First, I would like to say that I am an Atheist.

I was talking to a Christian today, and he said something to someone about God giving people a free will.
So I asked him, "Does God have a plan for everything?". And he answered "Yes". So I asked him how God gave people a free will if he controls the future. And his response was: "How would god know you were a good person if you only do what you're told?" (compared to doing the thing you know is right.

I thought this was a great reply, and would like to see if anyone had a good reply for what he said.

Please no flaming, and i am not a strong atheist, just like talking about things like this, and his reply made me interested.

-Lotsagrapes

I guess you could come back with "so god doesn't plan everything then", at which point you would start going round and round in circles.

Exactly. He just went around in a circle. If he has a plan for everybody (i.e. meaning that their future, or at least parts of it, is predetermined) then according to him God wouldn't be able to know if those people were being good or bad in doing what they were told (i.e. acting the way God planned).

Ohh... So your just comparing that to the first thing i said. Thanks, I'll see what he says to that.

Thanks. I didnt expect real answers, more like... theists flaming me.

The guy managed to contradict himself twice in 3 statements, he's batting 100% illogical.

Exactly. He just went around in a circle. If he has a plan for everybody (i.e. meaning that their future, or at least parts of it, is predetermined) then according to him God wouldn't be able to know if those people were being good or bad in doing what they were told (i.e. acting the way God planned).

He left off some of it. When people say "He has a plan", its refered to as your full potential. You can still choose to say "FU, God" and go about your business never following the plan at all.

I'm not understanding exactly what you or the OP mean by "doing what you are told" and the logical fallacy in claiming moral ambiguity.

If you are simply doing what you are told by other people, you are most likely not following the "plan" at all. Its really easy for you to miss a simple causal detail following the general path that deviates from the "plan". If, however, you were doing what you were told from the Bible, there exists not moral ambiguity as far as the Christian God is concerned as to whether you are doing right or wrong as long as you are truely following it and consequentially the "plan".

Maybe gods plan is your plan. Maybe gods plan is the accumulation of every conscious entities choices.

He left off some of it. When people say "He has a plan", its refered to as your full potential. You can still choose to say "FU, God" and go about your business never following the plan at all.



No, there is no choice, it is only an illusion if god has predetermined everything. We're not talking churchy "GOD HAS A PLAN FOR YOU" brainwashing techniques, we're talking about god being all-knowing and having determined everything in the universe ahead of time.



If you are simply doing what you are told by other people, you are most likely not following the "plan" at all. Its really easy for you to miss a simple causal detail following the general path that deviates from the "plan". If, however, you were doing what you were told from the Bible, there exists not moral ambiguity as far as the Christian God is concerned as to whether you are doing right or wrong as long as you are truely following it and consequentially the "plan".

Again, it's not about any illusory 'plan', the 'plan' is what you are doing, no matter what you are doing - it's just a tautology that you are following the plan. (given that one actually exists - ie the christian god exists as said by its followers)

If god created man, he created man.
Which must mean, that god created both good and evil men.

God are sending the evil people to hell, to suffer for all eternity.
God are sending the good people to heaven, the best place in the universe.

Someone, please, explain why the fuck he created some men to be evil, and then when they died, tortured them for eternity. That seems kinda... Sadistic.

Believers can easily refute that with the argument of free will. The problem is that most of these people ALSO hold the belief that god is all-knowing, all-powerful and therefore knows what you will do in the future, thus contradicting their belief in free will. Unfortunately, most don't understand this and even fewer are willing to give up the 2nd belief.

I'm not understanding exactly what you or the OP mean by "doing what you are told" and the logical fallacy in claiming moral ambiguity.


By doing what the Bible says, or in Christian eyes, the moral thing.

Maybe gods plan is your plan. Maybe gods plan is the accumulation of every conscious entities choices.

Wouldn't that make God irrelevant? If God is you, if God is society, doesn't that make you and society Gods in themselves?

Ohh... So your just comparing that to the first thing i said. Thanks, I'll see what he says to that.

Thanks. I didnt expect real answers, more like... theists flaming me.

Sadly, we get more flames from atheists than theists, considering how most ppl here are atheists. As for free will, I had a 2 hr. conversation with a deacon about what god knows, what he controls, and what control we have over our lives. After cutting through the bullshit for a good hour and a half, it turns out, that God knows all our options, and knows what will happen at the end of all those roads, but he doesn't control our choices of these options, to make it simple, he knows all of the possible paths, he knows each possible destination, but he doesn't know what sequence of paths we will take until after the fact. Btw, this is the Orthodox Christian viewpoint if you're interested.

Sadly, we get more flames from atheists than theists, considering how most ppl here are atheists. As for free will, I had a 2 hr. conversation with a deacon about what god knows, what he controls, and what control we have over our lives. After cutting through the bullshit for a good hour and a half, it turns out, that God knows all our options, and knows what will happen at the end of all those roads, but he doesn't control our choices of these options, to make it simple, he knows all of the possible paths, he knows each possible destination, but he doesn't know what sequence of paths we will take until after the fact. Btw, this is the Orthodox Christian viewpoint if you're interested.

This contradicts the idea of an all-knowing god, which seems to be a strong part of the christian tradition, weird. Atleast they gave up that notion and they can have their stinkin' idea of free will. I'd still have to ask the priest how he knows so much about something that is not of this world :)

Sadly, we get more flames from atheists than theists, considering how most ppl here are atheists. As for free will, I had a 2 hr. conversation with a deacon about what god knows, what he controls, and what control we have over our lives. After cutting through the bullshit for a good hour and a half, it turns out, that God knows all our options, and knows what will happen at the end of all those roads, but he doesn't control our choices of these options, to make it simple, he knows all of the possible paths, he knows each possible destination, but he doesn't know what sequence of paths we will take until after the fact. Btw, this is the Orthodox Christian viewpoint if you're interested.


Thanks for this.
Im still surprised there is no flamers.

He left off some of it. When people say "He has a plan", its refered to as your full potential. You can still choose to say "FU, God" and go about your business never following the plan at all.

You have no clue of that's what he meant or not. We can only speculate with what the OP said, and it's obvious when he said "So I asked him how God gave people a free will if he controls the future. And his response was: 'How would god know you were a good person if you only do what you're told?" he doesn't mean a "full potential" but that god will control the future for his "plan" to take place.


I'm not understanding exactly what you or the OP mean by "doing what you are told" and the logical fallacy in claiming moral ambiguity.

"Doing what your told" is doing what god planned you to do - how god controls the future.

Wouldn't that make God irrelevant? If God is you, if God is society, doesn't that make you and society Gods in themselves?

Why not? Why can't God be more than one consciousness? Why can't he be all the puzzle pieces and the complete picture?

Why not? Why can't God be more than one consciousness? Why can't he be all the puzzle pieces and the complete picture?

