If you say the bible is good, then you are worshipping the bible, even though you say you worship god. Its idolatry.

If say the bible is bad, you are again worshipping the bible, because you are fixated upon it as being powerful and malevolent.

Jesus said to not call him good, nobody is good except god.

Sex with strangers is good.

Sweet, my first drunk post with no spelling mistakes.

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

If you say the bible is good, then you are worshipping the bible, even though you say you worship god. Its idolatry.

If say the bible is bad, you are again worshipping the bible, because you are fixated upon it as being powerful and malevolent.

Jesus said to not call him good, nobody is good except god.



that is retarded. when you say something is good you don't worship it.

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

that is retarded. when you say something is good you don't worship it.



It depends what you mean by "good". The meanings of words changes depending on the user and the context. Most people that go to "christian" church see the bible as "inerrant" and the guide for you life. And that there is no fault in the bible. This isn't a bad description of a god.

If you say "This food tastes good" that is a less encompassing type of "good".

[This message has been edited by bkc (edited 07-21-2004).]

no christian worships the bible. you know that.

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

no christian worships the bible. you know that.

Are you kidding?

no. christians worship God not the Bible.

quote:The bible is not a book for those who need a weapon. It is not a book for those who know where they are going and what questions they will ask. It is not a book for those who are in a hurry and looking for the shortest route.



The bible is a book for pilgrims and wanderers. It is a book for children and for those who wish to become children again. It is a book for seekers and searchers and dreamers.



It is a book for anyone and everyone who hopes that the desires of God might be written upon their hearts.

From here http://blogs.salon.com/0001772/2004/07/16.html

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

no. christians worship God not the Bible.

They say they worship God. An apple tree can say it grows oranges too.

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

It is a book for anyone and everyone who hopes that the desires of God might be written upon their hearts.

For example, here is a guy that worships the Bible but says he is worshipping God. Because if the Bible, or following the Bible, is the same as the will of God, then you don't need God, you have replaced God with the Bible.

The Bible is not the Word of God, but is about the Word of God. But I think you will disagree with me.

Just so you guys know, the word Good is derived from the word God. Also, trees don't talk.

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

For example, here is a guy that worships the Bible but says he is worshipping God. Because if the Bible, or following the Bible, is the same as the will of God, then you don't need God, you have replaced God with the Bible.

The Bible is not the Word of God, but is about the Word of God. But I think you will disagree with me.



??? Did you even read the article???

Yes, I will disagree.

Whatever your presuppositions about my relationship to God, and what role the bible has in that, you cannot deny that the texts contained in the bible are (at least in christianity) God's primary method of revelation.

For the most part, in understanding just what God's will is in any situation, it is the only the continuous point of reference we have, aside from the work of the Holy Spirit.

I think you're confusing the Bible with some churches interpretations of it, and in some cases some churches and their leaders do seem to make the Bible equal to God. And I'm not even sure of the idea of the infallibil- ity of the Bible; I mean, you read Paul's letters and sometimes he seems like a raving lunatic. How is that inspired? Would God speak or think or act like that. Some of

that stuff just seems to come from the human mind, and who'd worship that?

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

From here http://blogs.salon.com/0001772/2004/07/16.html

thats an exellent quote.Because the bible IS a weapon that has been used hypocritically and blasphemously by rich and powerfull people throughout history resulting in a natural deveation within the course of history. If they didnt use the doctrine of christianity they would have used something else to manipulate the consiousnes of the masses for there own purposes that satisfy there megalomania egotist personality that is there psycological make up.YOU KNOW Who im talkin about.

the root teaching of all religion is to worship and to get in touch with the rightousness that is within ourselves, Inert at birth.

You will forgive my english because I am german please.

quote:Originally posted by prince charles:

thats an exellent quote.Because the bible IS a weapon that has been used hypocritically and blasphemously by rich and powerfull people throughout history resulting in a natural deveation within the course of history. If they didnt use the doctrine of christianity they would have used something else to manipulate the consiousnes of the masses for there own purposes that satisfy there megalomania egotist personality that is there psycological make up.YOU KNOW Who im talkin about.

the root teaching of all religion is to worship and to get in touch with the rightousness that is within ourselves, Inert at birth.

You will forgive my english because I am german please.



A natural deviation would be no deviation at all. But if you mean unnatural, I'm not sure

how you could know that unless you are aware

of all history, past present, and future. Still, the rest of your statement rings true.



[This message has been edited by Pow r T och (edited 07-22-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Freer Mage:

Just so you guys know, the word Good is derived from the word God. Also, trees don't talk.

You are correct on both points.

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

??? Did you even read the article???

Yes, I will disagree.

Whatever your presuppositions about my relationship to God, and what role the bible has in that, you cannot deny that the texts contained in the bible are (at least in christianity) God's primary method of revelation.

For the most part, in understanding just what God's will is in any situation, it is the only the continuous point of reference we have, aside from the work of the Holy Spirit.

No I didn't read the article, and don't have time at the moment, but could later if it seems helpful.

That the bible texts are God's primary method...I think this is true for some people. I think for other people the opposite is true... the Bible keeps them from knowing God. I will admit that there is no other book that seems to be very similar to the Bible, and also that the Bible is the way that I arrived to what I believe about God, which I think is right, of course, and agrees with the Bible, and is in some ways the opposite of what you believe, even though you got it from the Bible also.

I think God is revealed in a rock sitting in the dust by the roadside, but only if you see it, or can figure it out. So the Bible has nothing on the rock in that respect.

Everything that is encountered in our lives is a continuous point of reference to God (if we appreciate it) and that is my point that I am making, that since you only see the Bible in this capacity, that the Bible, in effect, becomes God to you, because you think it is the only place that God can easily be seen or understand. You will still deny this, but as the Bible says, you will know a tree by its fruit, and your fruit is that you are always going to the Bible, not to God or to Jesus, and him killed, as your source. If you didn't have the Bible, you would be lost, like a lamb without a shepherd.

This is Bible worship, and this type of worship is the foundation of "christianity".

(Out until 7-24-04 if anyone cares. Interesting discussion. Hope I'm not making you too mad with my bluntness. Appreciate the input on here)

[This message has been edited by bkc (edited 07-22-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

They say they worship God. An apple tree can say it grows oranges too.

I don't worship the Bible. All my Christian friends don't worship the Bible. The priest doesn't worship the Bible. Maybe some heritics do, but that is rare and shouldn't affect your opinion of christianity.

That article's point was that the Bible is a guide. Just because something helps you guide your life doesn't mean you worship it.

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

I don't worship the Bible. All my Christian friends don't worship the Bible. The priest doesn't worship the Bible. Maybe some heritics do, but that is rare and shouldn't affect your opinion of christianity.

That article's point was that the Bible is a guide. Just because something helps you guide your life doesn't mean you worship it.

Back to my first point; people don't think they worship the Bible. You won't find anyone that will admit to that. They all say they just use it as a guide to worship God. But my point is that if they think of it as good, then they are worshipping it. The Bible itself says the only way to God is thru Jesus and his sacrifice, not some book. This is all the information you need (Jesus), or actually only an equivalent idea, of which there are many. But you want to rely on this book.

The Bible can help you guide your life as long as you don't think of it as good.

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

Back to my first point; people don't think they worship the Bible. You won't find anyone that will admit to that. They all say they just use it as a guide to worship God. But my point is that if they think of it as good, then they are worshipping it. The Bible itself says the only way to God is thru Jesus and his sacrifice, not some book. This is all the information you need (Jesus), or actually only an equivalent idea, of which there are many. But you want to rely on this book.

The Bible can help you guide your life as long as you don't think of it as good.



Ok, you may think that I / we worship the Bible. If i worship the good book aka the Bible, then God will judge me for idolatry, not you. But because of the Blood of the Lamb, i will be found innocent.

edit: what i meant to say is that the only judgement that matters is God's. After i reread what i wrote, it accurred to me that some might understand (or twist) it to say: God will judge me and not you.

[This message has been edited by xtreem5150ahm (edited 07-24-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

But my point is that if they think of it as good, then they are worshipping it.

The Bible can help you guide your life as long as you don't think of it as good.



That's stupid.

We don't even know we're worshipping the Bible.. Whoa... So I must worship my neighbor she's good, I think my science book is good, I must worship that, my can of lemonade is good,too but to a lesser degree, so you know, i bow down only occasionally.

So we can't think the Bible is good huh?

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



Ok, you may think that I / we worship the Bible. If i worship the good book aka the Bible, then God will judge me for idolatry, not you. But because of the Blood of the Lamb, i will be found innocent.

I think its premature to jump off on the judgement issue, since there is still disagreement about the Bible issue.

