Another law thread

[catfish]

Why must your god rely on you (and people like you) to pass on the notion that it exists?
" 'historical' record's content" = stories in the holy book of your choosing

According to his scripture, HE DOESN'T!!!!

Hebrews 8:10
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

[Esquilax]

My 'best shot' is to attempt a reset, because it is clear you missed a fundamental precept the first time around, bear with me and honestly read what is written.

God Does not provide Undeniable evidence, to his assistance because it would interfere with our ability to clearly choose Heaven or Hell. We have Historical evidence to point to this fact. For two times in human History two separate groups of people/two separate cultures were provided what was considered to be "undeniable proof" to those given people in the time that they lived. As direct result we have 2000 years (collectively) of recorded human history, that show the degradation perversion of God's expressed will, to suit our own need to justify our various 'moralities.'

In Short people think they are living according to God's laws, but in the end adopt a works based morality, that glorifies men and promotes the worship of the religion itself over God.

This in of itself is an undeniable fact. For Christ points out to the Pharisees over and over how far their understandings of the laws were from their original intent. Because of this their morality demanded that Christ be scourged and crucified because of it. In the second example most of you point to the crusades, the inquisition, the murder, and demand for allegiance to a given way of worship, in the Dark age of the church. None of which is supported by scripture. All of this points to the fact that man takes the power and authority given by what a given people acknowledge to be undeniable proof of God, and substitute God's will for their own. Now you have this Monster hybrid where man takes the authority God has left and applies it to the wickedness of his own desires... We have record of two 2000 years of this just in the worship of the God of the bible. Nothing more needs to be said.

Yeah, I kinda think we were at cross purposes from the beginning, here. I still stick by my arguments, but it's pretty clear now that we weren't having the same argument at all. You use words far more loosely than I do (in a debate setting, anyway. I get just as loose when writing prose ) which, well... results in this, I suppose.

[Mystical]

Not an insult an observation. Calling someone a fool now adays is often time considered an insult which has little meaning other than to lash out at someone. I call you a fool because your actions matched the actual defination. Your work lack any descernable judgment and makes little sense. You ignore established history in favor of a "because this is what I want to believe, because I said so." one can say that person
is lacking in common powers of understanding. which by defination makes Him a fool.

How is calling someone a fool (twice) showing yourself to be the example of humility? And how does his actions match the definition of a fool, I'd really like to know? How does he lack common powers of understanding if you are incomprehensible?

Proverbs 29:11 ESV / 111 helpful votes
A fool gives full vent to his spirit, but a wise man quietly holds it back

Proverbs 14:7-9 ESV / 38 helpful votes
Leave the presence of a fool, for there you do not meet words of knowledge. The wisdom of the prudent is to discern his way, but the folly of fools is deceiving. Fools mock at the guilt offering, but the upright enjoy acceptance.

Having met the words of 'fools', do you not see sense and knowledge in their arguments? If not, why stay on the forum?

Titus 3:3 ESV / 18 helpful votes
For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another.

James 2:20-24 ESV / 17 helpful votes
Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?

If you're humble, you'd know you were or are a fool yourself and not call someone else such, whether you believe them to be a fool or not and whether you've conceded that fact yourself many times. I could
say I'm a bitch but still be a bitch by calling someone else a bitch but in the end all I'll be labeled as is a bitch. See?
Just the act of calling someone a fool in your position of 'representing' your religion, implies that you know what is not foolish and that you can represent such unfoolishness.

Proverbs 9:6-8 ESV
Leave your simple ways, and live, and walk in the way of insight.” Whoever corrects a scoffergets himself abuse, and he who reproves a wicked man incurs injury. Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you.

He is a very wise man, and you called him a fool when he has legitimate
concerns and points to make. Especially in this forum he's seen as wise because your belief system is minority here. So calling someone who speaks sense and understanding a fool in front of a bunch of people who see you as the fool, only confirms their beliefs.

We can look at this two ways. Christ's only physical act recorded in all for gospels is that He over turned
a few tables that theives were using to cheat people who were trying to make an offering to God.
Or we can point to the whip Christ fashioned and ask, is it not up to God to punish? i would like to think
Christ used that whip and a few of them were cut alittle past the quick as Christ ran them out.

Please explain to me how we can look at this 2 ways?

That's just it. "we" (Meaning all of us) Are not all Christ's/God's kids. Now ask yourself what if your kids were being subject to all manner of terriable things by people who were in the process of profiting off of
your kids pain? What would you do to these people/theives if your kids cried out to you in desperate pain?

