I wanted to apologize as a Christian....

[Cyberman]

My point exactly.

[vorlon13]

Am I a OT Jew?? is that what you are saying? or do you still not understand the OT law (and the bits including stoning) only pertained to OT Jews!!!

Then tear the OT out of your book.

Jesus wanted His followers to be more Jewish than the Jewish poohbahs running things in His era.  Imagine, if you can/will, just how fucking conservative they would be considered today!  And Jesus expects a more austere version of that, or, at least He did till Apostle Paul retconned His 'wacky' idea about jews and Jewishness.

So, stuck with the OT they are, regardless of Paul's heresy.

[Huggy Bear]

....about my comments years ago stating Christians really did not cherry pick. I used to think that atheists making derogatory comments that many Christians cherry pick as being made up and atheists merely lashing out against Christians. I mean sure, cherry picking 5-10% of the Bible especially about rules from the Old Testament (such as taking a day off of work or not wearing multiple fabrics) was OK but I honestly had no idea that some Christians would cherry pick to the point they don't even believe in any part of the Bible or throw out the 75% of the Bible that scares them.

And if you are wondering (and I don't fool myself, I am pretty confident you don't care about what I have to say), this is the Facebook page that  convinced me you guys were right (Not The Kind of Christian). This is someone so insecure in their beliefs that they don't yet know their political/cultural beliefs (like promoting homosexuality) are not compatible with the Bible (the "but Jesus was so kind" type of people). And they are so many more pages it seems of people who have yet to state their views are truly incompatible with the Bible.

Are these cultural Christians who were brought up in a Christian household who are too scared to admit they are actually atheists? 

For example this a passage from the Bible. It's from 1 John. While 1:7 is my favorite verse (my signature), I know the surrounding verses are much less rosy.

"If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us."

This is their happy feel-good, BS version they will tell you while omitting all the negative text. If they post this version to you, they are purposefully committing sections of the Bible and are, in essence, lying to you.

"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness."

If your purpose is to highlight some perceived contradiction ( I fail to see the connection between the scripture you quoted and cherry picking), then all you have shown is that you have no understanding of scripture. If that wasn't your purpose then I apologize.

"If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth.

In other words, claiming to have the Holy Spirit while still committing sin is a lie.

If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

In other words, claiming to be without sin or to have never sinned (and subsequently have no need of redemption) is another lie.

For instance many atheists argue against "vicarious redemption" as if it's somehow immoral, which only makes sense if they thought they were without sin, otherwise why argue against something that works in your favor?

[The Grand Nudger]

For instance many atheists argue against "vicarious redemption" as if it's somehow immoral,

Yes, it's "somehow" immoral to string a motherfucker up to pay for your parking tickets................

which only makes sense if they thought they were without sin,

Well, I've certainly had parking tickets in the past, probably will again someday..but my position on the matter doesn't seem to change on account of whether or not I have parking tickets.  

  otherwise why argue against something that works in your favor?

You can't imagine why a person would argue against an immoral thing that might be advantageous to them?

[Drich]

Am I a OT Jew?? is that what you are saying? or do you still not understand the OT law (and the bits including stoning) only pertained to OT Jews!!!

Then tear the OT out of your book.

why?

The OT points to the NT. it gives meaning to the atonement, it underscores the wrath of God if we face Him in our sins. it also shows (as in the case of keeping the Sabbath holy) how religion corrupts even the most simple commands of God.

There is much to be learned not in following the rules but how those rules were used by corrupt people to obtain power and rule others. Which gives us an idea why God did not give us a set of rules like he did with the jews.

---

No one is trying to trivialize your understanding of sin.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ERV

Each of us has our own convictions. Most of it though is rooted in a pay to play version of Christianity. Which God can indeed work with. If you are honest about what you believe and know you limites and try to abide by them.

That said just as you can quote you never divorce passages. Know that the same unchanging God also included a provision for divorce With the allowance for remarriage despite How he felt. What's more Jesus Himself taught the passage that delivers this message.

Now understand two thing if you think your interpretation is correct that is the one you will be judge by. How ever also understand there is scripture that teaches the oppsite that must not be discarded but reconciled with what you already know.

That is what this whole thread is about ..cherry picking. or only looking at the verses that favor your idea of God. I point to a passage that should change your verion of God a great deal. like it or not it is in the bible and if we look to serve the God of the bible we must be willing to let God our idea of God and follow the God the bible points to.

---

Because I know none of us are right. Well not just me.. there are a lot of people who know that what we understand about God is not what saves us. However seeming those who in their minds had to worship the right version of God seem to now fill the atheist ranks, while people who knew their version of God had to remain fluid as it is impossible to have the right version.. Go on in the faith.. Meaning I might be one of only a few or in your word one of a billion. because you don't even know how broken our understanding of God was.

---

Am I a OT Jew?? is that what you are saying? or do you still not understand the OT law (and the bits including stoning) only pertained to OT Jews!!!

There is no law in the OT or NT, just a bunch of barked orders. Dictators like Hitler and Stalin and Kim Jong Un have laws too, they all had traffic lights and prisons too. 