I think Bible believers, aka christians, tend to see the "Blood of the Lamb" issue as a kind of magical formula, where you say you believe in this, but all you are really believing in is a bunch of words and you can't really explain how or why that saves a person, but that it just does, because the Bible says so, and thats the reason you believe it...because the Bible says to. So you are right back to this issue again about believing in the Bible as good, and its not really the sacrifice of Jesus that you are believing in, because you can't even explain how that works.

On the other hand, you are always ready to explain how the Bible works and how it is good...its from God's spirit and all...handed down from God thru men. So that is idolatry and has nothing much to do with the Truth...in fact is the opposite of it in some respects... and is just what the Bible warns against.

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

So we can't think the Bible is good huh?



Right. Not "good" in an ultimate sense, such as having no fault. I mean, you can, but then you aren't understanding the most important message that is found in the Bible.

There is only one thing, or idea, whatever you want to call it, that is "good". That is why Jesus rebuked someone from calling him "good teacher".

Now you can call lemonade good when you drink it and it makes you feel good, but you'll call it bad when you drink too much and it makes you throw up or something. Lemonade is just a relative kind or good.



[This message has been edited by bkc (edited 07-24-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by bkc:



Right. Not "good" in an ultimate sense, such as having no fault. I mean, you can, but then you aren't understanding the most important message that is found in the Bible.

There is only one thing, or idea, whatever you want to call it, that is "good". That is why Jesus rebuked someone from calling him "good teacher".

Now you can call lemonade good when you drink it and it makes you feel good, but you'll call it bad when you drink too much and it makes you throw up or something. Lemonade is just a relative kind or good.



[This message has been edited by bkc (edited 07-24-2004).]

even if i think the Bible is the ultimate kind of good it doesn't mean I worship it.

The Bible is not a relative kind of good.

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

even if i think the Bible is the ultimate kind of good it doesn't mean I worship it.

The Bible is not a relative kind of good.

If you think the Bible is an ultimate kind of good, then you should worship it.

no i shouldn't

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

no i shouldn't

But aren't you already, since you see the Bible as having no fault...a position that I used to have, so I'm not criticizing, or at least I have empathy for that viewpoint. But say you worship God, then you would say there is no fault in God.

But you could argue that since God created the Bible then that makes God greater than the Bible, which is true, but on the other hand the assigning of greater station to God than to the Bible, has no practical consequences. You are still living your life according to the Bible regardless of your belief that God is greater than the Bible. In what way could you give any greater honor to the Bible than by structuring you life around it? I would say probably there is no way you could bestow more honor upon the Bible.

yeah there is no way i could put more honor on the Bible. I live my life based on what the Bible says because I believe it is from God. If God was telling me what to do face to face I would take that but He's not. He speaks through the Bible so... I believe the Bible is 100% Doctrinally authentic.

And just because I believe the Bible doesn't have a fault doesn't mean I worship it.

All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

... I believe the Bible is 100% Doctrinally authentic.

Then that brings up another point. You believe the Bible, but there is no way to prove that it is what you say it is. There are many reasonable arguments that can be made suggesting it may be flawed. I say this even though I found what I believe to be the truth in the Bible.

So Bible-believers must defend the Bible with their arguments, as I used to do in the past, but this is not the same as defending what is true about God. It is one step (at least) removed from God.

ok

Bolded text is most relivant:

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

yeah there is no way i could put more honor on the Bible. I live my life based on what the Bible says because I believe it is from God. If God was telling me what to do face to face I would take that but He's not. He speaks through the Bible so... I believe the Bible is 100% Doctrinally authentic.



So you believe this is ok/true?

quote:

Genesis

19:30

And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.

19:31

And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

19:32

Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

19:33

And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.



19:34

And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

19:35

And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

19:36

Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.



http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/who_wrote.html

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/twos.html

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/temple.html

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/speech.html



Dare I quite more "truths" from the bible? See, if the bible is 100% true, then that means that both aspects are true, eliminating each other meaning the bible would have to be 100% false http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

^ Even bible literalists, and those who hold the doctrine of biblical infalliability understand the critical shift between the OT and NT better than you appear to.

"A text out of context is a pretext for failure"

Lot existed in Old Testament times...a lot of things that were then acceptable under Jewish law and tradition were no longer acceptable after the coming of Jesus Christ.

That is a very poor example of a reason to NOT believe the Bible.

*laughs*

Why don't you try explaining the two different ways that Judas is said to have died after betraying Jesus ?

That'll get you for weeks, if not the rest of your life.

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

^ Even bible literalists, and those who hold the doctrine of biblical infalliability understand the critical shift between the OT and NT better than you appear to.

"A text out of context is a pretext for failure"



Yes, there was a big shift. From a god that commanded the massacre of millions by Moses' hand to a God that is a Hippie.....

If I may:

quote:

The Nazarene; the Worst Sinner of Them All

Xtians believe the nazarene to be perfect, a peaceful, loving, healing and understanding being. Most are too lazy to read the facts. The bible may be the most purchased book, but it is the least read.

The nazarene was slothful, indolent and lazy. He never worked like everyone else. He freeloaded and lived off the work and labors of others. He was a rude and inappreciative guest who often insulted his hosts. He STOLE and ordered others to do so. He condoned and advocated MURDER. He is one of the worst hypocrites who ever existed.

The Seven Deadly Sins:



Pride

The nazarene is a very arrogant, selfish and conceited individual. His overwhelming sense of negative pride and self exhaltation is seen in many of the scriptures:

He was arrogant enough to insult his host and leave her with the burden of work while he hogged all of the attention, indicating an extreme sense of self importance:



Luke 10: 38-42

38 Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.

39 And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus' feet, and heard his word.

40 But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.

41 And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things:

42 But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.

Anyone who does not love him more than their own parents is not worthy of him. What happened to honor thy father and mother? Here, the nazarene is placing himself above the family members of his followers, AGAIN, indicating pride and extreme arrogance:



Matthew 10: 37

37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. This is also the sin of ENVY- he is so jealous of anyone who might share their love for another.

The pleasure of being massaged with expensive ointment was more important than selling the ointment and giving the money to the poor.

Mark 14: 3-7

3 And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard, very precious, and she brake the box and poured it on his head.

4 And there were some who had indignation within themselves and said, “Why was this waste of the ointment made?

5 For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor.” And they murmured against her.

6 But Jesus said, “Let her alone; why trouble ye her? She hath wrought a good work on me.

7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will, ye may do them good; but me ye have not always.

The nazarene calls other human beings "dogs" and "swine," indicating they are way beneath him:



Matthew 7: 6

6 "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

He stated he was "greater" then Jonas and Solomon:

Matthew 12: 41-42

41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

42 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.



Envy

The nazarene was so envious of any devotion or affections shown for anyone other than himself, even close family members, he demanded that his disciples leave their families behind.



Luke 9: 59-62

59 And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.

60 Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.

61 And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house.

62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

There are many more scriptures that blatantly expose the envious resentful character of the nazarene. These are indicated in this article.



Wrath

Because of an excessive sense of pride, exaggerated self importance, arrogance and an overwhelming belief of being first and being entitled, the nazarene was often subject to the sin of wrath:

Matt: 11: 20-24

20 Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:

21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

22 But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.

23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

The nazarene is forever condeming, insulting and threatening others:



Matt. 23:33

33 "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?"

Mark 3: 5

5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, "Stretch forth thine hand."

John 2: 15

15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables.



In the above verse, the nazarene is condemning money making in the temple and greed, but by his actions and demands, the nazarene is the greediest of them all.

The nazarene makes it plain he comes to bring war on earth and conflict, hatred and enmity among family members; breaking up the family unit and home:



Matthew 10: 34-36

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father and the daughter against her mother and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

He showed impatience and upset by the presence of a father who's child could not speak, that petitioned him for help. His personal time and energy were more important than spending a few seconds to help a small child who was handicapped. He also insulted his disciples and those around him who he spoke to in reply to the asking for help.



Mark 9: 19

19 “O faithless generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him to me.”



Greed

The nazarene's distaste for labor was highly impractical. Because he lived off of the charity of others, there were times when charity couldn’t satisfy his needs, so he STOLE.

On the Sabbath, he and his disciples helped themselves to a farmer’s corn. When asked why he violated the law by eating on the Sabbath, he justified stealing by calling himself "lord of the Sabbath."



Luke 6: 1-5

1 And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.

2 And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days?

3 And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;

4 How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?

5 And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

The nazarene's sloth and greed often led to more theft:

He sent two disciples to steal an ass and a colt. He had no consideration as to whether taking the animals for himself would place any hardship upon whom he stole them from. Here, in addition to the act of stealing, the nazarene does not have the nerve to go and steal these animals himself, he orders others to do so.



Luke 19: 29-35

29 And it came to pass, when he was come nigh to Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount called the mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples,

30 Saying, Go ye into the village over against you; in the which at your entering ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither.

