I been thinking about some stuff lately.

Most people claim to be Christians, but are they really?

It seems the majority of people I talk to (age<25) don't pray, haven't read the bible, only went to Sunday school because their parents forced them, and don't go to church anymore (except maybe easter or Christmas).

Yet they claim to be Christians, probably because thats how they were raised.

If they were Christians, shouldn't they be happy when their grandparents (or anyone) dies? I mean, if they honestly believed that they are moving from an old withered sore body to an eternity of pure bliss, shouldn't they be happy for them? Why cry at funnels? Why not bring a keg and throw a celebration party?

Being a Christian and crying at a funeral are two conflicting acts.

------

The other one I though of was gays.

Most people I know don't think there is anything wrong with being gay.

Bible says its your duty to stone gays to death
If you think its ok to be gay and not kill them on sight, then you're going against god's will.
If you go against god, you go to hell

So a Christian must believe at least one of the following things:
They are going to hell
It is wrong to be gay
The bible is wrong

How many Christians do you know that don't believe any of those things? It doesn't make any sense. They HAVE to pick one.

Here is another one
The bible says any women who isn't a virgin when she's married should be put to death.
Same thing as above, if you don't believe that, you go to hell.

So my (Christian) girlfriend's parents must believe one of the following:
Their daughter should be killed right away
They are going to hell
The bible is wrong

In response to situations like these, people make up excuses. Such as "the bible wasn't meant to be taken literally" or they simply ignore that part.

But it doesn't work like that.
Its an all or nothing deal.
You believe all of the bible, non of the bible, or you make up your own little sect of Christianity which picks and chooses from whatever parts you feel like.

That brings me to my next point. People make up shit randomly and start believing it. "I follow the bible, but the part about killing my daughter doesn't count"

ok....says who? You just made that up, just now, because its convenient. You want to make up random shit and start believing it, fine. But at least admit thats what you're doing.

Then there are Christians who believe in lucky charms, astrology, have superstitions, ect.

</rant>

So, input?

What I really want is someone to prove me wrong about the gay/virgin thing.

I think its a pretty good argument while debating a Christian.

You believe your daughter should be killed, that you are going to hell, or that the bible is wrong. Pick one

I think most people would just end it right there and resort to name calling, ect.

But if there is an intelligent retort, I would like to know it before I use this in an argument and end up looking like an idiot.

Bible says its your duty to stone gays to death
If you think its ok to be gay and not kill them on sight, then you're going against god's will.
If you go against god, you go to hell


The bible also says to stone misbehaving children to death.

There are so many conflicting ideas and straight contradictions in the bible I can't even wrap my head around them.

Christians, especially these days, seem to get to pick and choose what parts of the bible to follow and which parts to disregard. Which is another totally contradiction of the entire religion.

The more and more I look into this shit the more I loose respect for people who claim to be Christian.

Why argue with them? Why do you care so much that you plan out what you are going to argue before such a situation even presents itself?

Why don't you just ... not care?

I wouldn't care if it wasn't taking over fucking everything.

I wouldn't care if it wasn't taking over fucking everything.

Bitching won't change that.

Bitching won't change that.

Convincing others that Christianity is a pile shit will

Convincing others that Christianity is a pile shit will

Thats not solving this problem, its changing it to another one.

If they were Christians, shouldn't they be happy when their grandparents (or anyone) dies? I mean, if they honestly believed that they are moving from an old withered sore body to an eternity of pure bliss, shouldn't they be happy for them? Why cry at funnels? Why not bring a keg and throw a celebration party?

Yeah...expect people to follow their beliefs to perfection...that won't drive you insane and destroy your faith in humanity...

Bible says its your duty to stone gays to death

No, it doesn't. Anyone that takes the time to read the Bible would know well that the duties of judgment and punishment were abolished with Christ. Let's look at the end of man's duty to punish man:

This they said, tempting Him, that they might have to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down, and with His finger wrote on the ground, as though He heard them not. So when they continued asking Him, He lifted up Himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again He stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

Let's also look at the end of man's duty to judge man:

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

And another on the treatment of those you do choose to judge:

Whatever you do to the least of my brethren, you do to me.

Edit: You'll never understand Christianity in the slightest until you understand that we believe Christ to be the Messiah. That is, the greatest and most godly of the prophets in the form of God Itself, here to show us God's Grace and how to give what we've freely been given.

So things like:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

no longer apply?

We should tear those pages out?

It's not that it doesn't apply, it's that the judgment of others and the execution of their punishments have already been paid for. In the New Testament it is said that Christ's blood paid for all sins, no matter how terrible man thinks they are.

In my faith, God has forgiven me all my transgressions. In this gift, I am to do the same for all those who have transgressed against me. Do I get angry? Definitely. I try not to hold on to that anger though...I try my best to forgive with haste as to not cloud the Light in my life.

The bible also says to stone misbehaving children to death.

There are so many conflicting ideas and straight contradictions in the bible I can't even wrap my head around them.

Christians, especially these days, seem to get to pick and choose what parts of the bible to follow and which parts to disregard. Which is another totally contradiction of the entire religion.

The more and more I look into this shit the more I loose respect for people who claim to be Christian.

This, except with all religions, not just Christianity.

Thats not solving this problem, its changing it to another one.

Not really. Being aware that Christianity is a steaming pile is the first step. Spreading awareness is really the only thing we can do at this point.

So the same people who constantly chastise Christians about the bible by saying it was written years after Jesus died (new testament of course), it was not actually written by god etc, actually find fault that Christians don't follow the bible word for word.

Inconsistency goes both ways people

So the same people who constantly chastise Christians about the bible by saying it was written years after Jesus died (new testament of course), it was not actually written by god etc, actually find fault that Christians don't follow the bible word for word.

Those people criticizing the former aren't the ones doing the latter and claiming that it's the supreme truth of the world.

Those are two different, mutually consistent arguments.

Those people criticizing the former aren't the ones doing the latter and claiming that it's the supreme truth of the world.

Those are two different, mutually consistent arguments.

What is the difference between the OP making this thread criticizing Christian belief and a Christian arguing that his or her beliefs are true. I'm sorry I really don't see to big of a difference

And my original post also refers to this countless amount of people on this site who throw random insults at people whom follow a religion

What is the difference between the OP making this thread criticizing Christian belief and a Christian arguing that his or her beliefs are true.

One is disinterested and can view the matter objectively outside the context of already being indoctrinated into it while the other has an obligation to adhere to religious tenets, irrespective of their veracity.

That's how religions work and why they emphasize belief in a preconcluded worldview not subject to falsification or modification amidst new information.

That's why any firm religious convictions of any kind are inefficient. They are unable to cope with new (often times conflicting /contrary) information.

One is disinterested and can view the matter objectively outside the context of already being indoctrinated into it while the other has an obligation to adhere to religious tenets, irrespective of their veracity.

That's how religions work and why they emphasize belief in a preconcluded worldview not subject to falsification or modification amidst new information.

That's why any firm religious convictions of any kind are inefficient. They are unable to cope with new (often times conflicting /contrary) information.

Yes, but I'm referring to the people who because of what the OP said about the inconsistency, will simply say Christians are retarded for not following it word for word, or something of the sort. While, on the other hand, they talk about all the holes in the bible.

I understand what you are saying I truly do, and I don't want to get into my own beliefs because I feel that is besides the point in this argument. All I am saying is some of the people who blast Christianity are guilty of the very same things they criticize Christians for

I'm only in here to cause a shit storm because apparently there isn't one person on this entire fucking site (Christians/theists/people that don't bitch at Christians aside) that understands the entire simplicity of "The Pentateuch, consisting of the first five books of the Old Testament, where you find most of this destruction and death towards other, is HEBEW LAW.

These strict rules apply to the Jewish community ONLY. Considering that Christianity was spread to the Gentiles, which aren't Jewish, you could be certain to know that Hebrew law doesn't apply to Christians. We're not exactly Jewish. We're Christians. It's in the Old Testament because it explains the history of God's Chosen people. Since slavery doesn't exist in America anymore should we take the history of it away and pretend it never happened?

As said earlier, The Christ child's birth, death, and ressurection has made the blood of christ a figurative veil over the sins of one another. We no longer are authorised to take the life of another.

Another thing... When Christ says "The greatest commandments are to Love God and Love others" he is basically condensing the 10 commandments into 2 commandments. The first four consist of "Love God", the last 6 consist of "Love others".

If people would just understand that the Books of Hebrew Law apply to Hebrews and not gentiles then maybe you wouldn't make these lame ass threads where you go "Oh so I'm not a Christian... but I've been burning wood... I mean thinking... and I've decided that I can use my lack of understanding + logic to create contradictions that pose a problem and look trendy and cool". But then you wouldn't have any fun and no one would give a shit about your sad sorry meaningless existence you chose to bear because you've decided you're smart enough to make assumptions about things without actually looking into them.