I think nshanin's problem with the statement is basically: if god is everything, then god is nothing. It is irrelevant to speak of god in such an instance.

Maybe gods plan is your plan. Maybe gods plan is the accumulation of every conscious entities choices.

That wouldn't exactly be a plan now would it?

Thanks for posting, everyone. If anyone has a atheist\theist argument, argument idea, proof for god existing\not existing, or counters to theist or atheist arguments, would they post them?

Heres one:
Christianity is bad. The Bible clearly says not to lie, and if the lives of one, or a thousand men was upon your choice to lie, it would be a sin to save them.

Anyone have a counter for that?

I would like to get good at arguing, and atheism is a good start. Thanks.

It's completely true.

God has a plan for everything, and when you choose to go along with it you are in bliss, when you go against it you are suffering. To go with it, the 8 fold path is probably the best tool to use.

Whether or not you choose to suffer or to be in bliss is between you and God.

Wouldn't that make God irrelevant? If God is you, if God is society, doesn't that make you and society Gods in themselves?

Very good...! You get a gold star. ;)


Christianity is bad. The Bible clearly says not to lie, and if the lives of one, or a thousand men was upon your choice to lie, it would be a sin to save them.

To assume something is "bad" is to either say it does not fit in your physical evolution or does not fit in your spiritual evolution. You can not assume something is bad merely because you don't understand it, and then expect it to be true.

First of all, death is completely meaningless. If someone dies, oh well. We all do. However, anything done out of love, faith, and hope, can NEVER be "bad".

Would God forgive you for saving people's lives if you had to lie to do it? Um, yeah...Of course, hypothetical situations are completely meaningless and a waste of time.

@Lostgrapes, again, my former deacon's view: God has a consiousness too, he does have human qualities, and he's not as violent and ruthless as the OT portrays him, he would understand if you had to lie to save a couple fo lives, etc.

Faith can be bad when taken to an extreme. [cites the crusades, inquisition, 9/11, etc.]

To assume something is "bad" is to either say it does not fit in your physical evolution or does not fit in your spiritual evolution. You can not assume something is bad merely because you don't understand it, and then expect it to be true.

First of all, death is completely meaningless. If someone dies, oh well. We all do. However, anything done out of love, faith, and hope, can NEVER be "bad".

Would God forgive you for saving people's lives if you had to lie to do it? Um, yeah...Of course, hypothetical situations are completely meaningless and a waste of time.

Sweet.
I'm glad you saw what i said as hypothetical, and not my real belief.
I agree with the first, and third paragraphs, but about the middle one. It isn't death, it would be murder. So would you consider murder bad or not? Death is a part of life, and everyone should accept that. But I think murder is different.

I think the belief is that god has a plan for everyone. If you're a good boy, you'll follow his plan. If you're a bad boy, you'll go against his plan. He doesnt like that, btw.

Lol..
I think the Christian.. Let's call him Jared, meant God Makes you do what is needed to reach his plan.

- - - - - - - -


God is great!


With contradictions.

Theres no good Christian argument.

The only reason why theres still Christian followers is because of parents teaching it to their children (therefore the children believing it, and when they get older and are able to question it with a better head, it's already there, and even questioning is taught to be wrong, so that helps too.) and the fact that even if you give them good reasons, they still deny all logic. I was raised Catholic, so I know how this works. I used to be the same way, until I was 13 and was fed up with all the bullshit beliefs and dropped it because it wasn't realistic.

Theres no good Christian argument.

The only reason why theres still Christian followers is because of parents teaching it to their children (therefore the children believing it, and when they get older and are able to question it with a better head, it's already there, and even questioning is taught to be wrong, so that helps too.) and the fact that even if you give them good reasons, they still deny all logic. I was raised Catholic, so I know how this works. I used to be the same way, until I was 13 and was fed up with all the bullshit beliefs and dropped it because it wasn't realistic.

Lol thats like my story, but I was Christian, and I was never into it, then started questioning things..

But reasons to be Christian may be... The 'miracle' of birth, you'll go to hell if you dont believe in god, and he turns out to be real. The bannana is shaped perfectly to the hand. Poisonous things are colored most often, telling us not to eat them.

These arent great, and the best one i think if the poisonous things one.

Anyone know why else things are brightly colored when poisonous? (in general)

To warn potential predators of their potency would be my first shot in the dark.

Now, if you're looking for a good arguement or concept..
Try reading books, and ponder them after each chapter or so.
It sounds like you would be very interested in reading Thus Spake Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche.

On a similar note, ponder this: rather than god just existing, nothing creating Him, He just exists, what's wrong with human existence just happening, and God a creation of man. The Greeks are a great example for where I'm going with this. Man doesn't understand how he came to be, and Man has been known to attribute things he cannot understand to magic, or even gods. Man didn't understand the sun, the moon, or even lightning. What did man do? Make them to be gods! Helios was the name of the sun, Selene the moon, Zeus lofted in the clouds hurling lightning about. Now that we know otherwise, do we sacrifice lambs in the name of Athena?

God having been.. just been, always seems weird to me. I already dont believe in him, but why would he even exist? Why not nothing? no universe, just nothing.
IDK, and why would he create man with the capability of sins, and why can he just kill the devil, or bind him somewhere, or something like that.

The powers of god, compared to what he uses them for are stupid, I think.

Theres no good Christian argument.

The only reason why theres still Christian followers is because of parents teaching it to their children (therefore the children believing it, and when they get older and are able to question it with a better head, it's already there, and even questioning is taught to be wrong, so that helps too.) and the fact that even if you give them good reasons, they still deny all logic. I was raised Catholic, so I know how this works. I used to be the same way, until I was 13 and was fed up with all the bullshit beliefs and dropped it because it wasn't realistic.
Questioning isn't taught to be wrong, as far as the Bible goes. Acts 17:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2017:11;&version=9;)

Also 1 Peter 3:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%203:15;&version=9;).

That's not really proof, it talks about something different entirely, and even if it meant what you wanted it to mean, the practice of Christianity is far different from the original teachings, and that's the way it is; the Bible says a lot of stuff that people don't follow.

That's not really proof, it talks about something different entirely, and even if it meant what you wanted it to mean, the practice of Christianity is far different from the original teachings, and that's the way it is; the Bible says a lot of stuff that people don't follow.
Sorry you're right, it is talking about something different. But twilightki's statement is a little vague on what is taught not to question.

Also I don't know about Christian practices being far different from the original teachings, because you just lumped all denominations together, some who's beliefs are completely different from the Bible.

Lion eats man :)

Theres no good Christian argument.