31 And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him.

32 And they that were sent went their way, and found even as he had said unto them.

33 And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt?

34 And they said, The Lord hath need of him.

35 And they brought him to Jesus: and they cast their garments upon the colt, and they set Jesus thereon.



Sloth

The nazarene has always been known for his hatred of physical labor. The nazarene also hated washing and bathing: Here, the nazarene encourages not washing:

Matt. 15: 1-20

1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,

2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

Mark 7: 1-9

1 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.

2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.

3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.

4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctines the commandments of men.

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.



Also, the stretch in the desert speaks for itself. (Matthew 4: 1-2)



Gluttony

Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires. Although the nazarene preached abstinence, he did not intend this for himself.

He gets defensive about complaints directed at him and his followers who are always seen eating and drinking.

Luke 5:33-34

33 And they said unto him, Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink?

34 And he said unto them, Can ye make the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them?

35 But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.

He was known as a glutton and a drunkard.



Luke 7:34

34 The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!

The nazarene was wrathful when his sources for free meals were not readily available. w. Once he cursed a fig tree for not having any fruit. The tree died.

Mark 11:12-14, 20-22

12 And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry:

13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.

14 And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.

20 And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots.

21 And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.

22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.



Lust

Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body.

The nazarene preached celibacy for his followers, but being the hypocrite that he is, he did not apply these teachings to himself. Both men* and women put out sexual favors for him as did others in the way of food, shelter and other needs.

Luke 8:1-3

1 And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him,

2 And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,

3 And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.

*There are deleted passages in the gospel of Mark. The nazarene had intercourse with one of his disciples while the others slept in the garden before his crucifixion.



The nazarene advocated and encouraged MURDER for selfish reasons:

Luke 19: 27

27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.



The nazarene not only ADVOCATED SLAVERY, but encouraged and condoned the abuse of slaves:

Luke 12: 47

47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.



In addition to the sermon on the mount being ant-life and against nature (artificial), the nazarene's actions speak much louder than his words and reveal his true nature- that of a big hypocrite:

Matthew 5

1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:

2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

The nazarene was ANYTHING but "poor in spirit." He was arrogant, self righteous and always put his own needs and desires before that of others.

Luke 10: 38-42

Matthew 10: 37

(see above scriptures)

4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

Matthew 8:21-22

21 And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.

22 But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.

5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

"Meek" means "humble." Read the above paragraph of scriptures revealing the nazarene's pride and arrogance.

6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

The nazarene openly advocated and encouraged chaos and lawlessness. These unethical, suicidal, anti-life teachings have worked to undermine and destroy legal systems, resulting in the punishing of the victim, while crimminals are rewarded and encouraged in their behavior. The end result is the collapse of civilization. Any speices that fails to defend itself will end up extinct. If the human body ignored the germs, bacteria and viruses that invaded it, nearly all people would be dead in less than a day. These teachings are anti-life and designed to destroy human lives.

Matthew 5: 38-44

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

The nazarene was anything but "merciful." He is forever condemning, threatening and damning people.

8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

The nazarene was anything but "pure of heart."

He LIED:

John 5: 31

31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

The nazarene told his disciples that they would not die before his second coming:

Matthew 16: 28

28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Revelation 3: 11

11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.



He STOLE:

Luke 19: 29-35

Luke 6: 1-5

(see above)

He ADVOCATED and ENCOURAGED MURDER on a whim:

Luke 19: 27 (see above)



He was one of the worst hypocrites that ever lived.

Matthew 5: 19

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.



9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Matthew 10: 34-36

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father and the daughter against her mother and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.



10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

The nazarene condemns righteousness and works against it- see the other scriptures on this page.

Matthew 5: 11

11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

This is blatant of the nazarene's hatred of humanity.



The nazarene preached self mutilation:

Matthew 19: 12

12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

A "eunuch" is a castrated male; in other words, a male with his balls cut off. The catholic church routinely castrated young choir boys in order to prevent their voices from changing.

Matthew 5: 29-30

29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

The nazarene's CRUELTY TO ANIMALS:

Matthew 8: 30-32

30 And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.

31 So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.

32 And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No individual in history has been provided with more excuses. Twisting, warping, distorting and outright lying of what this entity taught and did is commonplace among those who are deluded, sympathetic and/or just plain stupid.

Many argue that this entity never existed and/or is unimportant. People who maintain these opinions are as deluded and foolish as those who believe the nazarene was a righteous individual. Whether or not this entity physically existed is irrelevent. The effects this creature had upon humanity has permeated every aspect of the society in which most of us live. There are millions and millions who worship this creature and promote him at every level relentlessly. The impact this entity has had upon humanity is horrendous. Nearly every war there has been has been fought for RHP religious purposes. Millions and millions have severe psychological disorders and hangups which prevent them from living a healthy normal life.

The sorry list of crimes against humanity perpetrated because of this individual goes on and on.

It does not matter whether the entity is a myth or physically and historically existed. The entity is a reality through all of the major injustices and workings of which have held us ALL back for centuries and must be destroyed.

Those who take a stand for personal liberty and freedom are incessantly battling christians in the courts as they relentlessly and obsessively work to deprive every last man, woman and child of their freedom and their lives.



As well, this link explains alot: http://www.freewebs.com/see_the_truth/Old%20Testament.html

quote:Originally posted by Freer Mage:

Just so you guys know, the word Good is derived from the word God. Also, trees don't talk.

I'm not a word or language specialist (etymologist or something) and i know that i didnt stucture this post well so excuse me if i'm wrong, but the english word "good" may be derived from the english word "God". However, i dont see that from the hebrew.

hebrew words for "good"

"towb" ..Strong's Number: 2895

Transliterated: towb

Phonetic: tobe

Text: a primitive root, to be (transitively, do or make) good (or well) in the widest sense: -be (do) better, cheer, be (do, seem) good, (make) goodly, X please, (be, do, go, play) well.

Strong's Number: 2896

Transliterated: towb

Phonetic: tobe

Text: from 2895; good (as an adjective) in the widest sense; used likewise as a noun, both in the masculine and the feminine, the singular and the plural (good, a good or good thing, a good man or woman; the good, goods or good things, good men or women), also as an adverb (well): -beautiful, best, better, bountiful, cheerful, at ease, X fair (word), (be in) favour, fine, glad, good (deed, -lier, -liest, -ly, -ness, -s), graciously, joyful, kindly, kindness, liketh (best), loving, merry, X most, pleasant, + pleaseth, pleasure, precious, prosperity, ready, sweet, wealth, welfare, (be) well ([-favoured]).

Strong's Number: 2897

Transliterated: Towb

Phonetic: tobe

Text: the same as 2896; good; Tob, a region apparently East of the Jordan: -Tob.

Strong's Number: 2898

Transliterated: tuwb

Phonetic: toob

Text: from 2895; good (as a noun), in the widest sense, especially goodness (superlative concretely, the best), beauty, gladness, welfare: -fair, gladness, good(-ness, thing, -s), joy, go well with.

And the word "elohiym"

Strong's Number: 430

Transliterated: 'elohiym

Phonetic: el-o-heem'

Text: plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: --angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.

or the word "Yhovah"

Strong's Number: 3068

Transliterated: Yhovah

Phonetic: yeh-ho-vaw'

Text: from 1961; (the) self-Existent or Eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God: -Jehovah, the Lord. Compare 3050, 3069.

there are many more words for God, and i'm sure more for "good", but i dont see that one derived from the other. The same go for "devil" and "evil".

quote:Originally posted by Gyhth:

The Nazarene; the Worst Sinner of Them All

The Seven Deadly Sins:

Pride

The nazarene is a very arrogant, selfish and conceited individual. His overwhelming sense of negative pride and self exhaltation is seen in many of the scriptures:

He was arrogant enough to insult his host and leave her with the burden of work while he hogged all of the attention, indicating an extreme sense of self importance:

Arrogant and attention hogging from your point of view... if you were the Son of God with a divine message and mission from your Father the Creator wouldn't you "cut to the chase" or would you wait to do the dishes?



quote:Anyone who does not love him more than their own parents is not worthy of him. What happened to honor thy father and mother? Here, the nazarene is placing himself above the family members of his followers, AGAIN, indicating pride and extreme arrogance:

The first commandment is probably first for a reason.

quote: This is also the sin of ENVY- he is so jealous of anyone who might share their love for another.

Exodus 20:5

quote: Envy

The nazarene was so envious of any devotion or affections shown for anyone other than himself, even close family members, he demanded that his disciples leave their families behind.

Luke 9: 59-62

59 And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.

60 Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.

61 And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house.

62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

Who is greater ...self & family or God and God's family?

quote:The nazarene is forever condeming, insulting and threatening others:

Matt. 23:33

33 "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?"