Most people claim to be Christians, but are they really?

It seems the majority of people I talk to (age<25) don't pray, haven't read the bible, only went to Sunday school because their parents forced them, and don't go to church anymore (except maybe easter or Christmas). Yet they claim to be Christians, probably because thats how they were raised.

If they were Christians, shouldn't they be happy when their grandparents (or anyone) dies? I mean, if they honestly believed that they are moving from an old withered sore body to an eternity of pure bliss, shouldn't they be happy for them? Why cry at funnels? Why not bring a keg and throw a celebration party?

Being a Christian and crying at a funeral are two conflicting acts.

------

The other one I though of was gays.

Most people I know don't think there is anything wrong with being gay.

Bible says its your duty to stone gays to death
If you think its ok to be gay and not kill them on sight, then you're going against god's will.
If you go against god, you go to hell

So a Christian must believe at least one of the following things:
They are going to hell
It is wrong to be gay
The bible is wrong

How many Christians do you know that don't believe any of those things? It doesn't make any sense. They HAVE to pick one.

Here is another one
The bible says any women who isn't a virgin when she's married should be put to death.
Same thing as above, if you don't believe that, you go to hell.

So my (Christian) girlfriend's parents must believe one of the following:
Their daughter should be killed right away
They are going to hell
The bible is wrong

In response to situations like these, people make up excuses. Such as "the bible wasn't meant to be taken literally" or they simply ignore that part.

But it doesn't work like that.
Its an all or nothing deal.
You believe all of the bible, non of the bible, or you make up your own little sect of Christianity which picks and chooses from whatever parts you feel like.

That brings me to my next point. People make up shit randomly and start believing it. "I follow the bible, but the part about killing my daughter doesn't count"

ok....says who? You just made that up, just now, because its convenient. You want to make up random shit and start believing it, fine. But at least admit thats what you're doing.

Then there are Christians who believe in lucky charms, astrology, have superstitions, ect.

</rant>

So, input?

What I really want is someone to prove me wrong about the gay/virgin thing.

I think its a pretty good argument while debating a Christian.

You believe your daughter should be killed, that you are going to hell, or that the bible is wrong. Pick one

I think most people would just end it right there and resort to name calling, ect.

But if there is an intelligent retort, I would like to know it before I use this in an argument and end up looking like an idiot.

Throughout this argument of yours you bring compelling evidence, that the bible is wrong... However, is it wrong or is it perhaps missing pieces to the book? Its flawed, anything made and produced by man is flawed... It can be corrupted. Thats why I dont just look to The Bible for all my answers, its a main book yes but not the absolute book.

They call themselves Christians thinking they just need to believe and everything will be a'ight, its not like that, to accept Christ you need mimic his life.. Not saying to Crucify yourself or feed the masses with two loaves and fishes either, I am just saying embody the Christ Archetype.

------------------------------------------------
As For The Funeral:

Your sad b/c their not in your life anymore, sure you believe you will see them again but that does not mean you cant morn over it, its part of the grieving process, regardless of beliefs.

I am not going to say the Bible is Perfect! Its contradictions are maddening but it makes for good meditation over what is being said and what you think is being said, part of the reason why I call myself a Gnostic Christian is because of that reason that:

God is Love, Love knows no jealousy, yet God is a Jealous god... So there for the one who is jealous is not God but something else that was created, something between me and god.

---------------------------------
The Gays and Teens:

Even in the instances you provide there is contradiction, Love one another or kill gays/rebellious teens... pretty extreme. Christian by definition means the following of Christ teachings so therefore Love on another is the choice. Evangelist in particular and Puritanical Pastors are the guys who pull from the idea that "Your worth shit in god's eyes and he hates you for your stupid sins and the sin of adam, yet he loves you as the piece of shit you are!" The other reason why I became Gnostic Christian.

Your logical argument however, that you think is unstoppable is by its own nature a fallacy, which one? False Dilemma: A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning":

1. Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
2. Claim Y is false.
3. Therefore claim X is true.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because if both claims could be false, then it cannot be inferred that one is true because the other is false.

-------------------------------------
Conclusion

I wouldnt say the Bible is WRONG! But its not RIGHT either... I would say it is missing a few pieces, as for any religious text you never take it literally unless you like fundamentalism. I didnt create my own sect of Christianity being that the Gnostics have been around longer than the Christians, yet the Gnostics who believe in Christ consider themselves Christians.

It's not maddening.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all written by four very different individuals and it was their own personal recollections. That right there takes away maybe 2/3rds of what people call contradictions. Show four people from four different walks of life the same 47 car pile-up from different angles and different understandings. They'll all have the same general message "Shit got fucked up in a 47 car pile up" but they'll all tell differing accounts and remember things differently.

It's not maddening.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all written by four very different individuals and it was their own personal recollections. That right there takes away maybe 2/3rds of what people call contradictions. Show four people from four different walks of life the same 47 car pile-up from different angles and different understandings. They'll all have the same general message "Shit got fucked up in a 47 car pile up" but they'll all tell differing accounts and remember things differently.

Not if all their accounts are being transmitted by the perfect, unchanging word of their perfect, unchanging god. Then, it would seem, they should all line up perfectly.

Furthermore, you may be right that xxx only applies to Jewish people, but the same principles apply. How many "Jewish" people would actually accept stoning gays or any of the other abominable acts commanded by their god?

Your logical argument however, that you think is unstoppable is by its own nature a fallacy, which one? False Dilemma: A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning":

1. Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
2. Claim Y is false.
3. Therefore claim X is true.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because if both claims could be false, then it cannot be inferred that one is true because the other is false.

.

It's only worthy to be considered a fallacy if you can show that both COULD be false within the parameters. In this case, it seems clear that, within the parameters of the bible, they could not both be false at the same time.

That is:
Being gay is perfectly okay
AND
The bible is correct

Using the scope of the bible, this does not seem plausible, given the supposed infallibility factor of the bible.

It's like saying, I didn't Jimmy the other day, but:
Jimmy is either alive
or
Jimmy is dead

This is not a FD fallacy either, because they can't possibly both be false, by definition. The same I believe to be true of the former example.

Not if all their accounts are being transmitted by the perfect, unchanging word of their perfect, unchanging god. Then, it would seem, they should all line up perfectly.

Furthermore, you may be right that xxx only applies to Jewish people, but the same principles apply. How many "Jewish" people would actually accept stoning gays or any of the other abominable acts commanded by their god?

Uhm... read the Talmud... alot of the religious zealots would definitely still stone adulterers and homosexuals. That was their law. That is still their law. Aside from the Messianic jews, Hebrew sects don't recognize Jesus as The Messiah. Essenes, Pharisees, and Saducees all believe their messiah is not yet here, hence they still go by the OT Law. It is their book of Law. They use the Talmud commentary also.

And NO ONE EVER SAID God wrote the Bible. Anyone that says God wrote the bible is an idiot. The Bible was Divinely inspired. Divine Inspiration =/= God's direct words. Fallible humans wrote the Bible AND many different walks of life which experienced life in many different ways wrote the Bible. If you think for one minute that Person A (Tax Collector) and Person B (Fisherman) saw life the same way then you're better off never speaking ever again. They show the different ideals and values throughout the different writers. John was the closest person to Christ. His account will be much different than those around him. Again, not to call you out, but if you think Christians that actually understand their religion believe that God Himself wrote word for word the New Testament and dictated it verbatim to the disciples +apostles then you're off your rocker.

Those people criticizing the former aren't the ones doing the latter and claiming that it's the supreme truth of the world.

Those are two different, mutually consistent arguments.

You will never once see me proclaim the Bible as the Supreme Truth. The Bible is not god, God is god.

It's only worthy to be considered a fallacy if you can show that both COULD be false within the parameters. In this case, it seems clear that, within the parameters of the bible, they could not both be false at the same time.

That is:
Being gay is perfectly okay
AND
The bible is correct

Using the scope of the bible, this does not seem plausible, given the supposed infallibility factor of the bible.

It's like saying, I didn't Jimmy the other day, but:
Jimmy is either alive
or
Jimmy is dead

This is not a FD fallacy either, because they can't possibly both be false, by definition. The same I believe to be true of the former example.

Kiko, it's not a matter of whether being gay is okay or not...it's that Christ says I am not to judge others, nor am I to punish them unless I am innocent from sin, which I am certainly not. I am to love and accept people as they are, not as I wish them to be, because God loves and accepts me as I am, have been, and will be.

You will never once see me proclaim the Bible as the Supreme Truth. The Bible is not god, God is god.

Define God for us, if you will.