The only reason why theres still Christian followers is because of parents teaching it to their children (therefore the children believing it, and when they get older and are able to question it with a better head, it's already there, and even questioning is taught to be wrong, so that helps too.) and the fact that even if you give them good reasons, they still deny all logic. I was raised Catholic, so I know how this works. I used to be the same way, until I was 13 and was fed up with all the bullshit beliefs and dropped it because it wasn't realistic.

Because you are all knowing...

I went through the same thing, except at 12, and it lasted for 5 years and then I came to my senses.

Sorry you're right, it is talking about something different. But twilightki's statement is a little vague on what is taught not to question.

Also I don't know about Christian practices being far different from the original teachings, because you just lumped all denominations together, some who's beliefs are completely different from the Bible.

Lion eats man :)
Allrighty then, you asked for it:
Catholics: Pope=Jesus, wtf?
Protestants (including Baptists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Episcopaleans, etc): Only 2 sacraments? Srry.
Orthodox: Painting Easter eggs (for Jesus of course).
Jehova's Witnesses: Galatians 1:16-20
Mormons: Polygamy, duh

...did I leave any out?

Allrighty then, you asked for it:
Catholics: Pope=Jesus, wtf?
Protestants (including Baptists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Episcopaleans, etc): Only 2 sacraments? Srry.
Orthodox: Painting Easter eggs (for Jesus of course).
Jehova's Witnesses: Galatians 1:16-20
Mormons: Polygamy, duh

...did I leave any out?

Ok I'll go in the order you made.

Catholics: I'm not sure what you're saying.. but I don't think Catholics believe that the Pope is Jesus.

Protestants: I wouldn't want to say something wrong about the others you listed, but 1.) Baptism, is considered by Catholics required for salvation. Baptists do not believe that baptism is required for salvation. 2.) The Lord's Supper, is taken literally by Catholics and they believe that they actually consume the blood and body of Christ. Baptists don't believe that, but believe that The Lord's Supper serves as a reminder of Jesus' death, his blood that was shed and body that was broken.

Catholic beliefs are based on verses of the Bible, some if not all taken out of context, adjusting the Bible to fit with their beliefs, instead of receiving the Bible as a whole.

Orthodox: lol what?

Jehovah witness: Also an example of taking parts of the Bible, not receiving it as a whole, and adjusting the Bible to fit with their beliefs.

Mormons: I think they take their right to have multiple wives from the Old Testament. In the OT men had multiple wives most likely to care and provide for them. Women back then lived in societies where women were more opressed, and could possibly not provide for themselves. But today women are able to provide for themselves. Here is also a verse (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2:24) that states that a man shall cleave unto his wife, not wives.

Lion eats man

Questioning isn't taught to be wrong, as far as the Bible goes. Acts 17:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2017:11;&version=9;)

Except questioning god
Mark 3:29

Except questioning god
Mark 3:29

That verse speaks of something quite different. There are many times in the Bible when people have questioned God.

Lion eats man

That verse speaks of something quite different. There are many times in the Bible when people have questioned God and lost something valuable.

Lion eats man

Fixed

Ok I'll go in the order you made.

Catholics: I'm not sure what you're saying.. but I don't think Catholics believe that the Pope is Jesus.

Infallibility? Reverence next to worship, and besides, they treat the Theotokos as a godess in herself. 'Sides, they started the Crusades.


Protestants: I wouldn't want to say something wrong about the others you listed, but 1.) Baptism, is considered by Catholics required for salvation. Baptists do not believe that baptism is required for salvation. 2.) The Lord's Supper, is taken literally by Catholics and they believe that they actually consume the blood and body of Christ. Baptists don't believe that, but believe that The Lord's Supper serves as a reminder of Jesus' death, his blood that was shed and body that was broken.

Again, if you read your Bible correctly, you'll find communion is a sacrament and the wine and bread is the literal body and blood of Christ, it's not a metaphor, it doesn't commemorate jack shit, it's the literal body and blood. The only reason Protestants don't believe that is because it's a laughable concept in the first place.

Catholic beliefs are based on verses of the Bible, some if not all taken out of context, adjusting the Bible to fit with their beliefs, instead of receiving the Bible as a whole.

I'm sure... Judging from your above post, you were raised Protestant and were indoctrinated to thinking all Catholics were evil, tell me where it says Communion is metaphorical, tell me where it says Baptism is not required for entrance to the Kingdom of God, tell me you didn't just get this from your Baptist preacher... plz?
Orthodox: lol what?
They paint Easter eggs red to commmemorate Jesus, it's metaphorical and merely a tradition, but it's all I could think of... Anyway, they use 2nd and 4th century "holy men" as dictators as to what their religion should follow. Jesus told us to listen to him and his apostles, not people centuries later (unless of course it's the Second Coming). Plus they're iconoclasts.
Jehovah witness: Also an example of taking parts of the Bible, not receiving it as a whole, and adjusting the Bible to fit with their beliefs.
Plz explain how this is adjusted... seriously, quote the damn thing and tell me what has been adjusted to fit anti-JW doctorine.

Mormons: I think they take their right to have multiple wives from the Old Testament. In the OT men had multiple wives most likely to care and provide for them. Women back then lived in societies where women were more opressed, and could possibly not provide for themselves. But today women are able to provide for themselves. Here is also a verse (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2:24) that states that a man shall cleave unto his wife, not wives.
In the OT God did a lotta shit, shit that was contradictory to the NT, which is why it's a ridiculous book to follow if you're a mainline Christian. Mormons also have a council, temples build according to the OT, and shit you wouldn't even dream of. I'm in Utah so I can verify.

Lion eats man

Sigs are restrained to mods only most of the time.

First, I would like to say that I am an Atheist.

I was talking to a Christian today, and he said something to someone about God giving people a free will.
So I asked him, "Does God have a plan for everything?". And he answered "Yes". So I asked him how God gave people a free will if he controls the future. And his response was: "How would god know you were a good person if you only do what you're told?" (compared to doing the thing you know is right.

I thought this was a great reply, and would like to see if anyone had a good reply for what he said.

Please no flaming, and i am not a strong atheist, just like talking about things like this, and his reply made me interested.

-Lotsagrapes

I actually don't like his response.

"How would god know you were a good person if you only do what you're told?"

I'll tell you why. God says that there is NONE righteous. In the unbeliever, there is nothing righteous. In our human nature, there is nothing righteous. The only righteous ONE died so that by HIS BLOOD many may be MADE righteous, or put in right standing with God, by the blood of Christ, crying out for JUSTICE. Justice that says, "FATHER, DOES MY BLOOD NOT DESERVE WHAT IT PAID FOR?" We know that the blood of the innocent cry out. JESUS BLOOD cries out for JUSTICE.