Mark 3: 5

5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, "Stretch forth thine hand."

John 2: 15

15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables.

In the above verse, the nazarene is condemning money making in the temple and greed, but by his actions and demands, the nazarene is the greediest of them all.

you (this article) dont(doesnt) put the context of these verses, which would make it painsfully obvious why the Christ would be "condeming, insulting and threatening".

quote:The nazarene makes it plain he comes to bring war on earth and conflict, hatred and enmity among family members; breaking up the family unit and home:

Matthew 10: 34-36

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father and the daughter against her mother and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

In these verses and the ones surounding them, Jesus is instructing and encouraging His disciples on how to spread the gospel.

In verses 35 and 36, He is quoting Micah 7:6 and He is doing this for (atleast) 3 reasons:

1)many of the Jews believed that the Messiah would be a warrior-king that would bring peace.

2)to point out and fulfill prophecy.

3)to forwarn disciples of what is to come (with their preaching) so that they know what to expect.

quote:He showed impatience and upset by the presence of a father who's child could not speak, that petitioned him for help. His personal time and energy were more important than spending a few seconds to help a small child who was handicapped. He also insulted his disciples and those around him who he spoke to in reply to the asking for help.

Mark 9: 19

19 “O faithless generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him to me.”{/B]

Your understanding of this verse is funny!! ...this applies to this whole post!!

Read the whole chapter again, and see if your understanding still rings true.

But thank you!!! You have made me better understand Jesus point of view in Mark 9:19 by helping me to feel it.

[B]MUST I GO ON AND ANSWER THE REST OF THESE LUDICROUS ACCUSATIONS?



quote:Greed

The nazarene's distaste for labor was highly impractical. Because he lived off of the charity of others, there were times when charity couldn’t satisfy his needs, so he STOLE.

On the Sabbath, he and his disciples helped themselves to a farmer’s corn. When asked why he violated the law by eating on the Sabbath, he justified stealing by calling himself "lord of the Sabbath."

Did you notice that the pharisees did not accuse Him of stealing? At that time in history, in that country, it was allowed to the needy and the poor to take grain from the fields.. this was called 'gleening', and it was generally meant during and after the harvest.

They accused Him of work on the Sabbath. Back then, there were certain actions and amounts of other actions that was concidered work.

Basically, the Pharisees, in their ignorance, were calling Him a hypocrite.. much like you are. And He was educating them, much like I hope you are being.

Luke 6: 1-5

1 And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.

2 And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days?

3 And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;

4 How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?

5 And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

quote: The nazarene's sloth and greed often led to more theft:

He sent two disciples to steal an ass and a colt. He had no consideration as to whether taking the animals for himself would place any hardship upon whom he stole them from. Here, in addition to the act of stealing, the nazarene does not have the nerve to go and steal these animals himself, he orders others to do so.

OK, Again, If you were part of the Triune God, the Son, would it really be stealing by taking what really is yours to begin with. And wouldnt the mission you were on be more important than the guy needing his ass to go down to the seven-eleven for his wife's chocolate craving. Besides, the guy was probably happy, cause now he has an excuse for not pulling out that acacia tree stump that she has been nagging him about.

quote:Gluttony

Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires. Although the nazarene preached abstinence, he did not intend this for himself.

He gets defensive about complaints directed at him and his followers who are always seen eating and drinking.

Luke 5:33-34

33 And they said unto him, Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink?

34 And he said unto them, Can ye make the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them?

35 But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.

Read your own arguement and this passage over. I think you will see the mistake for yourself.

quote:The nazarene was wrathful when his sources for free meals were not readily available. w. Once he cursed a fig tree for not having any fruit. The tree died.

Mark 11:12-14, 20-22

12 And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry:

13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.

14 And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.

20 And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots.

21 And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.

22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.

In the beginning of this chapter, it shows that it is right before Passover, (after this, it is the Christian holiday of palm sunday) which is in the spring.. He knew and so did those with Him, that there would be no figs on the tree... which it says blatently in verse 13.

This was a teaching tool that Jesus used. He took the obvious, and made a point and /or a lesson.

quote:Lust

Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body.

The nazarene preached celibacy for his followers, but being the hypocrite that he is, he did not apply these teachings to himself. Both men* and women put out sexual favors for him as did others in the way of food, shelter and other needs.

Luke 8:1-3

1 And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him,

2 And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,

3 And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.

Dont make me pull out the Literal translation and the Strongs reference on you... suffice it to say that "of their substance" means "from their own possessions"

quote: *There are deleted passages in the gospel of Mark. The nazarene had intercourse with one of his disciples while the others slept in the garden before his crucifixion.

Show these deleted passages.



quote:The nazarene advocated and encouraged MURDER for selfish reasons:

Luke 19: 27

27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Why do you keep taking things out of context?? Go alittle earlier in that chapter. Luke 19:11 where it says :

"While they were listening to this, He went on to tell them a parable, because He was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdon of God was going to appear at once.

quote:The nazarene not only ADVOCATED SLAVERY, but encouraged and condoned the abuse of slaves:

Luke 12: 47

47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

again, this is a parable... read what Peter says in Luke 12:41

quote:The nazarene openly advocated and encouraged chaos and lawlessness. These unethical, suicidal, anti-life teachings have worked to undermine and destroy legal systems, resulting in the punishing of the victim, while crimminals are rewarded and encouraged in their behavior. The end result is the collapse of civilization. Any speices that fails to defend itself will end up extinct. If the human body ignored the germs, bacteria and viruses that invaded it, nearly all people would be dead in less than a day. These teachings are anti-life and designed to destroy human lives.

Matthew 5: 38-44

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

I fail to see how treating people with love, kindness, compassion and forgiveness would "result is the collapse of civilization". In fact, isnt that what people want? But too few are willing to make the first step, maybe for fear of being taken advantage of.



The nazarene was anything but "merciful." He is forever condemning, threatening and damning people.

quote: 8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

The nazarene was anything but "pure of heart."

He LIED:

John 5: 31

31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

Here Jesus is using what is the law at that time to make a point. The Law said that a testimony can only be valid (in a court) if there are atleast 2 witnesses. Then, if you read on to verse 32-40, He says "32. There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is valid.

33. "You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth.

34. Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved.

35. John was a lamp that burned and gave light, and you chose for a time to enjoy his light.

36. "I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me.

37. And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form,

38. nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent.

39. You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me,

40. yet you refuse to come to me to have life."

So here He is showing testimony from John the Baptist, from God the Father, and from the Holy Scripture. Clearly, at least in the eyes of the Jewish leaders, He did have more than enough testimony. And this also should be enough proof for you, as you accuse Him of lying.

quote:The nazarene told his disciples that they would not die before his second coming:

Matthew 16: 28

28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

To be honest with you, I do not understand the meaning of this verse... but i think and hope that i have made the point that this article that you quoted has been garbage. Who ever wrote this spent too much time trying to debunk the Bible and not enough time trying to understand it.

But if i must, i will go on.





quote: He STOLE:

Luke 19: 29-35

Luke 6: 1-5

(see above)

He ADVOCATED and ENCOURAGED MURDER on a whim:

Luke 19: 27 (see above) We have answered all of these.



quote:He was one of the worst hypocrites that ever lived.

Matthew 5: 19

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

The author is assuming that he has proven the case that Jesus lied, stolen, committed adultery etc. So far, the author hasn't proved diddly-squat, therefore, he hasnt proven that Jesus was a hypocrite either.



quote: 10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

The nazarene condemns righteousness and works against it- see the other scriptures on this page.

WHERE?? He teaches humility, but humility and righteousness are 2 different things. However, the Son of God was righteous because He is fully God, obeyed God and served God. He served God by His righteousness and humility-- humbled Himself enough to come to us as fully human, die in our place, go to hell in our place, and ascended to God for the completed work so that we can be with God also.



quote: Matthew 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

This is blatant of the nazarene's hatred of humanity.

No, it is blatant of the author's hatred toward God.

quote:The nazarene preached self mutilation:

Matthew 19: 12

12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

A "eunuch" is a castrated male; in other words, a male with his balls cut off. The catholic church routinely castrated young choir boys in order to prevent their voices from changing.

Strong's Ref. # 2135

Romanized eunouchos

Pronounced yoo-noo'-khos

from eune (a bed) and GSN2192; a castrated person (such being employed in Oriental bed-chambers); by extension an impotent or unmarried man; by implication, a chamberlain (state-officer):

KJV--eunuch.

quote:Matthew 5: 29-30

29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

OK, here you kinda got a point on the mutilation part...

But then you have to ask yourself to weigh the choices: eye or hand vs. eternal damnation. Wont a doctor try remove a tumor?