There are so many conflicting opinions and schools of thought as to what constitute gods/a god that it helps to clarify what we're talking about.

Kiko, it's not a matter of whether being gay is okay or not...it's that Christ says I am not to judge others, nor am I to punish them unless I am innocent from sin, which I am certainly not. I am to love and accept people as they are, not as I wish them to be, because God loves and accepts me as I am, have been, and will be.

Technically Christ was free of sin...

He had the right to cast the first stone at the adulterer the Pharisees brought in while he was teaching, but he was showing that mercy, grace, and love are the biggest things in life now that he had come to take the fall.

Define God for us, if you will.

There are so many conflicting opinions and schools of thought as to what constitute gods/a god that it hels to clarify what we're talking about.

Reality. (To clarify, that which exists independent of observation, perception, opinion, and ideals yet allows observations, perceptions, opinions, and ideals concerning it to exist.)

Technically Christ was free of sin...

He had the right to cast the first stone at the adulterer the Pharisees brought in while he was teaching, but he was showing that mercy, grace, and love are the biggest things in life now that he had come to take the fall.

Indeed, Christ could have cast the stone due to his perfection. I explained it how I did though, because we too could cast the stone were we perfect...we'd be in as much a position to deal punishment as God is we were perfect and blameless...but we're not. It's a slight clarification of God's position as God - He's the only one that will not abuse the 'right' to punish. :)

Indeed, Christ could have cast the stone due to his perfection. I explained it how I did though, because we too could cast the stone were we perfect...we'd be in as much a position to deal punishment as God is we were perfect and blameless...but we're not. It's a slight clarification of God's position as God - He's the only one that will not abuse the 'right' to punish. :)

I figured you were shooting that angle... but I just didn't want any of the douchebags here (names excluded) to try to use your words against you.

Hehe, thank you.

Kiko, it's not a matter of whether being gay is okay or not...it's that Christ says I am not to judge others, nor am I to punish them unless I am innocent from sin, which I am certainly not. I am to love and accept people as they are, not as I wish them to be, because God loves and accepts me as I am, have been, and will be.

This a grand failure. How do you know God loves you? Did he tell you? Does the bible tell you so, little one? He hated Esau before he was even born Romans 9:11 - 9:13.

I am innocent from sin. I truly and completely am. I have never committed a sin in my life. Now I have free reign to judge all and fear not return judgement.

Hex, I judge you as a superstitious emotional cripple, who engages in hypocrisy at a moment's notice.

I am innocent from sin. I truly and completely am. I have never committed a sin in my life.

It doesn't work that way. In Christianity, even if you somehow managed to live a "perfect" life where you never told a lie or committed any transgressions, you're still born a sinner.

That's how it works. It defines human nature itself as sin so everyone falls short and it's impossible to not sin. Then it proposes an equally false solution to the false dilemma it created by building these roadblocks around the god and saying that the only way to get to it is through their toll bridge and the hefty price that it entails.

I, for one, reject that construct. Assuming that there is actually anything of value like a worthy god on the other side of the wall to begin with (since you can't see over it), I'm the type of person that would be breaking out the sledgehammers and running the underground railroad so everyone can have free, indiscriminate access to the universal truth.

I'm an open-source grey hat kid of guy. If someone builds a wall around what should be a public common good, unless I see some extremely compelling reasons why they're doing anything other than denying acess, I'm donning the Guy Fawks mask and blowing that motherfucker up.

At any rate, I don't think that the kind of God Hexidecimal spoke of (Universal reality) is something that anyone could build a wall around, so everyone is probably just getting fleeced at the gate on a bridge to nowhere.

People see others forming a line behind a velvet rope and assume that there must be something worthwhile to be had since everyone is waiting for it. The entry fee is a lifetime of subscribance, so you don't get to ask for a refund if and when you figure out that you got stiffed.

It doesn't work that way. In Christianity, even if you somehow managed to live a "perfect" life where you never told a lie or committed any transgressions, you're still born a sinner.

Oh no, I completely understand.

I failed to mention that I was born of a miraculous birth, clearly indicating me to be a demigod like Christ.

I think my coming was mentioned in one of the many gospels not included in the regular bible. Dead sea scrolls and other apocryphal books. I don't remember which one b/c during my transition from the heavens to earth, things get a bit blurry.

You know they can get fuzzy b/c even a young Jesus had to head out a young age to be taught everything he knew about the bible. We don't see the man again until he is fucking thirty.

Anyway, having informed you all of my true nature, I still stand behind my right to judge.

OR...

I have not sinned, b/c I dont believe sin is real. Neither is Karma. Nor will a black cat crossing my path make bad things happen in my future. I break mirrors and dance under ladders. I always fill my gas tank up to 13 dollars and 13 cents. I always tip the salt on the table before I eat, and curse the lord god himself daily. While I am typing this I am holding an umbrella open in the house.

Not being superstitious to an ancient book of Jewish fairy tales, I stand behind my right to judge.

WHATS more if that if you make a distinction between good and evil and good and evil acts men commit YOU HAVE TO FUCKING JUDGE. YOU HAVE TO JUDGE THEM. You cannot determine someone's actions as being evil without judging the person. You cannot.

It is a comfortable and pleasant thought though.

But it doesn't work like that.
Its an all or nothing deal.
You believe all of the bible, non of the bible, or you make up your own little sect of Christianity which picks and chooses from whatever parts you feel like.

I'm afraid that your entire view of Christianity is constructed on a faulty premise.

See the Bible (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jeremiah%2031:27-40;&version=31;) for further details. (I linked you to the exact passage, for your convenience, since I know you haven't read the whole thing anyway.)

What I really want is someone to prove me wrong about the gay/virgin thing.

Gladly. The Gospel of Luke (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%206:37-42;&version=31;) ought to teach you a few things about why you shouldn't condemn other people for their sins when all of us are sinners. You will find that most Christians don't say "HOLY SHIT IT'S A HOMOSEXUAL, YOU'RE GOING TO HELL," just the ones like Fred Phelps, who give a bad name to the rest anyway.

I think its a pretty good argument while debating a Christian.

Not any Christian who really knows what he believes in. You'll find many Christians understand the whole New Testament deal, which is why they are Christians.

You believe your daughter should be killed, that you are going to hell, or that the bible is wrong. Pick one

Woah, that is a SERIOUS false dilemma. Your reasoning is very flawed if you can seriously boil a whole entire religion down to such an obviously contrived contradiction.

I think most people would just end it right there and resort to name calling, ect.

You've already ended it by resorting to such a common flaw in human reasoning.

"Dear God, I'd like to file a bug report..."

But if there is an intelligent retort, I would like to know it before I use this in an argument and end up looking like an idiot.

Glad I could save face for you.

This a grand failure. How do you know God loves you? Did he tell you? Does the bible tell you so, little one? He hated Esau before he was even born Romans 9:11 - 9:13.

LMAO, are you SERIOUSLY going to tell me you're overlooking THE MOST QUOTED BIBLICAL PASSAGE OF ALL TIME? John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world, he gave His only begotten son, so that all who believe in him might not perish, but have eternal life".

For the record, the "Romans" quote is very misleading. It is actually quoting the Book of Malachi, which is before that whole New Covenant thing; you can see my previous post for details.

I have not sinned, b/c I dont believe sin is real.

We know about good and evil through our own powers of higher reasoning, not through any sort of religious belief. There is something instinctive inside all of us that knows it's wrong to fuck up other people's shit. Are you trying to tell me that you have no conscience? That you honestly believe there is no such thing as "evil"?

Why do we say that it's "wrong" to kill someone else or steal from them? Do you believe that those actions are NOT wrong?

Of course there is such a thing as sin. "Sin" is simply any action which is evil. For instance, if you punch someone else because he made you angry, you have caused him a physical injury (and therefore damaged his physical health) simply to cause temporary emotional relief for yourself. This action is motivated by a negative feeling, and ultimately it will only serve to cause further tension between both of you, which is just MORE negative feeling, and it is detrimental to all parties involved. Surely, something that hurts everyone involved in it must be evil! Ultimately, all evil actions have a tendency towards chaos and disorder, while all good actions have a tendency towards peace and harmony. Think of it that way.

WHATS more if that if you make a distinction between good and evil and good and evil acts men commit YOU HAVE TO FUCKING JUDGE. YOU HAVE TO JUDGE THEM. You cannot determine someone's actions as being evil without judging the person. You cannot.

Have I judged you? I do not know you. I do not know why you do anything that you do. I can make some accurate guesses about some of it. I can say with reasonable certainty that you eat because you are hungry, but nothing beyond that which our common biology dictates. I have told you that punching someone because you are angry with him is an evil action, but that does not make you an evil person. I don't actually believe there is such a thing as an evil person - only evil actions. Since people are equally capable of both good and evil, they are naturally neither good nor evil.

