Another law thread

[Drich]

[quote='Esquilax' pid='392625' dateline='1359356738']
I am so glad you said that, Drich. Because the very first reply you ever wrote to me, back when I'd just started out in this forum, was this: [quote/]

[quote]What is so hard to understand about how the bible was compiled? Two distinct religions are being repersented by one book. Anything OT was written to Old testament Jews. The New testament was written to Christianity.

This means if you are having a Christian conversation you must look between the Book of Matthew and the book of Jude to define Christian commands. As Leviticus is an OT book it those commands were written to OT Jews. Even Modern Jews do not follow all of those commands anymore.[/quote]

[quote]So! Were you lying then, or were you lying just now?[/quote]-or- you still do not understand the differences between OT Judaism, and NT Christianity.

[quote] Either the rules regarding the bible changed, or they did not: when were you a hypocrite, here?[/quote]Nothing in the Law has Changed. Now ask then why are things different if nothing Changed.
(Because it is obvious that you do not know the difference between OT Judiaism and NT Christianity not how to reconsile the differences between the two) I say two because they are indeed two seperate religious expressions in an attempt to worship the same God.

[quote]Well, one of us certainly is...[/quote]Yes and I can support with scripture (if you like) that you have been accuratly identified as that person.

[quote]Oh, so what makes their understanding of god "god's law" but mine some kind of flawed thing? Is it because I disagree with you? Or are you just making it up as you go along?[/quote] They had Two stone tablets God carved out with His own hand and a Prophet who weilded the power of God, and Spoke for God, to His people directly.

You have 4th grade Sunday school understanding of one specific denomination's doctrine, which makes no claims (The denomination) to being derived completely from the bible. This denomination openly gets it's doctrine from a presession of men who take turns wearing a funny hat.

That is the difference is between you and the Israelites wandering the desert.

[quote]Despite the next arguement you are brewing up, understand and accept this has already happened twice in the history of man. NOTHING you can say will change this, [/quote]

[quote]Wow, okay, apparently you don't get this: I'm an atheist. I don't think that anyone has ever had proof of the existence of god. Ever. [/quote] Again open your bible and Read The last part of Genesis and exodus. These people had absolute proof of God.

And in Christiandom from about the 12th to the 15th century, The "Proof" that they had would most definatly not have passed for proof to day, but for those people it was absolute. Otherwise the people would rise up and break the authority and rule of the controling church. (which is exactly what happened when the "proof" was questioned and found to be wanting) But durning that time period those people lived under what they 'knew' to be absolute proof of God. Now all their is to do, is to look at the results of how humanity works under 'absolute proof of God' First with the Jews and the in Christianity. For either one, the results are the same.

History records what absolute unchecked 'proof' of God does to the human soul. So why would any of you people ask for it again? Are you simply ignorant of history? or do you truly believe it would be different for you, that you are not some backwards bronze or middle age dummy? If the later then know that what my capital punishment question was about. To show you that you would be a slave to the popular culture as you are now... (you should be able to connect the dots from here)

[quote]Fuck off, you supercilious prick.

And in a less mean spirited way: nonviolent protest was enough for Ghandi, speeches were enough for Martin Luther King... the world can change through nonviolence, Drich. [/quote]
Red Herring. I never said they weren't ways to change the world. What you seem to not understand is if one could stand in line some where and physically visit Heaven and see Hell even if their were no direct contact with anyone on the otherside, (outside of what has been written but could see all that went on) We would not want to make those changes. 'we' would do everything in our power to strictly follow the law of God, and/or fill in our own short commings with things like pergatory, indulgences, or just turn a blind eye to our sin. Historically this is what happened, so again no arguement can be made against these facts.

That is why God only gives 'proof' to those who seek it, and then only as much as needed to establish and maintain one's faith. That said if we are faithful with very little He will double our measure, and so on it goes until faith becomes our reality.

[quote]
If you want to be a sociopathic thug who thinks violence is the only way to accomplish anything, fine. I suppose once again I've proven I'm morally more consistent and kind hearted than you.

What a surprise.[/quote]
Now you have made a left turn from a Red herring, and gone full on straw man.

I was laughing at your "bible endorses viloence" comment, because it was Christ who commanded us to turn the other cheek. It was Christ's example of this that had Him beaten and nailed to a cross. This example did not stop with Him all but one of the apstoles met a similar fate. You're projecting non scriptural violence onto Christianity. That was what was so funny. That is why I said "turn the other cheek.." But I guess you missed that sunday school lesson.

[Faith No More]

Asked and answered 3 or 4 times now.. Just enough to continue to refer to this whole thing as a dream/vision.