Or isnt that one of the arguements for abortion..the life of the mother?

quote:The nazarene's CRUELTY TO ANIMALS:

Matthew 8: 30-32

30 And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.

31 So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.

32 And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.

This is absurd. First; Christ being God, can do whatever He wants, let alone knows as most important, with his creation. Second; Jesus allowed mercy to another part of His creation--the devils, which are fallen angels-- by allowing their request.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:No individual in history has been provided with more excuses. Twisting, warping, distorting and outright lying of what this entity taught and did is commonplace among those who are deluded, sympathetic and/or just plain stupid.

Who, so far, has been proven of twisting, warping, distorting or lying?

I have left out some of the arguements on purpose, from the point of tiredness...if someone would like more explaination of anything i omitted, or more thorough answers to things not omitted, just say so.

as for now, its way past bedtime.

God Bless you all. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

P.S. i believe the seven deadly sins are a understanding and teaching of the church (catholic) and although they important to a degree, they (7 deadly sins) are not as deadly as unbelief in Jesus as the Messiah.

"He and all his men set out from Baalah of Judah to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the Name, the name of the Lord Almighty, who is enthroned between the cherubim that are on the ark. They set the ark of God on a new cart and brought it from the house of Abinadab, which was on the hill. Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abinadab, were guiding the new cart with the ark of God on it, and Ahio was walking in front of it. David and the whole house of Israel were celebrating with all their might before the Lord , with songs and with harps, lyres, tambourines, sistrums and cymbals.

When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. The Lord's anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God."

Samuel 2:6-7 (also 1 Chr 13:7-10)



The bible god, murdering someone for trying to save the Ark. An Ark that serves absolutely no real importance or real purpose.

you know it's not talking about Noah's Ark don't you?

Yes. I know it's not talking about Noah's Ark. It is talking about the Ark of the covenant.

I don't think I said anything that would make you believe I was talking about Noah's Ark...

yes i know it's talking about the ark of the covanent, i don't know what led you to believe i didn't know that

Nothing led me to believe that, since I never said you didn't know!

Now the question is, why make that question in the first place?

It doesn't appear I can post the entire reply for which I had made, but I'll just put the last bit :P

I apologuise about keeping you up past your bedtime. Though I may seem dark hearted and cruel by what I have posted, I am not, and I apologuise I kept you past your bedtime and did not allow you to get all your arguments in. Though, I do thank you for actually taking the time to counterpoint everything and not just generalizing everything.

Sorry for stating things against your beliefs.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

"He and all his men set out from Baalah of Judah to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the Name, the name of the Lord Almighty, who is enthroned between the cherubim that are on the ark. They set the ark of God on a new cart and brought it from the house of Abinadab, which was on the hill. Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abinadab, were guiding the new cart with the ark of God on it, and Ahio was walking in front of it. David and the whole house of Israel were celebrating with all their might before the Lord , with songs and with harps, lyres, tambourines, sistrums and cymbals.

When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. The Lord's anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God."

Samuel 2:6-7 (also 1 Chr 13:7-10)



The bible god, murdering someone for trying to save the Ark. An Ark that serves absolutely no real importance or real purpose.



the passage is in second samuel chapter 6 verses 2-7... at any rate, God didnt murder because the guy tried to save the ark, He killed him because God had set rules on how the Ark was to be moved and by whom and the consequences of not following these rules. ---mind you, this is the very short version of explaination

But, if God had not killed him, after stating that He would.. i suppose you would be sitting here calling God a liar.

quote:Originally posted by Gyhth:

It doesn't appear I can post the entire reply for which I had made, but I'll just put the last bit :P

I apologuise about keeping you up past your bedtime. Though I may seem dark hearted and cruel by what I have posted, I am not, and I apologuise I kept you past your bedtime and did not allow you to get all your arguments in. Though, I do thank you for actually taking the time to counterpoint everything and not just generalizing everything.

Sorry for stating things against your beliefs.

There is no need for apology here (real or sarcastic).

And its not the "stating things against your (my) beliefs" that was being addressed. You were trying to use the Bible to refute the Bible. Hopefully it was shown where the mistakes in the arguements were.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



the passage is in second samuel chapter 6 verses 2-7... at any rate, God didnt murder because the guy tried to save the ark, He killed him because God had set rules on how the Ark was to be moved and by whom and the consequences of not following these rules. ---mind you, this is the very short version of explaination

The point is, he set unnecessary rules for something that has absolutely no purpose.

If he is omniscient, then he knew Uzzah would touch the Ark, therefore he knew that he would be condemning a man for breaking an useless and pointless rule.

Moreover, they had to protect the Ark as well.

Uzzah had only two choices, both of which where unnecessary and pointless, and both of which would anger the bible god:

1. Let the Ark fall and thus cause damage to it.

2. Save the Ark, but touch it.

He was damned from the beginning and he was damned by the bible god.

quote:But, if God had not killed him, after stating that He would.. i suppose you would be sitting here calling God a liar.

I would prefer a liar instead of a murderer. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-27-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

The point is, he set unnecessary rules for something that has absolutely no purpose.

If he is omniscient, then he knew Uzzah would touch the Ark, therefore he knew that he would be condemning a man for breaking an useless and pointless rule.

Yes, He knew ahead of time, all this and more.

Are you really stating that the rules are useless and pointless, or asking what the point of the rules are?

If you are asking, my answer is "i dont know". But if you are really stating this as fact please show (me) the uselessness and pointlessness of them. I'm not being assinine or thick, I just see this instance as "God says"... kinda like a parent telling a toddler not to touch the elect. outlet because "i said and if you do you will be spanked", the 3 year old would not understand electricution but it might have a simple understanding of a spanking... and the kid would probably still try to touch the outlet anyway... and think that mommy or daddy is mean for carrying out the threat. To the 3 year old, that rule is useless and pointless. "Its a hole and it wants me to see if my finger fits and if anything is inside".

quote:Moreover, they had to protect the Ark as well.

Not really.

First, (right now, im going by memory, i should probably be backing up my comment with scripture)

it was their own decision to go get the Ark, they didnt ask God or retrieved it by His command . They had been starting to think that it was the Ark that was their power, not God.

Second, if they had moved it by the means that God said to do it, with the poles and the priests carrying the poles, it wouldnt have been as much a problem.

quote:

quote:But, if God had not killed him, after stating that He would.. i suppose you would be sitting here calling God a liar.

I would prefer a liar instead of a murderer.

God is neither. If you had a test tube and created something in it, wouldnt you have the right to keep it or destroy it at your whim? If you had the ability to create life from nothing, would it be wrong for you to kill it?

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Are you really stating that the rules are useless and pointless, or asking what the point of the rules are?

If you are asking, my answer is "i dont know". But if you are really stating this as fact please show (me) the uselessness and pointlessness of them. I'm not being assinine or thick, I just see this instance as "God says"... kinda like a parent telling a toddler not to touch the elect. outlet because "i said and if you do you will be spanked", the 3 year old would not understand electricution but it might have a simple understanding of a spanking... and the kid would probably still try to touch the outlet anyway... and think that mommy or daddy is mean for carrying out the threat. To the 3 year old, that rule is useless and pointless. "Its a hole and it wants me to see if my finger fits and if anything is inside".

They are useless and pointless because the Ark itself is useless and pointless.

An omnipotent being would not need the Ark. Not even to teach them a lesson. Which most likely will be your reply. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Not really.

First, (right now, im going by memory, i should probably be backing up my comment with scripture)

it was their own decision to go get the Ark, they didnt ask God or retrieved it by His command . They had been starting to think that it was the Ark that was their power, not God.

Second, if they had moved it by the means that God said to do it, with the poles and the priests carrying the poles, it wouldnt have been as much a problem.





The protection of the ark was implied, just as they shouldn't touch it. To my knowledge there was no rule that they could not touch it.

Are you really claiming that they could throw the Ark to the ground so long as they could did not touch it? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

That would be preposterous.

quote:

God is neither. If you had a test tube and created something in it, wouldnt you have the right to keep it or destroy it at your whim? If you had the ability to create life from nothing, would it be wrong for you to kill it?



Yes, and you stating that he isn't a murder doesn't change the fact that he is.

He deliberately sentenced a man to death for imposing a rule on something he has no need for. That's murder. Period.

His ability to create life, or lack thereof, does not change that fact.