People themselves are not good or evil. People are inherently neutral. It is the actions you take which are good or evil.

To Sin literally means "To miss the mark". Are you saying you're 100% perfect in everything you've ever done? You never cried for anything as a baby, did everything with good countenance, and never fouled up anything?

It doesn't work that way. In Christianity, even if you somehow managed to live a "perfect" life where you never told a lie or committed any transgressions, you're still born a sinner.

That's how it works. It defines human nature itself as sin so everyone falls short and it's impossible to not sin. Then it proposes an equally false solution to the false dilemma it created by building these roadblocks around the god and saying that the only way to get to it is through their toll bridge and the hefty price that it entails.

I, for one, reject that construct. Assuming that there is actually anything of value like a worthy god on the other side of the wall to begin with (since you can't see over it), I'm the type of person that would be breaking out the sledgehammers and running the underground railroad so everyone can have free, indiscriminate access to the universal truth.

I'm an open-source grey hat kid of guy. If someone builds a wall around what should be a public common good, unless I see some extremely compelling reasons why they're doing anything other than denying acess, I'm donning the Guy Fawks mask and blowing that motherfucker up.

At any rate, I don't think that the kind of God Hexidecimal spoke of (Universal reality) is something that anyone could build a wall around, so everyone is probably just getting fleeced at the gate on a bridge to nowhere.

People see others forming a line behind a velvet rope and assume that there must be something worthwhile to be had since everyone is waiting for it. The entry fee is a lifetime of subscribance, so you don't get to ask for a refund if and when you figure out that you got stiffed.

Care to distinguish between Churchianity and Christianity? I follow Christ, not the wolves dressed as sheep, let alone the wolves disguised as shepherds.

Further: I'm glad you recognized that God, at least for me, doesn't run shit like a dance club bouncer. :)

Good points OP. It pisses me off when a person who claims to be Christian is superstitious.:mad:

But then you wouldn't have any fun and no one would give a shit about your sad sorry meaningless existence you chose to bear because you've decided you're smart enough to make assumptions about things without actually looking into them.

Before you get on your intellectual high horse, please respond to the criticism already made to you before regarding these very claims of yours

http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=9651676&postcount=56


"If God is perfect, and his word is perfect, why shouldn't we emulate him as he was (and has he said) in the OT? Because Jesus was 'perfect-erer'?"

Not if all their accounts are being transmitted by the perfect, unchanging word of their perfect, unchanging god. Then, it would seem, they should all line up perfectly.
I think this is great. Most Christians claim the bible is the word of God. Therefore, if it is, there would be no contradictions.

LMAO, are you SERIOUSLY going to tell me you're overlooking THE MOST QUOTED BIBLICAL PASSAGE OF ALL TIME? John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world, he gave His only begotten son, so that all who believe in him might not perish, but have eternal life".

For the record, the "Romans" quote is very misleading. It is actually quoting the Book of Malachi, which is before that whole New Covenant thing; you can see my previous post for details.
Who the fuck are you to say that your interpretation of the same passage is superior to someone else's? Seriously, where the hell do you get off?

I wouldn't care if it wasn't taking over fucking everything
5char

This is probably a late response to OP, but I've posed that question before, and most of them (especially protestant sects) just say the bible is wrong or mince around with interpretation, saying "Ooh, you don't have to take it so literally...." Of course, these are rich, white, yuppie, psuedo-christians, so I don't really expect more. Which I suppose represents most people.

The root of the issue is the indoctrination that a child in a theist environment receives. It seems pretty damn hard to make them snap out of it after that.

Before you get on your intellectual high horse, please respond to the criticism already made to you before regarding these very claims of yours

http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=9651676&postcount=56


"If God is perfect, and his word is perfect, why shouldn't we emulate him as he was (and has he said) in the OT? Because Jesus was 'perfect-erer'?"

I'm not going to wade around in that thread but I'm pretty sure I answered you twice and both times you just ignored it. You're a trendy douche. Grow up.

I'm not going to wade around in that thread but I'm pretty sure I answered you twice and both times you just ignored it. You're a trendy douche. Grow up.

Well, you're wrong. You responded to a few of my posts and then stopped doing so (i.e. it was you who ignored my responses, not the other way around. So much in fact that another user pointed it out by saying to you "And you're failing to respond to challenging posts, like Rust's latest one or BrokeProphet's actual debate post. You get caught in contradictions and just ignore it. (http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=9659032&postcount=69)").

After my last response to you, at no point in time did you quote me or even mention my name to let me know you were responding to me.

P.S. Thanks for calling me a douche and then telling me to grow up. Instant hilarity.

Well, you're wrong. You responded to a few of my posts and then stopped doing so (i.e. it was you who ignored my responses, not the other way around. So much in fact that another user pointed it out by saying to you "And you're failing to respond to challenging posts, like Rust's latest one or BrokeProphet's actual debate post. You get caught in contradictions and just ignore it. (http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=9659032&postcount=69)").

After my last response to you, at no point in time did you quote me or even mention my name to let me know you were responding to me.

P.S. Thanks for calling me a douche and then telling me to grow up. Instant hilarity.
QFMFT

You're just as childish, so it's not like it matters. You, just like a good number of people I know, don't actually seek answers to questions, they just like to rile people up so they do what I just did, calling you a douche & asking you to grow up. While it may look bad on my part, and you got your rocks off over it, it's a message that still applies. You're still being a douche and you still need to grow up. People that go to religious threads to do nothing but bash, aggravate, and disrupt (this is you, Rust) are being douchebags and need to grow up. It's silly pre-pubescent stuff that you may one day grow out of.

Oh and... considering you read everything I wrote in that thread...

Post 89

http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=9668859&postcount=89

And WTF: You and I both continued to talk. You can't say I was hiding from your posts.

1. I was seeking answers, which is precisely why I wanted you to respond to the criticism instead of ignoring it in this thread!

If anyone here was not seeking answers, it was you, by claiming victory and saying things like, "Again, not to call you out, but if you think Christians that actually understand their religion believe that God Himself wrote word for word the New Testament and dictated it verbatim to the disciples +apostles then you're off your rocker." which essentially means "if you disagree with me you're wrong, and crazy and I don't have to listen to it".

I wanted answers, that's why I'm pointing out how this topic (i.e. taking OT laws and the OT god's actions into consideration in modern day) has already been discussed elsewhere (the thread I linked to) and numerous arguments as to why it would be proper to apply them today have been laid out. You were ignoring all of these and claiming they couldn't be applied today.

2. What does post 89 have to do with anything? I understand that you made posts aimed at me. I said "After my last response to you, at no point in time did you quote me or even mention my name to let me know you were responding to me."

In other words, you ignored my last reply to you. I mentioned that because you were implying the oppossiute. You were wrong, that's not what happened. I did not ignore your "answers". I responded to each and every one of the answers you made that were directed at me.

3. You can try to turn it around all you want but the fact its the person who's acting childish here is you. You came in and called me a "douche" unprovoked (not that I give a shit what you call me but if you're going to talk about childish behavior, then that's the prime example of it).

Moreover, instead of acting like a mature individual, admitting what you said was silly, you continued mainting that your childish behavior was fine; apparently if you call someone a 'douche', it's fine, but if someone tells you you're ignoring the points made in another thread, that's being childish and not seeking answers. :rolleyes:
Pathetic.

You showed me your question... so I showed you where I answered that said question... You and I continued in our correspondance on that and I didn't avoid your questions. Your last thing was not a question, but a statment. I had no reason to continue responding because you started new tangents with TW. You told me to stop bringing up things that didn't have to do with the subject. I had nothing further to say because you made your point and I wasn't going to sway you.

In other words, ultimately you didn't refute the points that were brought up in that thread; namely that the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) has good reasons to practice as they do, given that the OT god and the moral laws he stated and/or implied are supposedly perfect according to traditional Christian belief, meaning they are morally justified and guaranteed righteousness if they do as the OT god did and/or commanded.

That's the point: You asserted triumph, asserted that the OP and others the believed like him were wrong, while ignoring that several points - which you haven't refuted - still stood in regards to this topic.

P.S. I have no clue why you're fixating on "questions" when I didn't even utter the word "questions" in this whole thread (until now). I said you ultimately didn't respond to the criticism. You didn't. Whether you didn't do so because "I made my point and you weren't going to sway me" is besides the point: the criticism still stands.

In other words, ultimately you didn't refute the points that were brought up in that thread; namely that the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) has good reasons to practice as they do, given that the OT god and the moral laws he stated and/or implied are supposedly perfect according to traditional Christian belief, meaning they are morally justified and guaranteed righteousness if they do as the OT god did and/or commanded.