No, labeling it a dream/vision doesn't really answer the question, does it? God could communicate in those ways, correct? You could very well label it a dream/vision and still believe with 100% conviction that it was an authentic revelation from God, whch is why your answers have been indirect and unsatisfactory.

Starting to feel like I'm trying to nail jello to a wall....

[Drich]

Asked and answered 3 or 4 times now.. Just enough to continue to refer to this whole thing as a dream/vision.

No, labeling it a dream/vision doesn't really answer the question, does it? God could communicate in those ways, correct? You could very well label it a dream/vision and still believe with 100% conviction that it was an authentic revelation from God, whch is why your answers have been indirect and unsatisfactory.

Starting to feel like I'm trying to nail jello to a wall....

Whether you like the answer or not, that is the one i have to give. I am not in a position to reconsile any doubts you may had if you had been given over to experience what I did. Nor am I in a position to give you the answers your looking for and answer truthfully/faithfully.

If you do not want a truthful answer just assume i just said, what you wanted to hear and move on. Other wise know you have been given the answer to your stated question no less than 3 times now.

[Esquilax]

-or- you still do not understand the differences between OT Judaism, and NT Christianity.

Oh, I understand that you've deluded yourself into thinking that's an answer to anything.

Nothing in the Law has Changed. Now ask then why are things different if nothing Changed.
(Because it is obvious that you do not know the difference between OT Judiaism and NT Christianity not how to reconsile the differences between the two) I say two because they are indeed two seperate religious expressions in an attempt to worship the same God.

Nah, I gotcha: the law hasn't changed except where the law has changed. Because the ten commandments you're so fond of come from the old testament, as does any exhortation to persecute the gays, but your church is still right there with that.

We have always been at war with Eurasia.

Yes and I can support with scripture (if you like) that you have been accuratly identified as that person.

I'm just impressed either of us is identified by name in the scriptures!

They had Two stone tablets God carved out with His own hand and a Prophet who weilded the power of God, and Spoke for God, to His people directly.

You have 4th grade Sunday school understanding of one specific denomination's doctrine, which makes no claims (The denomination) to being derived completely from the bible. This denomination openly gets it's doctrine from a presession of men who take turns wearing a funny hat.

That is the difference is between you and the Israelites wandering the desert.

I gotcha: they were credulous simpletons who fell for a guy claiming to have divine influence because he carved some rocks, and I don't understand your religion because I disagree with your (flawed, apologist) version of it, that's not even represented in your own holy texts.

Because it's not really that I don't understand christianity, is it? It's that I don't understand the imaginary version of it you've built up in your head.

Despite the next arguement you are brewing up, understand and accept this has already happened twice in the history of man. NOTHING you can say will change this,

Again open your bible and Read The last part of Genesis and exodus. These people had absolute proof of God.

And in Christiandom from about the 12th to the 15th century, The "Proof" that they had would most definatly not have passed for proof to day, but for those people it was absolute. Otherwise the people would rise up and break the authority and rule of the controling church. (which is exactly what happened when the "proof" was questioned and found to be wanting) But durning that time period those people lived under what they 'knew' to be absolute proof of God. Now all their is to do, is to look at the results of how humanity works under 'absolute proof of God' First with the Jews and the in Christianity. For either one, the results are the same.

History records what absolute unchecked 'proof' of God does to the human soul. So why would any of you people ask for it again? Are you simply ignorant of history? or do you truly believe it would be different for you, that you are not some backwards bronze or middle age dummy? If the later then know that what my capital punishment question was about. To show you that you would be a slave to the popular culture as you are now... (you should be able to connect the dots from here)

Oh fuck, that has been your argument since day one?? Ha!

So, basically, your argument here is that the adherents of your religion are untrustworthy, bluster-filled violent thugs when given any kind of power, and that to you is compelling reasoning not to find proof of god?

Fuck, maybe god should just prove himself to atheists, then. We'd obviously do so much better than the religious at guarding that truth...

Red Herring. I never said they weren't ways to change the world.

No, you just derided my attempts to. Very classy.

What you seem to not understand is if one could stand in line some where and physically visit Heaven and see Hell even if their were no direct contact with anyone on the otherside, (outside of what has been written but could see all that went on) We would not want to make those changes. 'we' would do everything in our power to strictly follow the law of God, and/or fill in our own short commings with things like pergatory, indulgences, or just turn a blind eye to our sin. Historically this is what happened, so again no arguement can be made against these facts.

You underestimate the character of Man. We are far nobler than your bible would have us believe.

Now you have made a left turn from a Red herring, and gone full on straw man.