"

The Ark of the Covenant was an embodiment of God's presence with the Israelites. The atonement cover (or "mercy seat") that covered the ark was God's throne (2 Sam 6:2) and God's presence was above it (Lev 16:2); it was also the place where God met Moses and gave him commands (Ex 25:22). If someone approached the ark, they would effectively be in God's presence - a sinner standing before a holy God who does not tolerate evil (Ps 5:4-6) - and would die as a result of their sins. For this reason, God had given the Israelites many rules concerning the Ark of the Covenant. It was to be kept in the Most Holy Place in the temple, hidden from view by a curtain (Ex 26:33). Only the high priest could enter the Most Holy Place, and then only after he had undergone ceremonial cleansing, made sacrifices to atone for his sins and the nation's sins, and burned incense to conceal the atonement cover (Lev 16). When the ark was moved, it was covered with at least 3 layers of cloth by the priests to protect others from seeing it (Num 4:5-6, 15, 18-20); the priests/Levites carried it and everyone else had to stay about a thousand yards away (Josh 3:4). These laws enforced the concept of God's holiness: sinful people couldn't be in his presence, not even the high priest.

Hence, when Uzzah touched the ark, he was profaning it and disobeying God; he should have grabbed the poles used for carrying the ark instead, for that was their purpose (Ex 25:14-15). And as Glenn Miller points out in his response, the ark shouldn't have been on a cart anyway, but should have been carried on people's shoulders (1 Chr 15:15).

The Israelites who looked in the ark were actually violating several laws: they came near to the ark (a violation if they weren't Levites), they looked at the ark, they touched the ark and they moved the atonement cover, which was God's symbolic throne. Since God's presence was on/over the ark, they were actually coming into the presence of God - and without the least sense of reverence towards him, since they decided to poke around and play with his throne."

We've already covered that.

The point is, the bible god has absolutely not use for the Ark, therefore there is no point in enforcing or putting rules of it. They would be pointless as well.

He knew people would violate those rules, even before he created them, hence he deliberately sentenced them to death. And not just Uzzah as I'm concentrating myself, but according to the bible, more than 50,000+ people.

Its funny that this degraded into arguments about Bible verses, because it started out as a discussion about what the Bible is and its place in finding the truth. But now its just arguing again, which is why nothing very interesting ever gets said.

quote:An omnipotent being would not need the Ark. Not even to teach them a lesson. Which most likely will be your reply.[QUOTE]

No, my reply is still " i dont know why He would use the Ark. You are right though, Almighty God could, if He chose, "download" all the Laws, obedience, lessons ... everything, into our brains, but then TOTSE would now be useless and unimportant. And so would the journey called "life".

[QUOTE]Yes, and you stating that he isn't a murder doesn't change the fact that he is.

And YOU stating that He is, does not make it a fact.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

We've already covered that.

The point is, the bible god has absolutely not use for the Ark, therefore there is no point in enforcing or putting rules of it. They would be pointless as well.

He knew people would violate those rules, even before he created them, hence he deliberately sentenced them to death. And not just Uzzah as I'm concentrating myself, but according to the bible, more than 50,000+ people.



you are right, before He created anything, He already knew that humanity would break His rules. And He already knew how we would be saved. And who would choose the Messiah.

All of humanity fits into your "50,000plus" statement.

Maybe He will tell us sometime, why He chose to do the things He did. If I might be so bold, I would guess that the only ones that get to hear the reasons will be the ones that get to go to Hell. If im right, then i hope i'm wrong cuz i'd like to know too.

<< i say (somewhat) facetiously >>.

Think of it this way instead: What if you were God and you did all this stuff you are talking about, like the Ark, but there was no time involved. Just take time out of the process. Because you look at the whole thing as a process that works out over time, but that is just your point of view that you are restricted to. God, if he exists, isn't restricted by this.

And don't feel like you have to defend all the little details that are in the Bible. You have no proof that everything that is in there is correct. The things that are correct will show themselves to be so by being congruent with the overall theme, which is...what?

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

There is no need for apology here (real or sarcastic).



lol, it wasn't sarcastic.

If I were, I have a habit of using the oh so famous <sarcasm></sarcasm>.



Here is a random question though; why is it that the imagery in the bible isn't really looked at? I mean, people look at the theme and imagery within all other forms of books, yet alot of people just take the bible at face value. Why is that? :-x

quote:Originally posted by Gyhth:

Here is a random question though; why is it that the imagery in the bible isn't really looked at? I mean, people look at the theme and imagery within all other forms of books, yet alot of people just take the bible at face value. Why is that? :-x

I'm not sure i understand, could you better explain what you mean or could you give some examples? Because i think theme and imagery have been looked at by many. Just for instance-- psalms, song of solomon, even parts of genisis..

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

And YOU stating that He is, does not make it a fact.



Of course not. The fact that he murdered someone does! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Of course not. The fact that he murdered someone does! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

so you think the omnipotent, omniscient not to mention omnipresent Creator must live by the rules that govern us? why? are we His judge?

Obviously he doesn't need to. Again, that changes nothing. He still sentenced 50,000+ people to their deaths for something that was completely useless and unnecessary to him.

You're trying to debate something that is irrelevant to the issue: subjectiveness.

Me believing 'that we are his judge(s)' or 'not' is irrelevant as it does not change the fact mentioned above.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-28-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You're trying to debate something that is irrelevant to the issue: subjectiveness.

in what manner are you meaning that i am subjective? I dont think it is my ego, so im assuming that you mean that i am arguing based on what is conceptual rather than real-world experience. If you mean the latter, than you are right because im trying to point out the bigger picture... all things are God's will. If He has a reason or point for the Ark and for His rules, then they would not be useless because He is the One that defined there purpose (whether He tells us what it is or not). And also, the only way He could be a murderer is if He is subject to the same rules of killing as we are. Unless we are equal or greater than God (or if He made Himself subject to His own rules), no one can judge Him.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

in what manner are you meaning that i am subjective? I dont think it is my ego, so im assuming that you mean that i am arguing based on what is conceptual rather than real-world experience.

What I meant was, that you're arguing an opinion. I'm not. I really don't care if you think the bible god should be able to kill or not. I don't care if you think it's okay or not. Why don't I care? Because it is irrelevant. It does not change the facts.

quote:

If you mean the latter, than you are right because im trying to point out the bigger picture... all things are God's will. If He has a reason or point for the Ark and for His rules, then they would not be useless because He is the One that defined there purpose (whether He tells us what it is or not). And also, the only way He could be a murderer is if He is subject to the same rules of killing as we are. Unless we are equal or greater than God (or if He made Himself subject to His own rules), no one can judge Him.





1. They are useless because he has no need for them. An omnipotent being has no need for an Ark. Not to live, not to breath, not to think, not to give lessons and not teach. He doesn't need it. Period.

2. It is murder because he did kill 50,000. (that is if we take the bible as true, which for the sake of the argument I am) I'm not arguing its subjectiveness, that being if it was justified or 'okay' to do it. It's murder plain and simple.

3. Then is it your opinion that god and kill anyone he desires? He can rape your family in front of your eyes, and then proceed to kill them and send them to hell and it would be fine, nay, justified? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Then frankly your bible god is no different than the evil you're so vehemently against.

Is it just me or is anyone else getting a sense of deja vu? Rust and Gyth- the ark related smiting (sp?) and the Jesus= sinner thing was brought up about 3 months ago.

It might be worth trying to find the threads, rather than reinventing the wheel...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

What I meant was, that you're arguing an opinion. I'm not. I really don't care if you think the bible god should be able to kill or not. I don't care if you think it's okay or not. Why don't I care? Because it is irrelevant. It does not change the facts.

you are right, it does not change the facts. God did kill. But it is not a fact that this killing is murder. God has dominion over us. Is it murder when we kill animals for food, clothing or protection?

Let us for a moment, personify a cow's point of veiw... Cow says," People dont need to kill us for burgers...they have no reason to do it, they could eat grass like we do, and then chew their cud like we do."

Sounds absurd, doesnt it? That is exactly how you are looking at this. You are trying to make it as though God is our equal, and that we know the same things as God knows.

quote:1. They are useless because he has no need for them. An omnipotent being has no need for an Ark. Not to live, not to breath, not to think, not to give lessons and not teach. He doesn't need it. Period.

we already covered this, and i think i somewhat agreed. Sure, God [i]could[/] have "downloaded" all this information in us. But then, wouldn't that make us more like robots or puppets?

quote:2. It is murder because he did kill 50,000. (that is if we take the bible as true, which for the sake of the argument I am) I'm not arguing its subjectiveness, that being if it was justified or 'okay' to do it. It's murder plain and simple.

So, by your own definition, that would make McDonalds or Kentucky Fried Chicken murderers. Even abortion would be murder, by that definition (which i feel, is. but that is a whole other topic)

quote:3. Then is it your opinion that god and kill anyone he desires? He can rape your family in front of your eyes, and then proceed to kill them and send them to hell and it would be fine, nay, justified?

Yes, He can kill anyone He desires, He is the one that allows us to live. Yes, i guess He could rape them, but doubt that He would. And as far as sending them (or anyone) to hell, it is already justified. The only way that we are saved from hell is by His Grace.

quote:Then frankly your bible god is no different than the evil you're so vehemently against.



again, you are trying to equate us to God.