I don't care if this make anyone mad, it's the Truth according to the Word of God.
Does God have a plan for everything? Absolutely, but rather or not His plan for your life, is going to have way in your life or not, simply depends on what you believe and with which kingdom you operate in. (I'm not going to go into detail on duel kingdom, unless asked.) According to the Word GOD SAYS, that He isn't WILLING that ANY should perish by ALL should come to repentence. According to His Word, and thereby His will He says that HE SO LOVED THE WORLD.. that HE GAVE His only begotten son that WHOSOEVER BELIEVES in Him would NOT PERISH but HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE.

If it's God's will and desire that none should perish, why aren't we all saved? Because just as we have to operate within the confine of His law to reap the blessings of His Kingdom and His way of doing and being, He too, being the Law, has to govern Himself according to His own nature, and guess what!! It isn't a struggle for God to be who He is. The problem comes in when YOU want to rebell against who God is. GOD wants to BLESS YOU, SAVE YOU, LOVE YOU, AND BE YOUR EVERYTHING. The conflict comes when your will goes against His will for you. There is good and bad. God is good. You CHOOSE.

I don't have children, but when I do, I want my child to want to do what IS right, according to God. In order for my child to want to do what is right according to God, then my child is going to have to know what IS right and what IS wrong, and make a decisive decision based on their knowledge of the Word of God. God has a divine plan, plans to prosper us, and give us hope and a future. See, God really knows you and He knows what you really want and He designed you for the plan He has for you. He knows how to really make you happy. Satan has a plan to stop the plan of God, decieve you, because he's the father of lies, and keep you from knowing the truth.

WHY?!? We must ask this!! WHY. What's the connector!? My friend... WE are. Satan needs you to cooperate with him in order to have his plan working in your life, and it's BAD. God needs you to cooperate with Him, and INVITE HIM in order for His plan to work in YOUR life. Rather or not you cooperate and invite Him in, God spoke it so it's going to happen, if by the prayers of one. God's a gentleman and He'll not invade your life, or come uninvited. He wants you to want Him. SATAN, doesn't want your invitation, but he still needs your permission. (Chew on that.) In the greek, they say shelah, which means, pause and think of that. Satan will force himself upon you, but God gives you the keys to resist satan, and that's faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and what He's done in and for you.

There's a duel kingdom, and this world's system produces the fruit of the ruler of this world's system (satan), but the Kingdom of God operating in the life of a believer produces fruit according to the Will of God.


Read this more than one time if you have to. I'm open to questions. Negative and positive comments don't have effects on me so don't bother with either. I know who I am in Christ and I don't need a mans approval or disapproval, when I have God's seal of redemption and stamp of approval. I love you all.

If your god was omnipotent, why would satan be allowed to exist?

What makes your religion right that the other religions don't have?

I actually don't like his response.



I'll tell you why. God says that there is NONE righteous. In the unbeliever, there is nothing righteous. In our human nature, there is nothing righteous. The only righteous ONE died so that by HIS BLOOD many may be MADE righteous, or put in right standing with God, by the blood of Christ, crying out for JUSTICE. Justice that says, "FATHER, DOES MY BLOOD NOT DESERVE WHAT IT PAID FOR?" We know that the blood of the innocent cry out. JESUS BLOOD cries out for JUSTICE...

...Read this more than one time if you have to. I'm open to questions. Negative and positive comments don't have effects on me so don't bother with either. I know who I am in Christ and I don't need a mans approval or disapproval, when I have God's seal of redemption and stamp of approval. I love you all.

God (the All Knowing,All Powerful,Perfectly Just)creates the heaven and earth and all that reside therein (angels,Satan, etc.)
God creates man and woman (completely perfect, without sin, oblivious to the concept of right and wrong).
God creates a garden in which to place the perfect, innocent couple.
God Places a tree in the garden(with the full knowledge that they will eat the fruit. He's All Knowing, ya know) and commands the man and woman to not eat of the fruit, lest they die.
The serpent(whether Satan or not, was created by God. The same God who knew before creation that the serpent would deceive the woman) convinces the woman( who possessed no concept of good/evil, right/wrong) to eat of the tree. She then shares the fruit with the man.
God punishes the man and woman (who had no understanding of right and wrong until after they ate the fruit) and all future generations, for eating the fruit that He knew(before He created them) they would eat.
Many years pass.
God sends His Son, who is also Him(God), to be sacrificed to Himself, so mankind can be saved from being eternally punished by God...Yep. That sounds like a Just, Loving God to me...

God (the All Knowing,All Powerful,Perfectly Just)creates the heaven and earth and all that reside therein (angels,Satan, etc.)
God creates man and woman (completely perfect, without sin, oblivious to the concept of right and wrong).
God creates a garden in which to place the perfect, innocent couple.
God Places a tree in the garden(with the full knowledge that they will eat the fruit. He's All Knowing, ya know) and commands the man and woman to not eat of the fruit, lest they die.
The serpent(whether Satan or not, was created by God. The same God who knew before creation that the serpent would deceive the woman) convinces the woman( who possessed no concept of good/evil, right/wrong) to eat of the tree. She then shares the fruit with the man.
God punishes the man and woman (who had no understanding of right and wrong until after they ate the fruit) and all future generations, for eating the fruit that He knew(before He created them) they would eat.
Many years pass.
God sends His Son, who is also Him(God), to be sacrificed to Himself, so mankind can be saved from being eternally punished by God...Yep. That sounds like a Just, Loving God to me...

(It's about now some religious person comes up with some metaphorical argument, or just plain says "no, thats not right. You obviously haven't accepted my god into your heart yet. Only then can you truely understand...)

Lol - religious people are funny...

Infallibility? Reverence next to worship, and besides, they treat the Theotokos as a godess in herself. 'Sides, they started the Crusades.

Again, if you read your Bible correctly, you'll find communion is a sacrament and the wine and bread is the literal body and blood of Christ, it's not a metaphor, it doesn't commemorate jack shit, it's the literal body and blood. The only reason Protestants don't believe that is because it's a laughable concept in the first place.

The wine and bread are symbolic, it being the literal body and blood of Christ would be cannibalism, something God condones. 1 Corinthians 11:25 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2011:25;&version=9;), remember is synonymous with commemorate.


I'm sure... Judging from your above post, you were raised Protestant and were indoctrinated to thinking all Catholics were evil
I wasn't raised Protestant, and I don't believe all Catholics are evil.


tell me where it says Communion is metaphorical, tell me where it says Baptism is not required for entrance to the Kingdom of God, tell me you didn't just get this from your Baptist preacher... plz?
Sure, Ephesians 2:8-9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202:8-9;&version=9;), says that salvation is the gift of God, not of works(like baptism). John 3:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:16;&version=9;), says that whoever believes on him will have everlasting life, it doesn't say whosoever believes on him and is baptized will have everlasting life.


Plz explain how this is adjusted... seriously, quote the damn thing and tell me what has been adjusted to fit anti-JW doctrine.