Your God character barks orders, that is not law, that is dictation. In the real civil west WE consent to our laws and we can change our laws and we can hold our politicians, judges, law enforcement to account and even our President. Your God character as written does not need our permission via vote to govern us. We cannot have your God Character impeached or charged with crimes. That is the behavior of a king, a dictator, not an elected official who needs our permission to write laws for us.

You STILL Don't understand... How is it you can be so smug and self righteous and not take time to understand the subject you are on about?

THERE ARE NO RULES IN CHRISTIANITY. Christ died to free us/His followers from the law of sin. The Law only now serves one purpose. to point to sin in the unbelievers life, and therefore push that person to repent of their sin. Once we do we become righteous, because Christ is righteous.

Again that is what the primary subject matter is in the book of Romans.

---

How many WalMart workers have you stoned to death for working on the sabbath, Dripshit.  You see.  You are just a phony after all.

The only way to avoid the Sabbath stoning one is to accept Apostle Paul's retconning of Jesus.  Funny though, how the Pauline-ites left the incriminating passage in their own approved bible.  Seems like, then as now (Joseph Smith, tee hee) the paperwork always trips up the apostates.

I forget, was it Jesus or Paul that put in the bit about swilling poison and molesting deadly serpents ??    Well, no matter, it's still a handy test for us to wield against scripture cherry pickers of any stripe.

Actually Jesus points out first that 'keeping the Sabbath holy' had nothing to do with not working in the book of mat. That the pharrisees corrupted the law and the meaning of the Sabbath. That is why he himself performed miricles/worked on the Sabbath.

[Brian37]

Then tear the OT out of your book.

why?

The OT points to the NT. it gives meaning to the atonement, it underscores the wrath of God if we face Him in our sins. it also shows (as in the case of keeping the Sabbath holy) how religion corrupts even the most simple commands of God.

There is much to be learned not in following the rules but how those rules were used by corrupt people to obtain power and rule others. Which gives us an idea why God did not give us a set of rules like he did with the jews.

---

There is no law in the OT or NT, just a bunch of barked orders. Dictators like Hitler and Stalin and Kim Jong Un have laws too, they all had traffic lights and prisons too. 


Your God character barks orders, that is not law, that is dictation. In the real civil west WE consent to our laws and we can change our laws and we can hold our politicians, judges, law enforcement to account and even our President. Your God character as written does not need our permission via vote to govern us. We cannot have your God Character impeached or charged with crimes. That is the behavior of a king, a dictator, not an elected official who needs our permission to write laws for us.

You STILL Don't understand... How is it you can be so smug and self righteous and not take time to understand the subject you are on about?

THERE ARE NO RULES IN CHRISTIANITY. Christ died to free us/His followers from the law of sin. The Law only now serves one purpose. to point to sin in the unbelievers life, and therefore push that person to repent of their sin. Once we do we become righteous, because Christ is righteous.

Again that is what the primary subject matter is in the book of Romans.

---

The only way to avoid the Sabbath stoning one is to accept Apostle Paul's retconning of Jesus.  Funny though, how the Pauline-ites left the incriminating passage in their own approved bible.  Seems like, then as now (Joseph Smith, tee hee) the paperwork always trips up the apostates.

I forget, was it Jesus or Paul that put in the bit about swilling poison and molesting deadly serpents ??    Well, no matter, it's still a handy test for us to wield against scripture cherry pickers of any stripe.

Actually Jesus points out first that 'keeping the Sabbath holy' had nothing to do with not working in the book of mat. That the pharrisees corrupted the law and the meaning of the Sabbath. That is why he himself performed miricles/worked on the Sabbath.

You getting offended does not make me "smug", the feeling you are having is called cognitive dissonance.

Laws in the modern west are consented to. The laws of the bible reflect the real kingdoms of antiquity, and back then, even in polytheism, humans lived under ruling families who did not need their subject's permission to rule over them. Not my baggage you don't want to accept that. That book does not reflect modern society, it was written for the societies of that time.

[Drich]

. . . and that divorce thing, I was brought up with it.  I'm not making up the Princess Margaret/Group Captain Townsend thing. Many/most folks in my parents Midwestern orbit lived and died with Christian marriage as indissoluble.  My family members applied ENORMOUS pressure on a cousin of mine to remarry the vicious kunt he divorced, and he did.  I wasn't allowed to play/visit/invite over some neighbor kids as their mom was divorced and remarried.

-and then something happened-

That the admonition/stricture is now widely rebuked/ignored/repudiated/reviled/retconned doesn't reflect poorly on folks that believed it in the generation ahead of mine, it reflects poorly on the liberal backsliding scripture cherry pickers their Eternal and Unchanging God is stuck with today.

Sorry you family had such a strict view on divorce.

But your family attitude towards divorce is a perfect example of religious Christianity and bible based.. Yes traditional religious views often times can cite certain passages.. but rarly if ever does it take all passages into consideration.

