ Fulfilled the Law (Lived a life without sin) and then was sacerficed, He was able to take our sin and wipe it clean. Meaning we no longer are bound to the law as away to obtain righteousness. We are now completely dependant of the grace offered by the blood sacerfice of Christ.

Which means Christian and non christian are the same till the final judgement (when His kingdom comes as being discussed in our passage.) We are both literal slaves to sin. One not being more 'moral' or worthy of heaven than the other. Heaven is not a prize to be won for the moral. Heaven is a place where those who want to spend an eternity with God can so do though the attonement offered through Christ's sacerfice. If the simply accept it.

Beyond this, how would you explain the idea of an inerrant book of laws being made obsolete or selectively read from?

quite easily. Unless you are an OT Jew or a Legalist Christ the bible is not a 'book of rules.'

You're clearly personally fine with it, I guess I'm wondering how you reached that point,

I read the bible, and God filled in the rest.

because to me it seems like a point of cognitive dissonance, given that your god is supposed to be perfect: why would his laws change and, if they have, what does that say about his morality?

Nothing has changed. The law was the 2nd or possiably the third step in God's plan of communion with us.

The problem is you only see the law, and have ignored everything else. The law only serves one purpose, that is to identify sin. Read the book of Romans.

[The Grand Nudger]

You did pose the question Drich...did you not want someone to take a stab at answering it? Perhaps you shouldn't consider it an attack on your character, but rather praise for persisting in it (despite obvious difficulties leading you to offer a defense where none would be required - were you "all that you could be").

You should know me well enough by now that any "discussion about theology" you might want to play at with me will always fall to the fact that it is fiction. It is never any more serious than that, it never rises to a level worth more respect than that. I do not need to attack fiction, I do not need to defend my casual disregard for fiction-as-fact. No amount of insulting your character would ever help me accomplish two task which I have no interest in accomplishing. So no, Drich, your theology doesn't lead me insult some portion of your character, your own acceptance of the underlaying principles of that theology does - the fairy tale remains just that - it's your wish for it to be true that leads to my comments....and who else should I be directing those comments at - you're the one doing the wishing,..... Should I conclude that god is a cunt for something you wish a god would have done? I hardly think so. Am I supposed to tell you that you're wrong for wishing these things? Why would I do that, we simply have a difference of opinion. Just so happens that some opinions are cuntish and some aren't. Eye of the beholder, right?

lol.

[FallentoReason]

Why? Because for us Death is not an end to anything but our birth into eternity. So why should I fear or villify death as you do? Death is not evil it is just as much apart of life as birth. Do you curse pregnate women as well?

Wrong. The Church was killing non-believers so according to your cherry-picked NT canon they are now in eternal damnation. Hell yeah there's something to be feared, if the book was actually the truth of the cosmos.

If you mean to say religion undermines the self worship this life allows then i completely agree. But to call this evil is a matter of moral realitism. Something that does not need to be discussed. for you has yours and I has mine.

You confuse me with this moral relativism cop-out. I have my secular understanding of morality, you're meant to have your objective moral code from your god. Saying that back then it was ok to kill the innocent and now it isn't is simply being dishonest with yourself.

Why do you persume that just because the darkages church condemned people to Hell, that God would do the same? The worst thing this church could do is end a person's life. The church had no say to those people's eternal fate. Let God be God and allow Him to judge as He sees fit to judge.

John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Gawd demands that you believe in his scapegoat for a chance to cash in and win. No belief in him, no dice.

I am not here to sway you one way or another. I understand this life to be all about where we choose to spend eternity. I am here to help facilitate an educated choice. If God allows you to choose to be seperated from Him for all eternity, then who am i to argue with your choice, or the God who allow you the freedom to choose in the first place?? The choice is yours I am just here to provide truth and persepective for all who seek it. So if you choose Hell, the who am I to argue? The one thing I took from my Hell experience was, that I knew by my own life experiences, what I choose and why. I am here to help all of you cement or Change your choice. Nothing more nothing less.

Out of curiosity, when did that hell experience happen to you?

Maybe because you do not completely understand the team configuration, the object of the game, or how it is played. It seems as if you heard about it 2nd or 3rd hand so you know enough just to get the jist of it, but somehow believe your a professional player, or rather know enough to referee/judge the game.

?

No, the game is simple enough; convince the other side through reason. The problem is that I can't go back to doing mental backflips, strawmanning, moving the goal posts, red herrings... basically anything required to believe an ancient book has authority over my life.