That's the point: You asserted triumph, asserted that the OP and others the believed like him were wrong, while ignoring that several points - which you haven't refuted - still stood in regards to this topic.

P.S. I have no clue why you're fixating on "questions" when I didn't even utter the word "questions" in this whole thread (until now). I said you ultimately didn't respond to the criticism. You didn't. Whether you didn't do so because "I made my point and you weren't going to sway me" is besides the point: the criticism still stands.

I've been saying that the Old Testament is Jewish law. They call it the pentateuch. The Christian is to follow the condensed version of the 10 Commandments that Christ called "Love God and Love each other". No, the Westboro Baptist aren't "Following a good Christian moral outline" because they're following Jewish law yet they are gentiles. The Jewish law was kept to make sure that the bloodline and the body stayed pure. It has no bearing on the Gentile, which is you and I (unless you've been hiding Jewish heritage this entire time). Mr. Phelps is supposed to be following the commandments of love, not the Jewish Customaries.

So, no, WBC is not following a moral guideline that was meant for them. I've been telling you this entire time that the OT has 3 purposes. The first five books are Jewish Law. Up until the prophets is the history of the Hebrew and the prophets predict Christ's coming.

It is not right to assume that everyone came from Adam because then there would be no "Jew" and "Gentile". There had to be a distinct line drawn in the sand somewhere. That line separated Gentile and Jew. The Pentateuch consisted of rules only for the Jew. Mr. Phelps and his pro-hatred sect of faith are not following the correct standards of a Christian, but are following an extremist view of the Jewish guidelines.

I don't need to assert triumph. It seems to me that something like that would be common sense if you were so well versed in the Bible and it's make-up. But instead of focusing on the Bible as the standard, you focus on Westboro, probably the SBC, and make your assumptions about the Bible through people who have distorted the message to cater to their whim and will.

I've been saying that the Old Testament is Jewish law. They call it the pentateuch. The Christian is to follow the condensed version of the 10 Commandments that Christ called "Love God and Love each other". No, the Westboro Baptist aren't "Following a good Christian moral outline" because they're following Jewish law yet they are gentiles. The Jewish law was kept to make sure that the bloodline and the body stayed pure. It has no bearing on the Gentile, which is you and I (unless you've been hiding Jewish heritage this entire time). Mr. Phelps is supposed to be following the commandments of love, not the Jewish Customaries.

So, no, WBC is not following a moral guideline that was meant for them. I've been telling you this entire time that the OT has 3 purposes. The first five books are Jewish Law. Up until the prophets is the history of the Hebrew and the prophets predict Christ's coming.

All of this has already been covered in the thread I linked to, so you're just essentially supporting what I said: You ignore everything that has been shown against this argument of yours.

The question is:

"If God is perfect, and his word is perfect, why shouldn't we emulate him as he was (and has he said) in the OT? Because Jesus was 'perfect-erer'?"

You haven't answered that. Saying that the OT laws were Jewish laws is not true. There are many other laws. There are laws given to Adam and Eve for example, other laws given to Noah. Not to mention that we routinely see non-Jews being held up to certain moral guidelines. Like for example (and I used that in the thread in question) the OT God judges the whole world and condemns it - except Noah and his family - to death. The whole world was not Jewish and the covenant he established with the Jewish people didn't come until later.

Sodom and Gomorrah, were also not made up entirely of Jews if I'm not mistaken, yet they were judged for sins of the flesh among other things.

The fact is that laws besides the Jewish laws existed in the OT and they applied to all humans.


It is not right to assume that everyone came from Adam because then there would be no "Jew" and "Gentile". There had to be a distinct line drawn in the sand somewhere. That line separated Gentile and Jew. The Pentateuch consisted of rules only for the Jew. Mr. Phelps and his pro-hatred sect of faith are not following the correct standards of a Christian, but are following an extremist view of the Jewish guidelines. You mean "it doesn't support what I claim therefore it's not right to assume that"... :rolleyes:

The Bible makes it explicit that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve, the first humans. Not all people were Jews, because Adam and Eve were not Jews. The "line drawn in the sand" is that Jews are the descendants of Abraham or converts to the Jewish faith. That's the line.

Even then, if you're going to get artistic license to make up parts of the Bible and assume things out of thin air, then so can anybody else. This doesn't help you.


I don't need to assert triumph. It seems to me that something like that would be common sense if you were so well versed in the Bible and it's make-up. But instead of focusing on the Bible as the standard, you focus on Westboro, probably the SBC, and make your assumptions about the Bible through people who have distorted the message to cater to their whim and will. Apparently, it's you who haven't read the Bible because there are clearly many non-Jewish laws established there. Laws that applied to everybody and Laws that the OT god judged everyone - Jew or not- with death.

So again, why should be emulate him and these laws?

Adam & eve, Noah, Moses and all of the hebrew weren't hebrew? Is that what you're saying? The Hebrew descendents of Adam weren't Hebrew?

I know you sound like you're smart and all but really... Hebrew lineage not being Hebrew? That's an interesting one.

Anyways... God had his chosen blood line, the Hebrew, go out and preach to the rest of the world to come and worship him and not Dagon, the prophets of Baal, or Beelzebulb... Soddom and Gommorah didn't have any righteousness. I'm pretty sure the story was that Lot and Abram were supposed to find 10 righteous people in both cities and they couldn't. The other nations were parading around, getting drunk, being morally lewd, and were not following any moral code they themselves set. Jesus descended from David, who ultimately descended from Abraham, who ultimately descended from Noah, so and so forth to Adam.

And no, Abraham didn't make the Jewish blood line. His son, Isaac would take the reigns of having the 12 tribes assimilate from his bloodline. If you remember, Abraham had a child w/ a concubine, his name was Ishmael. Ishmael was the start of the arabic/islamic culture. Abraham was a father of "many nations" which means Islamic and Hebrew together. But if you're honestly going to say that Abraham somehow just had a special bloodline that randomly appeared with him you'd be silly.

The reason we should follow Christ as an example and not the OT God is because Christ paid out our debt for us, giving us redemption. We no longer need to be held accountable for the acts of sin that we do. The change by the Holy Spirit should call for a will to have peace among men, and to limit our sinning as much as we can. We no longer are called to have the authority to decide that we can take the lives of others in our own hands and defame and demoralise other people. We're called to love and be loved because the Holy Spirit is now our mediator between God and ourselves. Christ died so that we don't have to take the life of other men. As fallible humans, we still fight & kill, but if our hearts are truly changed, if we are truly thirsting and hungering after Christ we shouldn't feel the need to parade around signs that say "33 should've been 33,000" or Tell people that God hates fags. Hate the sin, love the sinner. We're all humans and all sins are equal in the eyes of God.

And no... The Pentateuch, which is the Hebrew Law (the first five books of the Bible) is NOT for gentiles. That's why it's called the Books of Hebrew Law not "the Books of law for everyone".

Adam & eve, Noah, Moses and all of the hebrew weren't hebrew? Is that what you're saying? The Hebrew descendents of Adam

I know you sound like you're smart and all but really... Hebrew lineage not being Hebrew? That's an interesting one

"The Hebrew descendents of Adam weren't Hebrew?"

You concluded that they were Hebrew ("The Hebrew descendants") and then are using that conclusion to prove that they were Hebrew. Circular logic, much?

The term "Hebrew" refers to the descendants of Eber - while they are technically descendants from Adam, not all descendants from Adam are Hebrew (or Jewish).

"
The word 'Hebrew' -- 'Ivri' -- comes from the word 'Ever' meaning 'the other side.' The Torah first uses this term when referring to 'Abraham the Ivri.' Three reasons are given for this:

Abraham was a stranger 'from the other side.' Born east of Canaan in Ur Kasdim, Abraham had come from the 'other side' of the Jordan River.
Abraham stood 'on the other side' in opposition to the entire pagan world. His recogognition of the One G-d, and his adamant refusal to comply with 'modern' ideology set him at odds with the rest of humanity.
Abraham was a descendent of Ever. Ever was the great-grandson of Noah's son Shem."
-- http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/80/Q2/

This is similar to the term "semitic" which derives itself from the word "Shem" which was the name of one of Noah's sons.

So no, Adam and Eve were not Hebrews or Jews, nor are all of their descendants. Some are. Not all of them. Pretty much Noah and everyone before him was not Jewish. Some of Noah's descendants, were.



... Soddom and Gommorah didn't have any righteousness. I'm pretty sure the story was that Lot and Abram were supposed to find 10 righteous people in both cities and they couldn't. The other nations were parading around, getting drunk, being morally lewd, and were not following any moral code they themselves set. Jesus descended from David, who ultimately descended from Abraham, who ultimately descended from Noah, so and so forth to Adam.