In the OT God did a lotta shit, shit that was contradictory to the NT, which is why it's a ridiculous book to follow if you're a mainline Christian. Mormons also have a council, temples build according to the OT, and shit you wouldn't even dream of. I'm in Utah so I can verify.

The OT was written towards the Jews, most of which contains laws and examples Christians can follow but don't have to. Since Jesus fulfilled the law(OT, mosaic law) the OT does not contradict the NT rather it coincides with it.

There seems to be a misunderstanding between me and you. Initially you said,“the practice of Christianity is far different from the original teachings, and that's the way it is; the Bible says a lot of stuff that people don't follow”. And I agree, that some Christian Denominations and their practices are unbiblical, but you referred to Christianity as a collective group, and the assumption that all Christian denominations have unbiblical practices is not true.


Sigs are restrained to mods only most of the time.

Sorry, I haven't been on TOTSE for a while so I don't know any new rules that might have been implemented since my departure.

Ask him "Why is it right that anyone go to hell?"

The wine and bread are symbolic, it being the literal body and blood of Christ would be cannibalism, something God condones. 1 Corinthians 11:25 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2011:25;&version=9;), remember is synonymous with commemorate.
Depends on translation would be my only rebuttal, remember, the NT isn't perfect, you know what happened the centuries before Gutenberg. I was taught a different version and haven't bothered to look it up since I became atheist, so I'm most likely wrong.

I wasn't raised Protestant, and I don't believe all Catholics are evil.

That's how I interpreted your posts, a bible thumper like you would have to be protestant, which isn't a problem in itself, it's just that you're more prone to radicalism.

Sure, Ephesians 2:8-9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202:8-9;&version=9;), says that salvation is the gift of God, not of works(like baptism). John 3:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:16;&version=9;), says that whoever believes on him will have everlasting life, it doesn't say whosoever believes on him and is baptized will have everlasting life.
Salvation is believing in Jesus, I think we all know that one. :D


The OT was written towards the Jews, most of which contains laws and examples Christians can follow but don't have to. Since Jesus fulfilled the law(OT, mosaic law) the OT does not contradict the NT rather it coincides with it.

No. Not even close.


2) All of the vicious Old Testament laws will be binding forever. "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

3) Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

3b) "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)

3c) "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

4) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)

5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)

6) Jesus has a punishment even worse than his father concerning adultery: God said the act of adultery was punishable by death. Jesus says looking with lust is the same thing and you should gouge your eye out, better a part, than the whole. The punishment under Jesus is an eternity in Hell. (Matthew 5:27)

7) Peter says that all slaves should “be subject to [their] masters with all fear,” to the bad and cruel as well as the “good and gentle.” This is merely an echo of the same slavery commands in the Old Testament. 1 Peter 2:18

8) “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).

9) “...the scripture cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35

For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.

The NT coincides with the OT, not the other way around, it was written around it, hence why the prophecies that the OT makes about the messiah are only fulfilled in one book, otherwise everybody would have written about them (Mark was it?). Have you ever read the OT? The violence would be apalling for a video game (even of American standards) let alone a religious book, would you like me to quote it for you? I won't this time to save space.

There seems to be a misunderstanding between me and you. Initially you said,“the practice of Christianity is far different from the original teachings, and that's the way it is; the Bible says a lot of stuff that people don't follow”. And I agree, that some Christian Denominations and their practices are unbiblical, but you referred to Christianity as a collective group, and the assumption that all Christian denominations have unbiblical practices is not true.
I would say the vast majority of them do.

Sorry, I haven't been on TOTSE for a while so I don't know any new rules that might have been implemented since my departure.

You're forgiven since you're a new arrival, it's more of an unwritten rule.

Depends on translation would be my only rebuttal, remember, the NT isn't perfect, you know what happened the centuries before Gutenberg. I was taught a different version and haven't bothered to look it up since I became atheist, so I'm most likely wrong.

The KJV of 1 Corinthians 11:24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2011:24;&version=9;) is pretty much the same as the NAB version.




That's how I interpreted your posts, a bible thumper like you would have to be protestant, which isn't a problem in itself, it's just that you're more prone to radicalism.

Actually I am protestant, but I wasn't raised protestant.



No. Not even close.


2) All of the vicious Old Testament laws will be binding forever. "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)


3) Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

3b) "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)

3c) "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

4) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)

5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)

6) Jesus has a punishment even worse than his father concerning adultery: God said the act of adultery was punishable by death. Jesus says looking with lust is the same thing and you should gouge your eye out, better a part, than the whole. The punishment under Jesus is an eternity in Hell. (Matthew 5:27)

7) Peter says that all slaves should “be subject to [their] masters with all fear,” to the bad and cruel as well as the “good and gentle.” This is merely an echo of the same slavery commands in the Old Testament. 1 Peter 2:18

8) “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).

9) “...the scripture cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35

For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.


Basically your point in quoting these verses is to show how the OT is to be complied by Christians today. The purpose of the laws of the OT were to give sin the characteristic of defying laws/moral principles/standards because before Moses, people still sinned, but this sin was not put into account because of the absence of the law at the time and people didn't feel guilt(Romans 7:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%207:8;&version=9;)), though this does not necessarily mean that because their sin was not put into account that they were not judged. Because the law demonstrated the sinfulness of man, it condemned leaving only faith to be saved by.The law served, and still serves to demonstrate the truth of man's sinful nature, as Christians we are saved through faith and the grace of God, so we are no longer under the law and it's condemnation. See: Romans 6:14-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%206:14-15;&version=9;). This also does not mean that since we are under grace that we are free to sin(also see: Romans 6:15). Jesus lived a holy life, doing so he fulfilled the law, which is what is meant in Mathew 5:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:17;&version=9;), his death fulfilled the law, but did not abolish it because it still has a purpose like previously stated.


The NT coincides with the OT, not the other way around, it was written around it, hence why the prophecies that the OT makes about the messiah are only fulfilled in one book, otherwise everybody would have written about them (Mark was it?).

Right, the NT coincides with the OT, my point still stands. The law was fulfilled by Christ, and the prophecies were fulfilled.

I'm not sure of what you mean by the second thing you say, about the prophecies of the OT being fulfilled in only one book because there are a few gospel accounts (Matthew, John, Mark, Luke ?).


Have you ever read the OT? The violence would be apalling for a video game (even of American standards) let alone a religious book, would you like me to quote it for you? I won't this time to save space.

I read the OT all the time. By the violence being appalling even for a video game, I'm guessing you refer to the warfare. What of it?

The KJV of 1 Corinthians 11:24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2011:24;&version=9;) is pretty much the same as the NAB version.




Actually I am protestant, but I wasn't raised protestant.
I don't discriminate between different sects; they're all bullshit. But good job for looking ouside of the views you were raised with.