I was laughing at your "bible endorses viloence" comment, because it was Christ who commanded us to turn the other cheek. It was Christ's example of this that had Him beaten and nailed to a cross. This example did not stop with Him all but one of the apstoles met a similar fate. You're projecting non scriptural violence onto Christianity. That was what was so funny. That is why I said "turn the other cheek.." But I guess you missed that sunday school lesson.

Non scriptural violence like Jesus very much not turning the other cheek and driving the moneylenders out of their temple with a scourge he made himself?

Non scriptural violence like that?

It's very easy to see no violence in the scripture if you're content to ignore any violence in the scriptures. But some of us prefer to look at your religion, rather than the confabulation you've made up to replace it in your head.

[Faith No More]

Whether you like the answer or not, that is the one i have to give. I am not in a position to reconsile any doubts you may had if you had been given over to experience what I did. Nor am I in a position to give you the answers your looking for and answer truthfully/faithfully.

If you do not want a truthful answer just assume i just said, what you wanted to hear and move on. Other wise know you have been given the answer to your stated question no less than 3 times now.

[Drich]

-or- you still do not understand the differences between OT Judaism, and NT Christianity.

Oh, I understand that you've deluded yourself into thinking that's an answer to anything.

Nothing in the Law has Changed. Now ask then why are things different if nothing Changed.
(Because it is obvious that you do not know the difference between OT Judiaism and NT Christianity not how to reconsile the differences between the two) I say two because they are indeed two seperate religious expressions in an attempt to worship the same God.

Nah, I gotcha: the law hasn't changed except where the law has changed. Because the ten commandments you're so fond of come from the old testament, as does any exhortation to persecute the gays, but your church is still right there with that.

We have always been at war with Eurasia.

Yes and I can support with scripture (if you like) that you have been accuratly identified as that person.

I'm just impressed either of us is identified by name in the scriptures!

They had Two stone tablets God carved out with His own hand and a Prophet who weilded the power of God, and Spoke for God, to His people directly.

You have 4th grade Sunday school understanding of one specific denomination's doctrine, which makes no claims (The denomination) to being derived completely from the bible. This denomination openly gets it's doctrine from a presession of men who take turns wearing a funny hat.

That is the difference is between you and the Israelites wandering the desert.

I gotcha: they were credulous simpletons who fell for a guy claiming to have divine influence because he carved some rocks, and I don't understand your religion because I disagree with your (flawed, apologist) version of it, that's not even represented in your own holy texts.

Because it's not really that I don't understand christianity, is it? It's that I don't understand the imaginary version of it you've built up in your head.

Despite the next arguement you are brewing up, understand and accept this has already happened twice in the history of man. NOTHING you can say will change this,

Again open your bible and Read The last part of Genesis and exodus. These people had absolute proof of God.

And in Christiandom from about the 12th to the 15th century, The "Proof" that they had would most definatly not have passed for proof to day, but for those people it was absolute. Otherwise the people would rise up and break the authority and rule of the controling church. (which is exactly what happened when the "proof" was questioned and found to be wanting) But durning that time period those people lived under what they 'knew' to be absolute proof of God. Now all their is to do, is to look at the results of how humanity works under 'absolute proof of God' First with the Jews and the in Christianity. For either one, the results are the same.

History records what absolute unchecked 'proof' of God does to the human soul. So why would any of you people ask for it again? Are you simply ignorant of history? or do you truly believe it would be different for you, that you are not some backwards bronze or middle age dummy? If the later then know that what my capital punishment question was about. To show you that you would be a slave to the popular culture as you are now... (you should be able to connect the dots from here)

Oh fuck, that has been your argument since day one?? Ha!

So, basically, your argument here is that the adherents of your religion are untrustworthy, bluster-filled violent thugs when given any kind of power, and that to you is compelling reasoning not to find proof of god?

Fuck, maybe god should just prove himself to atheists, then. We'd obviously do so much better than the religious at guarding that truth...

Red Herring. I never said they weren't ways to change the world.

No, you just derided my attempts to. Very classy.

What you seem to not understand is if one could stand in line some where and physically visit Heaven and see Hell even if their were no direct contact with anyone on the otherside, (outside of what has been written but could see all that went on) We would not want to make those changes. 'we' would do everything in our power to strictly follow the law of God, and/or fill in our own short commings with things like pergatory, indulgences, or just turn a blind eye to our sin. Historically this is what happened, so again no arguement can be made against these facts.

You underestimate the character of Man. We are far nobler than your bible would have us believe.

Now you have made a left turn from a Red herring, and gone full on straw man.