Huh? Could you please read what I said again? At no point in time did I say Sodom and Gomorrah had righteousness - it is precisely because they didn't have righteousness that they were slaughtered and this is able to serve as a very good example of my point:

They were judged as wicked. Why? Because they were not following God's will/law. What law? It couldn't be the Jewish Law because not all of the people in Sodom and Gomorrah were Jewish! Hence there must be an OT law (like those given to Adam and Even and those given to Noah) that applies to everyone, not just Jews.


And no, Abraham didn't make the Jewish blood line. His son, Isaac would take the reigns of having the 12 tribes assimilate from his bloodline. If you remember, Abraham had a child w/ a concubine, his name was Ishmael. Ishmael was the start of the arabic/islamic culture. Abraham was a father of "many nations" which means Islamic and Hebrew together. But if you're honestly going to say that Abraham somehow just had a special bloodline that randomly appeared with him you'd be silly.

"The original name for the people (http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/people.htm) we now call Jews was Hebrews. The word "Hebrew" (in Hebrew (http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/hebrew.htm), "Ivri") is first used in the Torah (http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/torah.htm) to describe Abraham (http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/abraham.htm) (Gen. 14:13). The word is apparently derived from the name Eber, one of Abraham's ancestors. Another tradition teaches that the word comes from the word "eyver," which means "the other side," referring to the fact that Abraham came from the other side of the Euphrates, or referring to the fact Abraham was separated from the other nations (http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/nation.htm) morally and spiritually.

Another name used for the people is Children of Israel (http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/israel.htm) or Israelites, which refers to the fact that the people are descendants of Jacob (http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/jacob.htm), who was also called Israel.
The word "Jew" (in Hebrew, "Yehudi") is derived from the name Judah, which was the name of one of Jacob's twelve sons. Judah was the ancestor of one of the tribes of Israel, which was named after him. Likewise, the word Judaism literally means "Judah-ism," that is, the religion of the Yehudim. Other sources, however, say that the word "Yehudim" means "People of G-d (http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/g-d.htm)," because the first three letters of "Yehudah" are the same as the first three letters of G-d's four-letter name (http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/name.htm).

Originally, the term Yehudi referred specifically to members of the tribe of Judah, as distinguished from the other tribes of Israel. However, after the death of King Solomon, the nation (http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/nation.htm) of Israel was split into two kingdoms: the kingdom of Judah and the kingdom of Israel (I Kings 12; II Chronicles 10). After that time, the word Yehudi could properly be used to describe anyone from the kingdom of Judah, which included the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi, as well as scattered settlements from other tribes. The most obvious biblical example of this usage is in Esther 2:5, where Mordecai is referred to as both a Yehudi and a member of the tribe of Benjamin.

In the 6th century B.C.E. (http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/bce.htm), the kingdom of Israel was conquered by Assyria and the ten tribes were exiled from the land (II Kings 17), leaving only the tribes in the kingdom of Judah remaining to carry on Abraham's heritage. These people of the kingdom of Judah were generally known to themselves and to other nations as Yehudim (Jews), and that name continues to be used today.
In common speech, the word "Jew" is used to refer to all of the physical and spiritual descendants of Jacob/Israel, as well as to the patriarchs Abraham and Isaac (http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/isaac.htm) and their wives, and the word "Judaism" is used to refer to their beliefs. Technically, this usage is inaccurate, just as it is technically inaccurate to use the word "Indian" to refer to the original inhabitants of the Americas. However, this technically inaccurate usage is common both within the Jewish community and outside of it, and is therefore used throughout this site."



http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm




Jewish scholars are "silly" then because they pretty much disagree with the ridiculous things you're saying.



Like I said, they are the descendants of Abraham - where the term "Hebrew" was first used. One could also mark their beginnings with Jacob or Judah. Whatever the case may be, the fact remains that the people prior to them where not Jews or Hebrews. The "line drawn in the sand" was drawn with the life of either of these three individuals.




The reason we should follow Christ as an example and not the OT God is because Christ paid out our debt for us, giving us redemption. We no longer need to be held accountable for the acts of sin that we do.

This was also covered in the other thread.

Whether Jesus died for our sins or not does not change the fact that we're dealing with a supposedly perfect morality laid down by a supposedly perfect god.

At best you can say that since Jesus died for our sins, there is another, new, path to salvation. Great; belief in Jesus Christ as the savior of humanity is a new form of salvation. That doesn't mean that the previous moral guidelines are morally wrong anymore - it means there are two paths, not one.

I believed I explained this to you in the other thread with the analogy of two paths existing to reach a destination.

Say that we use a difficult path to reach a destinion (like through a mountain or a forrest), and then one day we discover (or are "given") a new path that is easier (lets say this path is paved) does this new path suddenly make the other path disappear? Does it suddenly mean that the other path doesn't reach the destination? No. It's still there, it still ultimately leads to to the destination (i.e. it is still guaranteed to be morally correct given it's supposed perfection, and thus will lead you to the destination that is salvation).

... if we are truly thirsting and hungering after Christ we shouldn't feel the need to parade around signs that say "33 should've been 33,000" or Tell people that God hates fags. Hate the sin, love the sinner. We're all humans and all sins are equal in the eyes of God.

That is said with the perspective that the OT laws don't apply anymore, which is the very thing we're debating. Since they do apply it would be just as morally correct to parade those signs in an attempt to prevent any more people from sinning, than it is to hold hands and sing 'Kumbaya'.

If it's morally correct to do so then why does the New testament speak of "shedding his old life to start a new"?

If Jesus wasn't the ONE true way, then Jesus wouldn't be the way at all. Jesus was sent as the sacrifice so that we don't have to sacrifice to God, kill each other, and be held accountable.

Jesus replaced our need to place the authority of removing other people's lives in our own hands. He bore all of our sin and shame on his cross so that we might choose to follow his redemption because man was too faulty on his own to reach Heaven. No one can do enough to go to Heaven. Jesus died for us as the mediator to get us into Heaven.

If that's not what a Christian is believing then they are not a Christian. If they believe that they should still be stoning gays, murdering adulterers, and taking life in their own hands by hate-mongering, they should also believe they still have to sacrifice. But those sacrifices won't do any good because Jesus paid in full our debts. The OT's harshness has been shed because of that. Jesus is the sole purpose that we don't need to hate monger like Mr. Phelps and his family is doing.

Were two paths the way to Heaven, Christianity would be entirely worthless and false.

1. Does this mean you're admitting you were wrong regarding all the points you've decided to ignore (like the Jewish/Hebrew origins)?

2. You keep saying essentially the same thing I am:

Like when you say "Jesus replaced our need to place the authority of removing other people's lives in our own hands. He bore all of our sin and shame on his cross so that we might choose to follow his redemption because man was too faulty on his own to reach Heaven."

That's exactly what I'm saying! If one path exists and then another path emerges, then this other alternative effectively removes the need for us to go with the first path. However that doesn't mean the old path ceases to exist. We just don't need to follow it. If it's perfect we should still be able to follow it, if we want, to reach our destination.

You can bring up any argument you want, but unless you can refute it's alleged perfection, you will continue to fail in proving it doesn't serve as a path anymore. You might argue that faith in Jesus is a newer, easier or better path, but if the old path is perfect, those arguments are ultimately non-sequitors.

And no, two paths do not make Christianity meaningless. Adding another paths makes it so that there are more options for salvation - like an easier path (though that is in question given the alleged perfection of the first path) - and thus more people to be saved.

Or we could even say - and I think this is the WBC's position - that even though the only path is through Christ the moral Laws of the OT still apply today and thus should still be followed.

In short, the whole point of my posts was to show how there was a lot more to discuss; things you were ignoring while dismissing what other people here were saying.

Yes, you won the naming argument.

But what's to say the Old Testament was a perfect example? God did have to destroy the world once. The second time, instead of destroying the infallible world, he sent Jesus as a redemption because NO ONE COULD GET TO HEAVEN THROUGH THEIR OWN MEANS. And I'm going to keep beating this dead horse by saying Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, where you find the premise to stone gays, etc . is Jewish law. Those laws were given to "God's chosen people". Therefore, the WBC is still not being right in their ideology. If Christ teaches us compassion, forgiveness, and love (Forgiving seventy times seven) and he is the way, truth, and light (No man may come to Father but by him) then why should they find a need to be oppressive, destructive, and fierce with their ideals? It's the same reason people hate Christianity, because the elder generation appears to have a giant pine cone stuck in it's ass and instead of loving one another, they curse and defame and strike down. I'm not saying Christ said we needed to accept other teachings, but we must accept other people. If you are truly a Christian you must feel a desire to change yourself from within. The idea that we should strike down & oppress cannot be something given to them by the Holy Spirit. It's illogical.

1. The WBC is not violent - they are not stoning homosexuals. They are being assholes, for sure, but they are not being violent.