Basically your point in quoting these verses is to show how the OT is to be complied by Christians today. The purpose of the laws of the OT were to give sin the characteristic of defying laws/moral principles/standards because before Moses, people still sinned, but this sin was not put into account because of the absence of the law at the time and people didn't feel guilt(Romans 7:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%207:8;&version=9;)), though this does not necessarily mean that because their sin was not put into account that they were not judged. Because the law demonstrated the sinfulness of man, it condemned leaving only faith to be saved by.The law served, and still serves to demonstrate the truth of man's sinful nature, as Christians we are saved through faith and the grace of God, so we are no longer under the law and it's condemnation. See: Romans 6:14-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%206:14-15;&version=9;). This also does not mean that since we are under grace that we are free to sin(also see: Romans 6:15). Jesus lived a holy life, doing so he fulfilled the law, which is what is meant in Mathew 5:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:17;&version=9;), his death fulfilled the law, but did not abolish it because it still has a purpose like previously stated.

So you have what, one quote that says the law doesn't stand, while I have 9. If you imitate Christ and he fulfilled the law, shouldn't you as well?

Right, the NT coincides with the OT, my point still stands. The law was fulfilled by Christ, and the prophecies were fulfilled.

I'm not sure of what you mean by the second thing you say, about the prophecies of the OT being fulfilled in only one book because there are a few gospel accounts (Matthew, John, Mark, Luke ?).

Prophecies were only fulfilled in ONE gospel. That's a big part of the book I recommended. I don't know what you mean by the law was fulfilled and the implications that has, would it mean that after Jesus the OT doesn't apply (except as a creation story)?

I know the argument, all accounts are just different sides of the story, but why does one say one thing and a different one say nothing about it. If Jesus was adored by kings as a child isn't that valuable enough to be mentioned in more than one gospel?

I read the OT all the time. By the violence being appalling even for a video game, I'm guessing you refer to the warfare. What of it?
Good. You actually read your holy book and believe it, I find that hard to do, but if you can justify your own views, more power to you. As for violence (not war, general violence), you asked for it...
(taken from evilbible.com)
Never mind, I used 150k characters out of a max of 12k (that should tell you something), I'll let you go to the site, my favorite is http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

If you imitate Christ and he fulfilled the law, shouldn't you as well?

Funny.


Prophecies were only fulfilled in ONE gospel. That's a big part of the book I recommended.

Not sure of what you're saying...:confused:


I don't know what you mean by the law was fulfilled and the implications that has, would it mean that after Jesus the OT doesn't apply (except as a creation story)?

The law was fulfilled by Christ, but not destroyed, this is in one of the verses you quoted. (maybe you should read before you copy & paste) To clear up some possible confusion, the law is given in the OT, the law is not the OT.


why does one say one thing and a different one say nothing about it.

because...


all accounts are just different sides of the story

And together they complete it.


As for violence (not war, general violence), you asked for it...
(taken from evilbible.com)
Never mind, I used 150k characters out of a max of 12k (that should tell you something), I'll let you go to the site, my favorite is http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

You shouldn't lump all violence into one category.

So people who broke the law were punished (not all violence mentioned there is because of that, hence you shouldn't lump all violence into one category) The punishments weren't even needed if the believer had an authentic relationship with God. BTW a lot (if not all) of the content in that site takes verses out of context.

Funny.

No I was serious, Christ fulfills the law, he LIVED by it, shouldn't you as well, yeah they're "guidelines", but that's not what Jesus said, and he didn't treat them as guidelines, and the verses that say that he did were doctored by anti-semites (another part of the book that I recommended)

Not sure of what you're saying...:confused:

There were many OT prophecies about the messiah. They were only fulfilled in one gospel, I'm pretty sure it was Mark, but I could be wrong.

The law was fulfilled by Christ, but not destroyed, this is in one of the verses you quoted. (maybe you should read before you copy & paste) To clear up some possible confusion, the law is given in the OT, the law is not the OT.
I wanted you to specify what you meant and if it was different ffrom what I thought. If it's not destroyed, naturally it should be followed. By "the law", you do mean all the directions of the OT, right? Don't tell me it just means the commandments, cause we all know that's crap.

because...


And together they complete it.

I know the argument, that's why I included it, perhaps I wasn't clear, I wanted you to explain to me why the stories are so radically different, if Christ was adored by kings, isn't that important enough to be included in more than 1 gospel?

You shouldn't lump all violence into one category.

So people who broke the law were punished (not all violence mentioned there is because of that, hence you shouldn't lump all violence into one category) The punishments weren't even needed if the believer had an authentic relationship with God. BTW a lot (if not all) of the content in that site takes verses out of context.

That should only serve to say how important it is to follow the law, but again, it depends on the definition of law, which I interpret as "any command that comes from the OT". So if I don't have an authentic relationship with God I deserve to be eaten by lions? Guess so. Did you read most of those? I'll tell you my favorite section was "God kills for stupid reasons" or something along those lines. I loved how when the man refused to strike the prophet after he commanded him, that God sent down lions to eat him. I don't even react with violence when it is projected at me, but this man, attempting to be peaceful (a theme emphasized in the NT) refused to strike his prophet, and was punished for it. Would you strike your father if he asked you to? If God asked you to? I wouldn't even if I was Christian, not because of the law, but because of my own personal morals, and you can quote the NT all you want, the OT is the law, and Christ told his followers that "till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished." There's really no other way, you have to follow the OT exactly.

Christ fulfills the law, he LIVED by it, shouldn't you as well

We don't have to live by it because:
1.)The only purpose of the law was to demonstrate the sinfulness of man, to condemn, which would leave only faith for the Jews and gentiles to be saved by. Galatians 3:19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203:19;&version=9;), Galatians 3:23-25 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203:23-25;&version=9;).
2.)Since Christ came and fulfilled the law by living by it, we are no longer under the condemnation of the law once we put our faith in Jesus. Galatians 3:25 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203:25;&version=9;)
3.)What enabled Him to do this was that He was fully God. We can't replicate this.



There were many OT prophecies about the messiah. They were only fulfilled in one gospel, I'm pretty sure it was Mark, but I could be wrong.

Tell me the prophecies which were only fulfilled in Mark.


If it's not destroyed, naturally it should be followed.


1.)The law was strict, no one was capable of following all of it. If they disobeyed even one, they were guilty of all.
2.)Christ fulfilled the prophetic demands of the law, which was to follow it completely.
3.)By doing so He lifted the curse, or the condemnation, which it gave to all those that believe in Him. Galatians 3:10-13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203:10-13;&version=9;)
4.)Note that I said those that believe in Him, because anyone that doesn't believe in Him is condemned.
5.)This is what is meant by the Law being fulfilled but not destroyed. It still condemns people, but since its demands were fulfilled, the condemnation is lifted when they believe on Jesus.