I'm sure posting this "3days" after the last post is going to bother you, but please keep in mind that people have other things in their life besides TOTSE...

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

you are right, it does not change the facts. God did kill. But it is not a fact that this killing is murder. God has dominion over us. Is it murder when we kill animals for food, clothing or protection?

Let us for a moment, personify a cow's point of veiw... Cow says," People dont need to kill us for burgers...they have no reason to do it, they could eat grass like we do, and then chew their cud like we do."

Sounds absurd, doesnt it? That is exactly how you are looking at this. You are trying to make it as though God is our equal, and that we know the same things as God knows



There's a difference from killing someone for absolutely no good reason, and killing an animal for sustenance, a very good reason.

This is really just semantics, since I don't care if we choose to call it "murder" or "slaying". The morality of it remains the same: the bible god killed thousands of people for no good reason.

quote:

we already covered this, and i think i somewhat agreed. Sure, God could have "downloaded" all this information in us. But then, wouldn't that make us more like robots or puppets?

Both would make us "robots or puppets".

'Me having to follow a useless rule, for an ark that has no significance, or be killed' is the same thing as me being a puppet. In both cases I'm being forced.

quote:So, by your own definition, that would make McDonalds or Kentucky Fried Chicken murderers. Even abortion would be murder, by that definition (which i feel, is. but that is a whole other topic)

Nope. There's a difference between killing for sustenance and killing for no reason.

quote:Yes, He can kill anyone He desires, He is the one that allows us to live. Yes, i guess He could rape them, but doubt that He would. And as far as sending them (or anyone) to hell, it is already justified. The only way that we are saved from hell is by His Grace.



I didn't ask you if he could, I asked if you he would be justified (and not only in sending them to hell).

Is he justified in raping, killing them and sending them to hell?

quote:again, you are trying to equate us to God.

No, I'm equating him with evil, not with us. And frankly, he did that for himself.

He already gave the guidelines for what is evil, and he seems to follow them closely.

quote:

I'm sure posting this "3days" after the last post is going to bother you, but please keep in mind that people have other things in their life besides TOTSE...



Why would it bother me?

It did bother me when DS did it because he/she brought up a 3 day old thread that had absolutely nothing to do with him/her for the sole purpose of complaining; a childish act.

This thread has everything to do with you, and moreover, you're not complaining, so I see no reason why this would bother me.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-31-2004).]

Every thread on this forum has to do with me, just as it has to do with everyone else.

I can't believe the moronic things you say, just to defend yourself. You don't even realize what a poor job you are doing of it, either. That's the humorous aspect of it all.

I have been picking on you, I'll admit it. It was wrong of me, and makes me no better than you, which is terrible.

I have not been childish in pointing out your errors, ineffective arguments, and willingness to lower yourself to such a level that NO ONE (not even me) would want to see you eye-to-eye, however.

In case you hadn't noticed, you pretty much offend everyone.

Your points are moot, and full of malice, instead of objectivity.

You seemingly argue just for the sake of arguing, and not to actually come to some sort of understanding.

I will do my best not to seek out your flaws from this point on, as you make them obvious enough to everyone else that it only serves to offer redundancy.

My apologies to all the readers of Totse.com. I will make every effort to remain true to my purpose on this forum, and avoid being dragged down into petty arguments.

It's ugly, and I'm ashamed it even happened. (just goes to show that Christian or not, I am still human !)

I am sure you will have some sort of asinine response to this post, Rust, but I'll just attempt to save you the time, and vast amounts of energy you seem to expend upon posting angry, pointless posts. I won't be responding to you, and I hope that in the future, you will refrain from posting on my threads, unless you have something constructive to say. I can't stop you..so, I just have to hope for the best.

I really don't give a shit if you don't like me. Only a handful of people on totse mean anything to me and that's entertainment. To my knowledge none of them have ever spoken against me, and in all honesty I couldn't care less if they do. It's a message board for pete's sake!

My problems with you are that you de-rail threads with childish whining and when I ask you to show me what I have done wrong, you show nothing! When I ask you to point it out, you do nothing! How in the world do you expect people to believe you and moreover, how do you expect me to change, if you don't show what it is I have done wrong?

Hell, others have called you a "dumbass" and you keep speaking with them normally; where as I myself have never even insulted you (at least before this started). The only logical conclusion I can reach is that you have nothing to base yourself on...

Once again, I ask you, what have I done wrong?

P.S. Another example of your childishness is how you direct a reply to me and then expect me not to reply! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) Ridiculous!

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-31-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



My problems with you are that you de-rail threads with childish whining and when I ask you to show me what I have done wrong, you show nothing! When I ask you to point it out, you do nothing! How in the world do you expect people to believe you and moreover, how do you expect me to change, if you don't show what it is I have done wrong?

P.S. Another example of your childishness is how you direct a reply to me and then expect me not to reply! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) Ridiculous!



This response is directed at both Digital Savior and you, Rust. And this is NOT meant insultingly or vindictive.

Rust: I think it was you that said that english is your second language. If that is true, you seem to have a very good command of it, but it appears as though some answers and comments sort of miss the meaning to you. In the future i will try to be more patient, and try to explain myself more understandably.

i dont think that D.S. is being childist in saying that she wont reply to you. I believe that she is trying to say that she is going to try to elevate herself above petty bickering.

I do agree, with her however, that in some cases, you seem to want to argue, more for the sake of arguing, and less for the sake of sharing ideas and for learning... sometimes we all fall into that trap.

Digital Savior: [QUOTE]In case you hadn't noticed, you pretty much offend everyone.

I won't be responding to you, and I hope that in the future, you will refrain from posting on my threads, unless you have something constructive to say. I can't stop you..so, I just have to hope for the best.[QUOTE]

Nobody on Totse (including Rust), has truly offended me. Sometimes it is frustrating to get a point across without talking face to face. EIL and Optimus Prime, in my opinion, seem to have come the closest to over coming this obstacle, but even they seem to be misunderstood at times.

That being said, i am assuming that you have similar motives as i do, when posting... (a) Spreading the Word (b) eliminating the ignorance of the ideas that people have about religion and the Bible (c) learning (and seeing other points of view and ideas) (d)having fun in a mentally stimulating way (least of all)...

The point i'm trying to make is refering to (a) and (b)... if someone was drowning, would you try to help them only once, or would you keep trying to help?.... We cannot convert (lost) souls, that is between a person and God. All we can do is "sow the seeds" and "tend to them". My "job", if you will, is a "sower and a serf". The Holy Spirit's "job" is to "make those seeds grow", and the only way that happens is when the person allows God into their heart. Like you said, "God doesnt force HImself (the belief in Him) on anyone.

We have two choices: keep trying to help or in Jesus words, "dust off your sandles".

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

There's a difference from killing someone for absolutely no good reason, and killing an animal for sustenance, a very good reason.

This is really just semantics, since I don't care if we choose to call it "murder" or "slaying". The morality of it remains the same: the bible god killed thousands of people for no good reason.

"no good reason" from a human perspective. If God is omniscient, He could very well have a good reason for everything and anything that He does, and the only way we could know why He does the things that He does, is if either we are omniscient, or someone who is omniscient explains to us (the reasons).

quote:

we already covered this, and i think i somewhat agreed. Sure, God could have "downloaded" all this information in us. But then, wouldn't that make us more like robots or puppets?

Both would make us "robots or puppets".

I wasnt giving a choice between robots and puppets, just using 2 words to point to one meaning. No big deal though.

quote:'Me having to follow a useless rule, for an ark that has no significance, or be killed' is the same thing as me being a puppet. In both cases I'm being forced.

You (and Uzziah) were not being forced. The rule is a statement.. "dont touch" and then God makes another statement of the punishment for disobedience.. "if you touch, i will kill you." You are not being forced because you still have the choice and ability to touch it if you want.

quote:Yes, He can kill anyone He desires, He is the one that allows us to live. Yes, i guess He could rape them, but doubt that He would. And as far as sending them (or anyone) to hell, it is already justified. The only way that we are saved from hell is by His Grace.

I didn't ask you if he could, I asked if you he would be justified (and not only in sending them to hell).

Is he justified in raping, killing them and sending them to hell?

You asked if He can, so i understood you as meaning "could". As to the justfication, I'm not sure. I think this is a leading question, similar to "can god lie, and would that be justified?" (two part answer)--- (1)if the all knowing and all powerfull God, He would have an all knowing reason BUT (2)it would (probably) go against His all loving and perfectnature. This may seem like circular reasoning, but it seemed like a leading question with a circular argument...similar to "can God make a rock so big He can move it".

quote: quote:again, you are trying to equate us to God.