I was laughing at your "bible endorses viloence" comment, because it was Christ who commanded us to turn the other cheek. It was Christ's example of this that had Him beaten and nailed to a cross. This example did not stop with Him all but one of the apstoles met a similar fate. You're projecting non scriptural violence onto Christianity. That was what was so funny. That is why I said "turn the other cheek.." But I guess you missed that sunday school lesson.

Non scriptural violence like Jesus very much not turning the other cheek and driving the moneylenders out of their temple with a scourge he made himself?

Non scriptural violence like that?

It's very easy to see no violence in the scripture if you're content to ignore any violence in the scriptures. But some of us prefer to look at your religion, rather than the confabulation you've made up to replace it in your head.

Your circling the bowl "heavy hitter," It seems your on your way down the drain. Ad hoc comments are usally the last result of a desperate intelect. Do you want another go, or are you sticking with your snarky comments?

[Esquilax]

Your circling the bowl "heavy hitter," It seems your on your way down the drain. Ad hoc comments are usally the last result of a desperate intelect. Do you want another go, or are you sticking with your snarky comments?

So what you're saying is, you've got no counter arguments to any of the very real points I've made, so it's just easier to declare victory by fiat?

Just so long as we're clear.

[Drich]

Your circling the bowl "heavy hitter," It seems your on your way down the drain. Ad hoc comments are usally the last result of a desperate intelect. Do you want another go, or are you sticking with your snarky comments?

So what you're saying is, you've got no counter arguments to any of the very real points I've made, so it's just easier to declare victory by fiat?

Just so long as we're clear.

The following are a condensed version of your pervious "answers." Show me where you left anything that merrits the effort of a legitmate response.

Oh, I understand that you've deluded yourself into thinking that's an answer to anything.Nah, I gotcha: the law hasn't changed except where the law has changed. Because the ten commandments you're so fond of come from the old testament, as does any exhortation to persecute the gays, but your church is still right there with that.

We have always been at war with Eurasia.
I'm just impressed either of us is identified by name in the scriptures!
I gotcha: they were credulous simpletons who fell for a guy claiming to have divine influence because he carved some rocks, and I don't understand your religion because I disagree with your (flawed, apologist) version of it, that's not even represented in your own holy texts.

Because it's not really that I don't understand christianity, is it? It's that I don't understand the imaginary version of it you've built up in your head.

this is what you said when challenged by The Israeli account of their period theocratic rule, and the secular account of the Dark ages. If you can not yield your 'arguements' to established History then what is there for me to say? your ad hoc dismissal of established history is the beginning to a "yeah huh/nut huh" arguement that maybe the next logical step for you, but know I do not want to be apart of it.

When you can show me something of a little more stubstance than a "nut huh" arugement or a general appeal to "your stupid and your arguement is stupid." Then know their is nothing else I can say. Now if you need to tell yourself you won, then by all means allow me to say it and mean it. "You won this one!" Know this is always a viable way out of any discussion with me.

-or-

You can man up do a google search to support what you have stated (Or change what you said to support what you found), allowing us to continue the discussion.

[Esquilax]

The following are a condensed version of your pervious "answers." Show me where you left anything that merrits the effort of a legitmate response.

No counter argument to my pointing to a very specific instance of violence- by Jesus- in the scriptures? Or to my contention that no theocracy has had verifiable proof of god, and that your example only shows that a credulous people followed a man with stone tablets?

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.

this is what you said when challenged by The Israeli account of their period theocratic rule, and the secular account of the Dark ages. If you can not yield your 'arguements' to established History then what is there for me to say?

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.

your ad hoc dismissal of established history is the beginning to a "yeah huh/nut huh" arguement that maybe the next logical step for you, but know I do not want to be apart of it.

I find it pretty rich that the guy who mocked me for listing personal examples of nonviolent protest I've been a part of then turns around and whimpers about poor argumentation from someone at least trying to meet you at some logical middle point.

You can man up do a google search to support what you have stated (Or change what you said to support what you found), allowing us to continue the discussion.

Maybe you missed it. It's all up there, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and see what you can do in round two.

[Ryantology]

What is so hard to understand about how the bible was compiled? Two distinct religions are being repersented by one book. Anything OT was written to Old testament Jews. The New testament was written to Christianity.

This means if you are having a Christian conversation you must look between the Book of Matthew and the book of Jude to define Christian commands. As Leviticus is an OT book it those commands were written to OT Jews. Even Modern Jews do not follow all of those commands anymore.

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?

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.

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.

Christianity boils down to "God, please forgive me for not slaughtering unbelievers, my bratty kids, gays, witches, fornicators, and guys who don't take the weekend off". You are apologizing to a psychopath for not acting as psychopathic as he wants you to.

It doesn't matter that you don't commit the savagery God wants. Being a Christian means you are sorry you aren't.