I've looked it up, and websites do support your claim that the bible does not claim non-believers as children
of god. Surprising to me, as I was taught otherwise (hence the Jesus loves the little children of the world song
that I grew up with). So, I'll concede that those moneylenders were not children of god. Then superimposing our
analogy of "would I whip someone who was causing my children pain" and the answer is still no. I'd do
everything in my power to stop it nonviolently, but in the end I'd do everything in my power to prevent my
children and anyone elses' children for that matter, from being hurt. Your analogy confuses me however; as I
do not equate charging someone for a sacrificial animal in the house of their worship as 'invoking desperate
pain'.

And again, simply 'protesting' is not a sin. Sin equals death. If you are not willing to sin/commit a death
penality crime then you would sheep along like the rest in your soceity would. -or- Make an attempt to lower
the bar so your sins could be accepted.. Maybe you would do this through non violent protests..

What if I did sheep around the rest of my life? I'd still be put in hell yes? Yes. Before you go on to say that every sin is equal to death penalty in gods' eyes and hence requires eternal hell (whatever your definition) as a punishment, just know that I find the prospect of going to hell for something like lying, to be incredibly fucking stupid. Assume I do go to hell for something so trivial--for eternity? I don't want to know that god and would rather be in hell than know him.

Ps. Before you say I'm seeing red, and hence my argument is worthless, do think on this before you respond if you choose to respond. I'm within my right to feel you are wrong. Just because I speak it with conviction does not make my assertions any less credible.

[Drich]

How is calling someone a fool (twice) showing yourself to be the example of humility?

Me Calling someone a fool is Me trying to isloate and identifying the problem in which kept up from proceeding to the next point.

And how does his actions match the definition of a fool, I'd really like to know?

I out lined the defination, and I out line his activity which coinsided with said defination. If you want a better understanding go back and carfully read that post.

How does he lack common powers of understanding if you are incomprehensible?

Identifying him as a fool, was used as a tool to see if he was being intentionally obstinate or if he truly did not understand. Since Pride would have prevented 99.9% of everyone from asking for help to understand a given point in a heated arguement, I used a word that forced a recogning. True ignorance would have one ignore or lash back with a personal insult of one's own. The fact that I tried to declassified the word as an insult, should have had him try and hide the truth and press other points harder. Selective foolishness/obstinance would have him change his arguement just enough to show me I was wrong alllowing him to turn the phrase on me. I threw the dice (risking judgement from the self righteous) in an attempt to move the conversation forward..
The use of the word may not be unto your personal liking but it did serve a purpose, in that I showed me that I needed to possiably restate, and condense my position so he could see all the different facits of the conversation at once. I made the mistake with equlax of giving him one peice of the arguement at a time.Orginally I was trying to get him to accept and process the subassemblies of the conversation, which just gave him more to argue. Once he established an opinion of one of the sub-arguements, he was not allowing himself any new information past that point. (Which I identified as foolish, and him as a fool for doing that, which in part triggered a sucessful rest set, and a positive end result.)

What was the end result?

He blamed me for his misunderstanding (which is in part true) but he did except what was being said.

I am here to deliver understanding, not coddle egos. How deep we go into a conversation/ego smashing is completly dependant on the person I am speaking with. Look at how many pages of text we went through before it came to this point. I would have stopped the instance Equlax lost interest, but he presisted and I felt it was my obligation to deliver the understanding he was asking for in those many pages of text.

Proverbs 29:11 ESV / 111 helpful votes
A fool gives full vent to his spirit, but a wise man quietly holds it back

Now after everything that was just said, does it look like I was venting when I identified Equlax as a fool? Does venting produce structured results?

Proverbs 14:7-9 ESV / 38 helpful votes
Leave the presence of a fool, for there you do not meet words of knowledge. The wisdom of the prudent is to discern his way, but the folly of fools is deceiving. Fools mock at the guilt offering, but the upright enjoy acceptance.

Which was the VERY Reason I was trying to correctly identify Equlax's work. Was He intentionally foolish? (Ignoring reason/not seeking understanding for the sake of his arguement) or did he simply not understand?

I do NOT Judge a person's level of foolishness simply because he does not agree. That is why we pushed past the defination and sought the core of his reasonings. Then restructured my work to fit what he needed to move on.

Having met the words of 'fools', do you not see sense and knowledge in their arguments? If not, why stay on the forum?

Have I 'met the words of a fool?' Or have you (again) just judged someone too quickly? Does your need to saciate your self righteousness demand you act (Repeatedly) before you get all the information?

Titus 3:3 ESV / 18 helpful votes
For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another.

..And Someone took the time to push past all my hate and anger against God (or my personal straw man version of Him) and even called me out on my foolishness to see past my own selfrighteousness. To lead someone back, one must be willing to endure the hell people sourround themselves with. Being patient when it is required is just as much apart of the process as pushing back where it is required to push back.

Only a FOOL thinks that all situations can be answered with a singular philosphy.