As I pointed out in Mat 19 Christ Himself added a condition or proviso for acceptable divorce. I further pointed out depending on the translation the condition of sexual unfaithfulness was also translated into marital unfaithfulness meaning not faithful to one's vows. Either way ALL translations have either one or the other conditions for divorce.

In traditional/religious based Christianity doctrine are studied and are the center of action and worship, because people don't/won't read the bible for themselves. So they follow tradition, rther than the God found in the bible. but rarly does the doctrinal view account for everything. Doctrine = power in the church. power to control and manipulate its members to fall in line with church thinking/policy. Again doctrine can be both a good and bad thing as the good is paired with the bad to give the bad legitimacy. and thus the church power.

Here is the main reason for this: The Christianity found in the bible seeks to decentralize power... Yes it seeks to keep Christianity in small groups, just look at how the bible it self is laid out after the gospel you have a couple dozen letters going to various regions speaking to individual problems each church had. Meaning each region was it's own central church structure. each region had it's own set of rules based on a given people's ablitiy to comprehend the gospel. (some had to be circumcised, and live as jews for some many year before conversion to Christianity, some could not eat meat while other church could, some had so much freedom in their church they thought it ok to have incestuous relationships. while others were so dedicated to God marriage was off the table for many of its members.) Again this stripping the church of power and putting people in direct contact with God was meant to take power from man's authority and give it all back to God.

Then religion came along with it's cherry picked rules and 'we' traded our freedoms for something easier to comprehend, even though it was far more oppressive. But the truth is still out there in print. That is why I say check all doctrine, to see if it stands up to what the bible says. to start see if the doctrine is spelled out in scripture as it is in the church liturgy. If the doctrine does not appear in the bible in one central place in the bible and has to be cherry picked using 1/2 a verse from here and 2/3 a verse from somewhere else then off the bat this is a bad/non God of the bible doctrine.

The other doctrines we must be super careful of are the 1/2 truth doctrine. You experience in church and divorce is an example of the 1/2 truth doctrine. to expose these you must either read you bible or know someone who does. because as I showed you your passage in mark is only apart of the whole message the Jesus Himself had to say. Once you incorporate all of what the bible has to say you can see it completely undermines the traditional church doctrine.

Then I ask people can you now see the beginning of the divide from religion and the picture of God the bible builds. Church says your life be damned if you married the wrong person you are forever screwed. God says he understands the level of hurt sexual betrayal can produce and does not expect us to be able to continue our role as husband or wife with that person. Which according to Christ does indeed free us to remarry. God shows mercy in the bible, but only demands in doctrine.

---

Then tear the OT out of your book.

And leave off bothering the gays.  You're still picking.

what Christian teaching has us 'bothering gays?'

[Huggy Bear]

For instance many atheists argue against "vicarious redemption" as if it's somehow immoral,

Yes, it's "somehow" immoral to string a motherfucker up to pay for your parking tickets................

which only makes sense if they thought they were without sin,

Well, I've certainly had parking tickets in the past, probably will again someday..but my position on the matter doesn't seem to change on account of whether or not I have parking tickets.  

  otherwise why argue against something that works in your favor?

You can't imagine why a person would argue against an immoral thing that might be advantageous to them?

 

Where is the immorality If the person chooses to be "strung up" of their own free will for the sake of everyone else? I thought you were of the opinion that a person could choose to do what ever they want with their body...

[Drich]

why?

The OT points to the NT. it gives meaning to the atonement, it underscores the wrath of God if we face Him in our sins. it also shows (as in the case of keeping the Sabbath holy) how religion corrupts even the most simple commands of God.

There is much to be learned not in following the rules but how those rules were used by corrupt people to obtain power and rule others. Which gives us an idea why God did not give us a set of rules like he did with the jews.

---

You STILL Don't understand... How is it you can be so smug and self righteous and not take time to understand the subject you are on about?

THERE ARE NO RULES IN CHRISTIANITY. Christ died to free us/His followers from the law of sin. The Law only now serves one purpose. to point to sin in the unbelievers life, and therefore push that person to repent of their sin. Once we do we become righteous, because Christ is righteous.

Again that is what the primary subject matter is in the book of Romans.

---

Actually Jesus points out first that 'keeping the Sabbath holy' had nothing to do with not working in the book of mat. That the pharrisees corrupted the law and the meaning of the Sabbath. That is why he himself performed miricles/worked on the Sabbath.

You getting offended does not make me "smug", the feeling you are having is called cognitive dissonance.

Laws in the modern west are consented to. The laws of the bible reflect the real kingdoms of antiquity, and back then, even in polytheism, humans lived under ruling families who did not need their subject's permission to rule over them. Not my baggage you don't want to accept that. That book does not reflect modern society, it was written for the societies of that time.

When I say "THERE ARE NO RULES IN CHRISTIANTY" What does that mean?

[Brian37]

Drich, you have been on this page for years, you should understand by now that quoting a holy book does not mean shit to us. Muslims quote the Koran and Jews quote the OT and Hindus quote the Bhagavad Gita. It is still called circular reasoning when anyone does it.