2. Like I already proved, there were laws governing sexual immorality and other things that applied to everyone, not just Jews.

3. To say that they couldn't reach salvation through the moral guidelines established in the OT is ridiculous given that:

a. The moral guidelines were supposedly perfect. You're essentially saying, "God gave humanity perfect moral guidelines... that nobody could complete". Now that is illogical.

b. God mentions various biblical characters that were righteous and deserving of salvation, without the need of Jesus Christ as a Savior (before he even existed). It was certainly possible for people to get through heaven before Christ.

b. God mentions various biblical characters that were righteous and deserving of salvation, without the need of Jesus Christ as a Savior (before he even existed). It was certainly possible for people to get through heaven before Christ.




By way of sacrifice... You had to give your best to God before you gave to yourself. Yes there were good people who did right in the eyes of God but even David had an affair and had a man murdered to get rid of the evidence. And he was a man after God's own heart.

Christ wouldn't have been sacrificed if he was just a "In case shit goes wrong" back up plan. That's why he says "No man may come to the Father but by me". He's not saying "You can still sacrifice your best to God and He will look upon your good works to get you into Heaven... but in case you don't wanna do that you can come through me". He's saying... Once the mantle was torn in the temple, life changed. The way to get to Heaven was now no longer upon your hopes that your sacrifices got rid of your bad work and your good work was enough to get you there. Instead, Christ bore all of that shame and hope and doubt that you would've endured and said "Take my hand, I will lead you to the gates of Heaven". He paid the price so that we wouldn't have to. If someone says "well fuck that, I'm not gonna rely on him" that's not being a Christian. That's just trying to live a morally good life, which the Bible says, man is inherently evil and cannot do anything on his own to enter the gates of Heaven.

If Christ is really the Messiah, there's no other way. If he's not, then sure... maybe being a good person and following the moral outlines for the OT works. You can't side-seat Christ if he truly is the Messiah.

Again, there could easily be two paths. That Christ became another path doesn't suddenly refute that the supposedly perfect moral guidelines established before can still be followed, and if they are perfect, should still lead you to salvation.

Christ doesn't have to take a back-seat because he could be the most popular method of salvation, or he could be one necessary component to salvation and following the previous moral guidelines the other (just like the WBC believes).

Again, there could easily be two paths. That Christ became another path doesn't suddenly refute that the supposedly perfect moral guidelines established before can still be followed, and if they are perfect, should still lead you to salvation.

Christ doesn't have to take a back-seat because he could be the most popular method of salvation, or he could be one necessary component to salvation and following the previous moral guidelines the other (just like the WBC believes).

The bible even makes mention of the fact that if Christ is the way, it is the only way. He is the One, not "One. A" or "two". The standard before Christ was appearing before a priest, sacrificing, and hoping your good works got you into heaven. The mantle of the holy Temple in Jerusalem ripped when Jesus died. When he returned, you were no longer held to that standard. Your standard became "Faith that Jesus was the ONLY way to get to Heaven now that he bore your debts". Ya it might seem kinda fucked up but instead of having to bust your ass to hope that you did enough good works, you were told to place your faith in the existence of a diety, who's third tri-une part willed you to want to do good, instead of you relying on your own human (usually selfish) ambitions. If Christians are truly correct, there is no way you can be correct saying there are two ways to Heaven. If they are not, then you may be correct. I'm not going to say you are wrong b/c I don't know what the right answer is, obviously, but according to the Christian faith... you would be erroneous in your assumption.

No, according to some Christians. It's rather convenient (and circular not to mention) to rule out anyone that doesn't agree with you from being Christians.

Just like many Protestants would say that Catholics aren't "real" Christians, this is a way of conveniently rigging the discussion against anything that disagrees with you.

That said, let's say that Jesus is the only path to salvation. That still doesn't mean that following the perfect guidelines is morally wrong! It could be that it's morally righteous to follow the OT laws - as guaranteed by their perfection - yet they don't contribute to you reaching heaven. In other words, it can be reconciled with the concept of 'Sola Fide' where these acts are just morally good as opposed to morally wrong - though don't mean you're getting saved.

No, according to some Christians. It's rather convenient (and circular not to mention) to rule out anyone that doesn't agree with you from being Christians.

Just like many Protestants would say that Catholics aren't "real" Christians, this is a way of conveniently rigging the discussion against anything that disagrees with you.

That said, let's say that Jesus is the only path to salvation. That still doesn't mean that following the perfect guidelines is morally wrong! It could be that it's morally righteous to follow the OT laws - as guaranteed by their perfection - yet they don't contribute to you reaching heaven. In other words, it can be reconciled with the concept of 'Sola Fide' where these acts are just morally good as opposed to morally wrong - though don't mean you're getting saved.

I'll give you that following the dietary guidelines will extend a healthier life and that moral guidelines such as abstinence and keeping yourself pure will extend a healthy life. You are correct in that. But I won't agree that the blatant disregard for people shown by WBC is part of moral perfection. I just can't consciously say that's any sort of understandable in a logical sense.

And I don't want to get started on the Catholics, but I will say Faith + Works =/= Faith alone.

The WBC is just an example, one that could be following the guidelines correctly or incorrectly. The point is that if the OT guidelines are perfect, then it's logical to say that following them would guarantee that we are doing good.

It's rather absurd to say that God gave perfect guidelines that don't work or are morally bad (unless we're saying God is bad or incompetent - which I think we can both agree is not the Christian position).

So even if following the guidelines doesn't mean salvation, we can still say that we are acting morally right if we follow the supposed perfect moral guidelines that God gave.

As for "Faith + Works =/= Faith alone" I understand. I'm not saying they are the same, just that their are different interpretations of what Christian is.

The WBC is just an example, one that could be following the guidelines correctly or incorrectly. The point is that if the OT guidelines are perfect, then it's logical to say that following them would guarantee that we are doing good.

It's rather absurd to say that God gave perfect guidelines that don't work or are morally bad (unless we're saying God is bad or incompetent - which I think we can both agree is not the Christian position).

So even if following the guidelines doesn't mean salvation, we can still say that we are acting morally right if we follow the supposed perfect moral guidelines that God gave.

As for "Faith + Works =/= Faith alone" I understand. I'm not saying they are the same, just that their are different interpretations of what Christian is.

Aight.

And yeah... they're both Christians in the sense of what their headlining belief is. It was really hard for me to swallow the fact that Mormons, Jehovah's Witness, Seventh Day Adventists, and CoC were all Christians too... just in a skewed way.

Who the fuck are you to say that your interpretation of the same passage is superior to someone else's? Seriously, where the hell do you get off?


I did not interpret, sir. Paul IS in fact quoting an Old Testament writing in that chapter of the Book of Romans; he says so about two verses before the one in question. If I have actually interpreted anything, please point it out.

If you don't believe me, read Romans 9. "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose," you know.

Please do me the same courtesy of not being so inflammatory that I have done you. There's no need for name-calling; this is mature discussion.

I did not interpret, sir. Paul IS in fact quoting an Old Testament writing in that chapter of the Book of Romans; he says so about two verses before the one in question. If I have actually interpreted anything, please point it out.

If you don't believe me, read Romans 9. "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose," you know.

Please do me the same courtesy of not being so inflammatory that I have done you. There's no need for name-calling; this is mature discussion.

True for True. Satan used scripture to try to disrupt Jesus in the wilderness. And Nicholas more than likely used scripture when he led the nicolaitans to overturn the laity.

And I don't want to get started on the Catholics, but I will say Faith + Works =/= Faith alone.

Uh... right... that's Catholic doctrine though; what's the problem?

Holy fuck, the "the devil can cite scripture" defence is the most blatant bullshittery I've ever seen theists do.

"Oh, my own holy book is against me? Doesn't matter! The devil can cite scripture! I win! nyah nyah nyah!"

Why don't you just fucking say "Oh hahahaha I win you lose I'm going home now" and prance back to the fucking pope while you're at it? I'm sure your god would send a team of mules down from the sky to ass-rape you if you ever admitted to being wrong, wouldn't he? And I bet if that was IN YOUR HOLY BOOK PROVING HOW FUCKED UP YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM IS, you'd deny it and whack the "IWIN!" button.

Seriously, just go castrate yourself. For the good of humanity.

Holy fuck, the "the devil can cite scripture" defence is the most blatant bullshittery I've ever seen theists do.

"Oh, my own holy book is against me? Doesn't matter! The devil can cite scripture! I win! nyah nyah nyah!"

Well, this assertion is where the rest of your verbal assault falls short, because there was really nothing there about my own holy book being against me. Even assuming there had been, the reason for my writing that statement is something you have also overlooked.