James 2:20-24 ESV / 17 helpful votes
Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?

Did you just type fool/foolish into a concordance? If not then please tell me what this has to do with anything other than the fact the word "fool" comes up in this verse?

If you're humble, you'd know you were or are a fool yourself and not call someone else such,

The fact that I am a fool allows me the benfit of persepective, it also helps me navigate the paths you all are still to blaze, and subsequently help me avoid paths that lead no where (if that is the direction one of you wants to go.) Identifying the path you are on is an on going process and dependant of the heart of the person I am speaking with, it maybe a more challenging process than others.

whether you believe them to be a fool or not and whether you've conceded that fact yourself many times. I could
say I'm a bitch but still be a bitch by calling someone else a bitch but in the end all I'll be labeled as is a bitch. See?

... "Leaves the whole word blind."
I would add that this process (of an eye for an eye) is only meaningless if one does not have any direction/rhyme or reason for calling one a 'bitch." Other than to get back at someone.

Just the act of calling someone a fool in your position of 'representing' your religion, implies that you know what is not foolish and that you can represent such unfoolishness.

Only if one does not understand (nor cares to ask), but assumes she knows everything their is to know about the "religion I am repersenting."

Proverbs 9:6-8 ESV
Leave your simple ways, and live, and walk in the way of insight.” Whoever corrects a scoffergets himself abuse, and he who reproves a wicked man incurs injury. Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you.

Wow, the Irony.

He is a very wise man, and you called him a fool when he has legitimate
concerns and points to make. Especially in this forum he's seen as wise because your belief system is minority here. So calling someone who speaks sense and understanding a fool in front of a bunch of people who see you as the fool, only confirms their beliefs.

How do you know that is not the intended response?

After all you thought you had an open oppertunity to expose a hypocrite, and without question or without any more information (something you have done in just about every thing you have written thus far) made a judgement and sought to persecute, and maniuplate me into grovelling to you inorder to reclaim whatever warped idea of True Christian™ is supposed to be.

When in fact I gives me an oppertunity for ALL of you to see the thought the time and prayerful consideration that goes into everyone responses. That nothing is said from the cuff or as a result of an emotional response even if what was said was meant to envoke an emotional response.. And all of this because the proud, thought me to be a fool, and could not ever hope to dig himself out of all of the scripture you left. If this is going to be the nature of our future discouses then you will have to do a little more home work than a key word search.

Please explain to me how we can look at this 2 ways?

One, we can view it as the scripture records. (Christ never lays a hand on anyone) or two, we can Assume that Christ used the whip to physically break skin and whip people. (which would not be consistent with the text that say Christ fashioned a whip to drive the money changers out Mt 21:12, Mark11:15, John 2:15, Luke 19:45) Again the Term Drive harkens back to how one uses a whip to drive live stock (make noise) and not break skin exposing animals to infection. (also know one can not crack/whip another and not break skin) Otherwise one could loose animals/livelyhood by just trying to herd them.

I've looked it up, and websites do support your claim that the bible does not claim non-believers as children
of god.

You can also find websites to tell you the oppsite. That why you should turn to the bible, or ASK someone to do that for you.

Surprising to me, as I was taught otherwise (hence the Jesus loves the little children of the world song
that I grew up with). So, I'll concede that those moneylenders were not children of god. Then superimposing our
analogy of "would I whip someone who was causing my children pain" and the answer is still no. I'd do
everything in my power to stop it nonviolently, but in the end I'd do everything in my power to prevent my
children and anyone elses' children for that matter, from being hurt.

Let's pray neither will ever have to find out.

Your analogy confuses me however; as I
do not equate charging someone for a sacrificial animal in the house of their worship as 'invoking desperate
pain'.

The Passover sacerfice was a once a year thing and a absolute requirement for the OT Jew. God's orginal command would have the people bring the Best that they had to the temple. However the temple authority saw a way to make money from this mandate. In refusing or find flaws with the sacerfices people brought from their homes (sometimes days away) they sold the people 'clean animals,' and offered to buy the ones they brought. They bought with traditional currency, and would only sell using 'temple dollars.' which was usless anywhere but the temple. Some speculate a 10 to one exchange rate. So they buy your best goat for $10.00 regular/unclean money, and they want to sell you a goat that has been 'approved' for $10.00 in temple money which turns out to be close to $100.00 real money.

What is worst is often times the animals people brought were taken around back held in a pin for a few days blessed by one of these crooks and resold to the next group of people making their pilgrimage. Often times people did as they were commanded and brought the best that they had. when it was deemed unworthy, they had nothing else to give, requiring them to trade down to a smaller offering or placing that person in a sense of spiritual debt to the preists makeing these deals. something that took even more from the people... eventually leading them to call out to their God for mercy.