By "the law", you do mean all the directions of the OT, right? Don't tell me it just means the commandments, cause we all know that's crap.

By the law I mean the Mosaic law, which includes the commandments and hundreds of other directions.

I know the argument, that's why I included it, perhaps I wasn't clear, I wanted you to explain to me why the stories are so radically different, if Christ was adored by kings, isn't that important enough to be included in more than 1 gospel?

Are you talking about the wise men? I'm not sure what kings you mean. But I do recall a certain king who wanted Him dead.


So if I don't have an authentic relationship with God I deserve to be eaten by lions?

I was referring to the people in those times in relation to God's ordinances.


I loved how when the man refused to strike the prophet after he commanded him, that God sent down lions to eat him. I don't even react with violence when it is projected at me, but this man, attempting to be peaceful (a theme emphasized in the NT) refused to strike his prophet, and was punished for it.
I think this is a parable which was used to teach Ahab the severity of sin/disobedience. The man who refused to strike the prophet, disobeyed God. God's intention for having someone smite the prophet was so that he could look wounded as in battle, and be able to speak to the king.

God has a plan for what he's gonna do. he doesn't control anyone, it's just that he already knows what everyone else is going to do.

We don't have to live by it because:
1.)The only purpose of the law was to demonstrate the sinfulness of man, to condemn, which would leave only faith for the Jews and gentiles to be saved by. Galatians 3:19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203:19;&version=9;), Galatians 3:23-25 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203:23-25;&version=9;).
2.)Since Christ came and fulfilled the law by living by it, we are no longer under the condemnation of the law once we put our faith in Jesus. Galatians 3:25 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203:25;&version=9;)
3.)What enabled Him to do this was that He was fully God. We can't replicate this.

1. Don't you think that by quoting galatians you give a different interpretation to the text? Did Paul (or Peter, I can't tell them apart) interpret it fairly because he was a man of God? Did the law itself claim that its only purpose was to "demonstrate the sinfulness of man"? It would be like me quoting a dead author about the implications of his/her book, and claiming that the entire purpose of this book was this implication. Does the OT say its purpose is what it says it is? If so, you've got me on this one.
2. Interesting, I read that chapter and I came up with a different quote... Galatians 3:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203:21;&version=9;) Yes the law should be followed, and while Peter (Paul?) said that we were no longer under a schoolmaster, did Jesus? The only thing you have for that is when you quoted Matthew earlier, and there is varying defenitions to fulfill, perhaps Jesus merely fulfilled the prophecies and left the law intact so that people could follow it as well. So once we put our faith in somebody who has followed the law perfectly, we are no longer bound by that law? Think of American society living by that rule.
3. Fully God, lol. Have you heard of Schrodinger's cat? It offers an interesting analogy to this; the cat can't be 100% dead while also being 100% alive, much like neither I nor Jesus can be 100% human and 100% divine.

Tell me the prophecies which were only fulfilled in Mark.
They're part of that book, I can't name them off the top of my head.


1.)The law was strict, no one was capable of following all of it. If they disobeyed even one, they were guilty of all.
2.)Christ fulfilled the prophetic demands of the law, which was to follow it completely.
3.)By doing so He lifted the curse, or the condemnation, which it gave to all those that believe in Him. Galatians 3:10-13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203:10-13;&version=9;)
4.)Note that I said those that believe in Him, because anyone that doesn't believe in Him is condemned.
5.)This is what is meant by the Law being fulfilled but not destroyed. It still condemns people, but since its demands were fulfilled, the condemnation is lifted when they believe on Jesus.

1. Moses did. I'm sure there were Jewish priests that did so as well.
2. Where does it say that somebody else didn't follow it perfectly? How can we know? Why don't we believe in that person instead of Christ?
3. That's convenient. Believe in me and you can do whatever on Sundays, you can fornicate, swear, commit adultery, lie, cheat, murder... aren't all these important parts of the law? Shouldn't they be followed as well? If I was a messiah that taught a moral code, why would I be lax on my people? Especially since the Kingdom of God has to be sinless anyway (I'm sure there's a quote on that one).
4. That's part of all religions. Don't believe in me and you are condemned, there's an obvious reason for that.
5. Where do you get this defenition of fulfilled? Refer to the last part of argument 2 (not in this section, in the first one).
By the law I mean the Mosaic law, which includes the commandments and hundreds of other directions.
Glad that's cleared up.

Are you talking about the wise men? I'm not sure what kings you mean. But I do recall a certain king who wanted Him dead.
Wise men and kings are interpreted differently, and there are definitely some manuscript variations. Yes I was referring to the wise men, but there are Biblical scholars who think the defenition means kings.

I was referring to the people in those times in relation to God's ordinances.
What?

I think this is a parable which was used to teach Ahab the severity of sin/disobedience. The man who refused to strike the prophet, disobeyed God. God's intention for having someone smite the prophet was so that he could look wounded as in battle, and be able to speak to the king.
Would you personally support killing for such reasons? Answer my other questions please, this seems like a stupid reason to kills somebody by anybody's defenition. I'm sure glad God doesn't kill me every time I sin against His holy men.:rolleyes: Speaking of which, why doesn't he do that anymore? Could it be because God is violent in the OT and benevolent in the NT? Could they be talking about different Gods perhaps?:eek:

Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, and Quetzocoatl all have a plans for what they're gonna do. they don't control anyone, it's just that they already knows what everyone else is going to do.

Fixed

1.Don't you think that by quoting galatians you give a different interpretation to the text?

How am I giving Galatians a different interpretation by quoting it? Tell me.
I am providing a link to the text so you can see for yourself that I am not making all this up


Did Paul (or Peter, I can't tell them apart) interpret it fairly because he was a man of God?

Paul the apostle wrote Galatians. I don't know what text you're referring to as interpreted, if it is Galatians, then you're being irrational. Surely the author would know the meaning and/or intention of his writings.


Did the law itself claim that its only purpose was to "demonstrate the sinfulness of man"?

Not that I know of.

To clear things up “the law” are the commandments given in the first five books of the OT.


Does the OT say its purpose is what it says it is?

You're question is unclear.



2.Interesting, I read that chapter and I came up with a different quote... Galatians 3:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203:21;&version=9;) Yes the law should be followed,

How does this verse say that the law should be followed?


and while Peter (Paul?) said that we were no longer under a schoolmaster, did Jesus?

Jesus doesn't have to had said it as well. I recall that you said:


Jesus told us to listen to him and his apostles, not people centuries later (unless of course it's the Second Coming)




3.The only thing you have for that is when you quoted Matthew earlier, and there is varying defenitions to fulfill, perhaps Jesus merely fulfilled the prophecies and left the law intact so that people could follow it as well. So once we put our faith in somebody who has followed the law perfectly, we are no longer bound by that law? Think of American society living by that rule.