No, I'm equating him with evil, not with us. And frankly, he did that for himself.

He already gave the guidelines for what is evil, and he seems to follow them closely.

The only way that you can equate Him with evil, is if you know as much or more than God. If you had the authority to judge Him.

quote:Rust: I think it was you that said that english is your second language. If that is true, you seem to have a very good command of it, but it appears as though some answers and comments sort of miss the meaning to you. In the future i will try to be more patient, and try to explain myself more understandably.



It is true, Spanish is my "first" language.

quote:i dont think that D.S. is being childist in saying that she wont reply to you. I believe that she is trying to say that she is going to try to elevate herself above petty bickering.



It's the 'coming to 3 day old threads complaining and then not giving examples' that makes her childish in my opinion.

quote:I do agree, with her however, that in some cases, you seem to want to argue, more for the sake of arguing, and less for the sake of sharing ideas and for learning... sometimes we all fall into that trap.

Because I do. I come here for the sake of arguing. That's a form of entertainment to me. Now, just how is that relevant?

---



quote:"no good reason" from a human perspective. If God is omniscient, He could very well have a good reason for everything and anything that He does, and the only way we could know why He does the things that He does, is if either we are omniscient, or someone who is omniscient explains to us (the reasons).

If he doesn't need them, then their is no good reason. Once again, an omnipotent god doesn't need an ark, and worse of all doesn't need to spend time. Therefore, there is no good reason for wasting time and creating an ark.

That's how omniscience and omnipotence work; there is no good reason to do anything!

quote: wasnt giving a choice between robots and puppets, just using 2 words to point to one meaning. No big deal though.



I know, I didn't miss that point.

quote:You (and Uzziah) were not being forced. The rule is a statement.. "dont touch" and then God makes another statement of the punishment for disobedience.. "if you touch, i will kill you." You are not being forced because you still have the choice and ability to touch it if you want.

quote:Rust: I think it was you that said that english is your second language. If that is true, you seem to have a very good command of it, but it appears as though some answers and comments sort of miss the meaning to you. In the future i will try to be more patient, and try to explain myself more understandably.





It is true, Spanish is my "first" language.

quote:i dont think that D.S. is being childist in saying that she wont reply to you. I believe that she is trying to say that she is going to try to elevate herself above petty bickering.





It's the 'coming to 3 day old threads complaining and then not giving examples' that makes her childish in my opinion.

quote:I do agree, with her however, that in some cases, you seem to want to argue, more for the sake of arguing, and less for the sake of sharing ideas and for learning... sometimes we all fall into that trap.

Because I do. I come here for the sake of arguing. That's a form of entertainment to me, "mental masturbation" if you will. Now, just how is that relevant?

---

quote:"no good reason" from a human perspective. If God is omniscient, He could very well have a good reason for everything and anything that He does, and the only way we could know why He does the things that He does, is if either we are omniscient, or someone who is omniscient explains to us (the reasons).

If he doesn't need them, then their is no good reason. Once again, an omnipotent god doesn't need an ark, and worse of all doesn't need to spend time. Therefore, there is no good reason for wasting time and creating an ark.

That's how omniscience and omnipotence work; there is no good reason to do anything!

quote: wasnt giving a choice between robots and puppets, just using 2 words to point to one meaning. No big deal though.



I know, I didn't miss that point.

quote:You (and Uzziah) were not being forced. The rule is a statement.. "dont touch" and then God makes another statement of the punishment for disobedience.. "if you touch, i will kill you." You are not being forced because you still have the choice and ability to touch it if you want.

So then I can put a gun to your head and tell you to give me your money, the deed to your house and you wouldn't be forced ... right? Therefore you wouldn't call the police, after all you don't want to be a hypocrite and a liar. You made the conscious decision to give me those things, nobody forced you... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:You asked if He can, so i understood you as meaning "could". As to the justfication, I'm not sure. I think this is a leading question, similar to "can god lie, and would that be justified?" (two part answer)--- (1)if the all knowing and all powerfull God, He would have an all knowing reason BUT (2)it would (probably) go against His all loving and perfectnature. This may seem like circular reasoning, but it seemed like a leading question with a circular argument...similar to "can God make a rock so big He can move it".

So, he either is justified and evil, or unjustified and evil. He's still evil.

quote:The only way that you can equate Him with evil, is if you know as much or more than God. If you had the authority to judge Him.



Again, he already did it to himself. When he gave the guidelines to what is evil, and then proceeded to commit an act that falls within those guidelines, he judged himself. He would be evil by his own admission.

Sorry to wade into this all late and stuff, but...

quote:Again, he already did it to himself. When he gave the guidelines to what is evil, and then proceeded to commit an act that falls within those guidelines, he judged himself. He would be evil by his own admission

From the start of God's OT commandments the whole disobedience=consequences concept is very clear. The people of Israel were given the very choice as to whether they were going to follow Yahweh (and all that it entails) or follow some other god. So the question of whether God "killed unjustly" is a bit of moot point, and really boils down to personal opinion. I personally think that those blokes getting smited for proping up the ark was pretty harsh- but that's the way things go.

If you want to telescope the argument far enough, when it comes down to it, it is God that kills all of us. Is it unjust for him to bring the deadline forward a bit?

What he's saying makes since, but only slightly. He just doesn't explain the point very well. I have a quote from someone written down on a scrap of paper that I'll transcribe here that explains the point better.

Within it's limitations, church can be a useful spiritual guide if it is understood as being a guidepost to the spiritual parts of our minds. The current overemphasis on church verges on idolatry. Church and the bible are wordly, secondhand manifestations of god, located in time and space, while god is timeless and spaceless. In a sense, church and word are like a two-dimensional, black-and-white photograph of a three-dimensional object. They are better than nothing. But they also miss the color, movement, developement, and fragrance of the sacred. They are also distorted, filtered, and polluted by history, culture, and language. They are largely artifacts of our ordinary state of consciousness with its limited experiences, perceptions, thoughts, beliefs, and feelings. Religions merely point to the door, though not opening it.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Because I do. I come here for the sake of arguing. That's a form of entertainment to me, "mental masturbation" if you will. Now, just how is that relevant?

It's is relevant because I said that i agreed with her, and by what you just said, so do you.

---

quote:

So then I can put a gun to your head and tell you to give me your money, the deed to your house and you wouldn't be forced ... right? Therefore you wouldn't call the police, after all you don't want to be a hypocrite and a liar. You made the conscious decision to give me those things, nobody forced you...

Absolutly wrong! How do you know i gave those things? My choice is give them to you or else. I choose... pull the trigger. If you dont pull the trigger, YOU are the liar and hypocrite.

quote:So, he either is justified and evil, or unjustified and evil. He's still evil.

Do you even believe half of what you post?

Oh yah, you said "mental masturbation". Guess the analogy of the "whisper" hit the nail right on the head.

quote:Again, he already did it to himself. When he gave the guidelines to what is evil, and then proceeded to commit an act that falls within those guidelines, he judged himself. He would be evil by his own admission.

Wrong again, His guidelines were for us, not Himself. God said, "THOU shalt not kill".

He did not say He and we should not kill.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

It's is relevant because I said that i agreed with her, and by what you just said, so do you.

Me or you agreeing with her doesn't make it relevant. I makes it agreed upon. Just like if I start discussing the color of your hair. We may agree upon a color, but how is that relevant to this thread? How does the color of your thread pertain to this thread or topic? It doesn't.

Just in case, it's not your reply that's irrelevant. It's the fact that we're discussing 'why I post'. That's irrelevant. I didn't make it clear above.

---

quote:Absolutly wrong! How do you know i gave those things? My choice is give them to you or else. I choose... pull the trigger. If you dont pull the trigger, YOU are the liar and hypocrite.



How can it be wrong if it was a question? I never claimed to know what you would do, all I did was ask a question.

Could you please answer this question:

If you, or anyone else was in that position, and they chose their lives; is it your opinion they shouldn't call the police since they had a perfectly viable choice of dying?

quote:Do you even believe half of what you post?

Oh yah, you said "mental masturbation". Guess the analogy of the "whisper" hit the nail right on the head.

Why wouldn't I believe that?

He may or may not be justified. Justified in doing what? In doing an act which is labeled as evil (or wrong) by his guidelines. His "justification" is irrelevant since by his guidelines, he is evil.

Therefore:

"He would be justified and evil, or not justified and evil" ...

quote:Wrong again, His guidelines were for us, not Himself. God said, "THOU shalt not kill".

He did not say He and we should not kill.

That still doesn't mean he didn't act as 'evil' (or 'wrong') by his own guidelines.

The distinction is, you would justify his murder by saying 'he is above rules'. I wouldn't. I don't justify murder.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-02-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

You are correct on both points.

Always am. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) Cocky, I know.