What if I did sheep around the rest of my life? I'd still be put in hell yes? Yes.

That is between you and God.

Before you go on to say that every sin is equal to death penalty in gods' eyes and hence requires eternal hell (whatever your definition) as a punishment, just know that I find the prospect of going to hell for something like lying, to be incredibly fucking stupid.

Which only furthers my point. You have set in your mind a personal righteousness/morality apart From God's stated righteousness. Meaning you have given your life to your own personal righteousness or self righteousness. Rather than yielding to the standard in which God will use to judge.

Assume I do go to hell for something so trivial--for eternity? I don't want to know that god and would rather be in hell than know him.

which is the point of this life. Not all want to goto Heaven, We have been given this life to make that one choice. Once that choice has been made then, know you are ready to face the eternity you have made for yourself.

Ps. Before you say I'm seeing red, and hence my argument is worthless, do think on this before you respond if you choose to respond. I'm within my right to feel you are wrong. Just because I speak it with conviction does not make my assertions any less credible.

"Seeing red" does not invalidate your arguement it only make is inaccurate, which according to my experience with you does not seem to matter so much.


My orginal appeal or Identification of you 'seeing red' was an offer to allow you to slow down, gather the information you were over looking, to assemble an accurate counter arguement. If this does not appeal to you then know I have no trouble hacking away at whatever you want to post.

[catfish]

Me Calling someone a fool is Me trying to isloate and identifying the problem in which kept up from proceeding to the next point.

Danger! Danger! Will Robinson...

Matthew 5:22
King James Version (KJV)

22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
.

[Drich]

Me Calling someone a fool is Me trying to isloate and identifying the problem in which kept up from proceeding to the next point.

Danger! Danger! Will Robinson...

Matthew 5:22
King James Version (KJV)

22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
.

Fun with catfish!!

Now lets look at the WHOLE Passage, and not just the fishy/'fool' Part. Verse 22 Starts with a qualifying statement.

In that "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:

Which means those who are angry at his brother without cause shall be endanger of the following consenquences, which leads us to the second half of your verse.

and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council:

Raca is the literal defination of the word fool,http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4469&t=KJV

but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

The word here is not 'Raca' (the word I used which speaks of other men) It is Moros which means to deem an act or an appointment by God "foolish" by the standards of man.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...3474&t=KJV

Kinda like saying how it is 'foolish' to take the whole bible literally. Now I know someone on this website flies this flag, but I can't remember exactly who.... Hmmm.. Who could have said anything like that??? Do me a favor fishy, If you see anyone doing such a thing wake B-9 (the lost in space robot) back up and warn that d-bag he is endanger of Hell fire.

---

Why must your god rely on you (and people like you) to pass on the notion that it exists?
" 'historical' record's content" = stories in the holy book of your choosing

According to his scripture, HE DOESN'T!!!!

Hebrews 8:10
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Indeed He has.

[catfish]

You're the one who claims a vision of hell was "divine", right?
.

[Esquilax]

Me Calling someone a fool is Me trying to isloate and identifying the problem in which kept up from proceeding to the next point.

I can't believe I have to point this out to you, but you'd probably avoid causing offense if you just didn't call people fools at all. I know you operate under some weird ur-English where words sometimes have secret meanings that only you still use, but you can't expect everyone else to dance to that tune.

We speak regular English. Calling someone a fool comes across as an ad hom attack, no matter your intention; it's not cool. Just... use words like the rest of us. It's a great language, why do you feel the need to damage the discourse like that?

[catfish]

According to his scripture, HE DOESN'T!!!!

Hebrews 8:10
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Indeed He has.

If you agree that that particular prophecy came true, why are you still "teaching" your neighbor?
.

---

Oh yeah, I don't trust sources who worship on Sunday... Seems kinda pagan to me.
.

[Drich]

You're the one who claims a vision of hell was "divine", right?
.

I'm the first one to identify it as a dream, I'm am also the first to point out that before I knew anything of the biblical hell my 'dream' accurately portrayed it.

---

Me Calling someone a fool is Me trying to isloate and identifying the problem in which kept up from proceeding to the next point.

I can't believe I have to point this out to you, but you'd probably avoid causing offense if you just didn't call people fools at all. I know you operate under some weird ur-English where words sometimes have secret meanings that only you still use, but you can't expect everyone else to dance to that tune.

We speak regular English. Calling someone a fool comes across as an ad hom attack, no matter your intention; it's not cool. Just... use words like the rest of us. It's a great language, why do you feel the need to damage the discourse like that?

So noted.

---

Indeed He has.

If you agree that that particular prophecy came true, why are you still "teaching" your neighbor?
.

Are my 'neighbors' Jews? Read the passage you posted. What does the very first part say? To whom does God make this covenant?