It seems that you ignored what I previously said in one of my posts.


This also does not mean that since we are under grace that we are free to sin(also see: Romans 6:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%206:15;&version=9;)).



3.Fully God, lol. Have you heard of Schrodinger's cat? It offers an interesting analogy to this; the cat can't be 100% dead while also being 100% alive, much like neither I nor Jesus can be 100% human and 100% divine.

I have yet to learn about quantum mechanics/physics so I can't comment on that.

They're part of that book, I can't name them off the top of my head.

You mean they're in the book. If you mean his death and resurrection, these are both recorded in all of the gospel accounts.


1. Moses did. I'm sure there were Jewish priests that did so as well.
2.Where does it say that somebody else didn't follow it perfectly? How can we know? Why don't we believe in that person instead of Christ?

Actually you're right, Moses did follow the law. But Moses was born with a sin nature, he's imperfect. Christ was not. Moses was a prophet, Christ was the Messiah.


3.That's convenient. Believe in me and you can do whatever on Sundays, you can fornicate, swear, commit adultery, lie, cheat, murder... aren't all these important parts of the law?
Shouldn't they be followed as well? If I was a messiah that taught a moral code, why would I be lax on my people? Especially since the Kingdom of God has to be sinless anyway (I'm sure there's a quote on that one)

Romans 6:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%206:15;&version=9;)


5.Where do you get this defenition of fulfilled? Refer to the last part of argument 2 (not in this section, in the first one).


You mean this one right?


Right, the NT coincides with the OT, my point still stands. The law was fulfilled by Christ, and the prophecies were fulfilled.


By dying on the cross, Jesus brought the law to an end (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fulfill).


Wise men and kings are interpreted differently, and there are definitely some manuscript variations. Yes I was referring to the wise men, but there are Biblical scholars who think the defenition means kings.

Ok, gotcha. Consider the gospel of Mark, it does not start off with a lineage of Jesus like Matthew because in it, it portrays Jesus as a servant (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2010:45;&version=9;), whilst in Matthew as one who inherits the throne of David, born in Bethlehem (here's one of the OT prophecies for you which was fulfilled outside the gospel of Mark (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Micah%205:2;&version=9;)). Since the theme of this book is to portray Jesus as a servant, it begins when Jesus starts to serve, hence the wisemen and lineage aren't recorded..


What?

See below.


Would you personally support killing for such reasons? Answer my other questions please, this seems like a stupid reason to kills somebody by anybody's defenition. I'm sure glad God doesn't kill me every time I sin against His holy men.:rolleyes: Speaking of which, why doesn't he do that anymore? Could it be because God is violent in the OT and benevolent in the NT? Could they be talking about different Gods perhaps?:eek:

1.)God's intention for the Prophet being smitten was so the Prophet could speak to the king.
2.)By refusing to smite him, he did not sin against the prophet, but to God.
3.)The command was simple. The punishment could have been avoided completely if the man just hit him. This is what I meant before, if the people of that time simply obeyed God, the punishments which seem harsh to us today wouldn't have even been neccesary.
4.)Who am I to determine what kind of judgment God should execute?
5.)The God of the OT and NT are the same God:
a.) God was merciful in the OT as he was in the NT. Exodus 34:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2034:6;&version=9;)
b.) God punished the Israelites many times in the OT, this only demonstrates his love because like a Father He punishes his children out of love not spite.Hebrews 12:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+12:6), there is also a verse similar to this in the OT but I can't find it right now.

It seems we have gone off on a tangent. I believe I answered your original questions, but you keep asking new questions maybe you should make a new thread or drop the subject completely. The OP must be pissed.

I think it's a rather interesting and productive argument from one of the most intelligent Christians I have ever had the pleasure of debating. If the OP was pissed he'd have piped up by now.
But if you don't want me to respond, I won't. Oh, and when I said that book, I meant the book that I had recommended in another post, "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman (title different outside North America).

As for a new thread, I think there would be people interested in reading this, especially since rational discourse on scripture is so rare, since most people prefer to attack the concept/nature of God (as do I, but given my Christian background, I'm relatively familiar with the Gospels).

Would you like to post a new thread on this beginning with the one you had that started out as: "The wine and bread are symbolic", and we can repost our arguments from there until it comes back to me and I respond to your previous post? Oh, and if you do decide to do this, be sure you include a clause that only allows scriptural arguments to keep with the tone of the debate, since any atheist can debate any Christian on the idea of God, but it takes an educated skeptic to debate scripture :D.

So new thread or dropping the subject?

I think it's a rather interesting and productive argument from one of the most intelligent Christians I have ever had the pleasure of debating. If the OP was pissed he'd have piped up by now.
But if you don't want me to respond, I won't. Oh, and when I said that book, I meant the book that I had recommended in another post, "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman (title different outside North America).

As for a new thread, I think there would be people interested in reading this, especially since rational discourse on scripture is so rare, since most people prefer to attack the concept/nature of God (as do I, but given my Christian background, I'm relatively familiar with the Gospels).

Would you like to post a new thread on this beginning with the one you had that started out as: "The wine and bread are symbolic", and we can repost our arguments from there until it comes back to me and I respond to your previous post? Oh, and if you do decide to do this, be sure you include a clause that only allows scriptural arguments to keep with the tone of the debate, since any atheist can debate any Christian on the idea of God, but it takes an educated skeptic to debate scripture :D.

So new thread or dropping the subject?
Sure you can make that thread.

Meh, maybe later, busy right now.

I have just adopted you as my noob for 2007, enjoy, and post there for more details if desired.
http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?p=8479433#post8479433
Post 203

If God was really omniscient he would already know your actions before you did them, so he could already form an opinion on whether they were "good" or "bad".

If God was really omniscient he would already know your actions before you did them, so he could already form an opinion on whether they were "good" or "bad".

It really took you that long? Get off my totse.:mad:

If god created man, he created man.
Which must mean, that god created both good and evil men.

God are sending the evil people to hell, to suffer for all eternity.
God are sending the good people to heaven, the best place in the universe.

Someone, please, explain why the fuck he created some men to be evil, and then when they died, tortured them for eternity. That seems kinda... Sadistic.

unless you believe in zaroastianism, you shoulnd't believe in hell really...hell was created by zaroaster or w/e, and was adopted into judiasm 300 years before jesus was born, and jesus used hell as an example of what eternal life would be like without God, read my my religion post and you'll then begin to understand everything...really...
and btw, you'll find hell varying in the way its described in certian times and in certian places, in russia, when christianity hit them, and they heard about hell, they thought about it as a place to freeze, seeing how its naturally super cold, they couldnt imagine a colder place, and since zaroaster and jesus were both in the middle east, how could a place get any hotter? therfore making hell just basically suck.
jesus never claimed you would go to hell, he uses it in compares it of a life w/o God.