Context is the most important part of critical reading. A quote taken out of context from any book can mean anything you want it to; you know that. Saying "the devil can cite Scripture for his purpose" was my way of saying "you need to quote the Bible in its proper context in order for it to make any sense". Certainly, if you take a quote from Romans (where Paul is actually quoting an Old Testament book!) and display it without any other lines from the passage, it's going to look like something it's not!

Quoting a text without providing context for the statement in order to be misleading is certainly misrepresentation, and I'm sure that if the devil wanted to quote the Bible out of context to make people do horrible things to each other, he could.

Please, don't apply a standard to the Bible that you wouldn't apply to any other text. I could quote lines from Martin Luther King Jr. to make him look like a white supremacist, but the point is, they'd be horribly out of context.

Also, could you PLEASE stop being so rude? I didn't say anything insulting or inflammatory to you, and I'd rather not try to have a mature discussion if all you're going to do is make childish remarks. We're all adults here, or should at least be able to act like it.

To sum up: You can easily quote random sentences out of the Bible to make them look like something they are not. Case in point: quoting Romans out of context makes it look like Paul said something he did not. Can you really deny this when the textual evidence is completely against you? There is no way.

Love,
T

Well, this assertion is where the rest of your verbal assault falls short, because there was really nothing there about my own holy book being against me. Even assuming there had been, the reason for my writing that statement is something you have also overlooked.

Context is the most important part of critical reading. A quote taken out of context from any book can mean anything you want it to; you know that. Saying "the devil can cite Scripture for his purpose" was my way of saying "you need to quote the Bible in its proper context in order for it to make any sense". Certainly, if you take a quote from Romans (where Paul is actually quoting an Old Testament book!) and display it without any other lines from the passage, it's going to look like something it's not!

Quoting a text without providing context for the statement in order to be misleading is certainly misrepresentation, and I'm sure that if the devil wanted to quote the Bible out of context to make people do horrible things to each other, he could.

Please, don't apply a standard to the Bible that you wouldn't apply to any other text. I could quote lines from Martin Luther King Jr. to make him look like a white supremacist, but the point is, they'd be horribly out of context.

Also, could you PLEASE stop being so rude? I didn't say anything insulting or inflammatory to you, and I'd rather not try to have a mature discussion if all you're going to do is make childish remarks. We're all adults here, or should at least be able to act like it.

Love,
T

Ok think about this - if you see a homosexual walking down the street, you are obligated by the bible to stone him/her to death. But then, you're also obligated by the bible not to commit murder. What do you do?

Ok think about this - if you see a homosexual walking down the street, you are obligated by the bible to stone him/her to death. But then, you're also obligated by the bible not to commit murder. What do you do?

Acts 15:28-29

In other words, the relationship with God mediated by Jesus Christ with mankind drastically changes judgment and atonement for sins. This is why the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament does not apply beyond the parameters laid out in the discussion I have referenced in Acts.

How is it that all of these "OMG CHRISTIANITY IS ONE BIG CONTRADICTION" people miss this very important book? I think that you should be required to read the Bible before you criticize it. This is fair; we don't read movie reviews from people who haven't seen the movie, do we?

Anyway, it appears that you haven't even bothered to read this whole thread, because I addressed this in an earlier post.

For your convenience, here (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2015&version=31) is all of Acts 15. (Context is important!!)

Acts 15:28-29

In other words, the relationship with God mediated by Jesus Christ with mankind drastically changes judgment and atonement for sins. This is why the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament does not apply beyond the parameters laid out in the discussion I have referenced in Acts.

How is it that all of these "OMG CHRISTIANITY IS ONE BIG CONTRADICTION" people miss this very important book? I think that you should be required to read the Bible before you criticize it. This is fair; we don't read movie reviews from people who haven't seen the movie, do we?

Anyway, it appears that you haven't even bothered to read this whole thread, because I addressed this in an earlier post.

For your convenience, here (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2015&version=31) is all of Acts 15. (Context is important!!)[/quote]
First off, no I haven't read much of this thread. It was starting to piss me off. But I can never resist the chance to stir up a Christian. Yes, I know the Old Testament doesn't apply, but it does say, numerous times in the New Testament that you shouldn't murder people.

^You need to read the thread because as it has been discussed in this very thread, the fact that the OT laws were supposedly perfect implies that I can follow them now and still be guaranteed to be acting morally good. I may not be obligated to follow them, and they might not be necessary for salvation, but I can follow them, and their perfection should guarantee that I am acting right.

EDIT: Never mind. I read that wrong.

But I can never resist the chance to stir up a Christian.

That's the problem with most of these threads. They aren't about debate. They're about overzealous evangelicals getting pissed off because they don't know how to answer inflammatory challenges from non-believers.

Yes, I know the Old Testament doesn't apply, but it does say, numerous times in the New Testament that you shouldn't murder people.

Yeah, but it doesn't say you should kill anyone in the New Testament.

I may not be obligated to follow them, and they might not be necessary for salvation, but I can follow them, and their perfection should guarantee that I am acting right.

Thomas Aquinas wrote about this at length. To sum up his argument, the ceremonial and judicial precepts of Mosaic Law no longer apply as per the coming of Christ. Hence, continuing to follow them is equivalent to denying the coming of Christ, which would be a mortal sin for a Christian. Therefore, it stands to reason that Christians should not follow these outdated precepts because they were nullified by Christ's atonement for our sins.

That would not guarantee that you are acting right. In fact, it would guarantee that you are acting entirely in the wrong.

Sorry for skipping over all the posts dealing with this. I have to admit, I got fed up with all the bickering (which, in your defense, was predominantly from the other guy).

Yeah, but it doesn't say you should kill anyone in the New Testament.

Holy shit, a Christian who hasn't read the New Testament :eek:

Holy shit, a Christian who hasn't read the New Testament :eek:

Holy shit, someone who makes statements indicating a high level of pragmatic competence but still doesn't think to cite his sources!

At least I linked you to some verses; want to give me the lowdown here? Here (http://www.semanticbible.com/hyperconc/K/Kill.html) is a concordance entry for "kill"; I couldn't find any instances of Jesus issuing death orders. Even the "Skeptic's Annotated Bible" is unable to find any such verses. (Read it for yourself (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt.html) if you don't believe me.)

Are you talking about the "worthy of death" thing in Romans? Please, even if you read the whole entire verse it's obvious what Paul is actually talking about here (stating that God has deemed sinners worthy of death is not the same thing as telling people to go out and kill them; it's in a subordinate clause but most people just throw it out there in with a couple other quotes and hope for the best.)

If you are looking to "rile up some Christians", you're wasting your time here. I'm not that kind of Christian.

While we're on the subject, I'd also like to point out that I'm not the kind of Christian who goes around preaching fire and brimstone to everyone else, either. My beliefs and practices are best summed up as, "God is love", and since I'm not being hostile or spiteful towards you I would really appreciate the same thing in return. It is pretty clear to me that you have been interacting with the kind of Christian who might ring your doorbell to tell you that you are going to hell. That's really not my bag. I don't like to turn my belief into an aggressive thing, so help me out here, ok?

Holy shit, someone who makes statements indicating a high level of pragmatic competence but still doesn't think to cite his sources!

At least I linked you to some verses; want to give me the lowdown here? Here (http://www.semanticbible.com/hyperconc/K/Kill.html) is a concordance entry for "kill"; I couldn't find any instances of Jesus issuing death orders. Even the "Skeptic's Annotated Bible" is unable to find any such verses. (Read it for yourself (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt.html) if you don't believe me.)

How about this (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2015;&version=31;)?

Oh and by the way, look at what that annotated bible you posted said:

Matthew 15:7
Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/5.html#17)

How about this (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2015;&version=31;)?

What about it? So Jesus said that the Pharisees are hypocrites and then he fed four thousand people; what's that got to do with death?

Did you READ the verse that the "Skeptic's Annotated Bible" actually links to? "I have come not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." Gosh, that sure is a far cry from the claim these guys are making, and they don't even bother to support that statement, they just read into it without so much as telling us why.

Ironic that they should quote from the same passage which preaches "turn the other cheek", yeah?

You would do well to actually READ things before you cite them at people. This isn't like those research papers you did so many years ago; people are actually going to look at your sources and follow through with your footnotes.

What about it? So Jesus said that the Pharisees are hypocrites and then he fed four thousand people; what's that got to do with death?

Did you READ the verse that the "Skeptic's Annotated Bible" actually links to? "I have come not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." Gosh, that sure is a far cry from the claim these guys are making, and they don't even bother to support that statement, they just read into it without so much as telling us why.

Ironic that they should quote from the same passage which preaches "turn the other cheek", yeah?

You would do well to actually READ things before you cite them at people. This isn't like those research papers you did so many years ago; people are actually going to look at your sources and follow through with your footnotes.

Clearly you're the one who doesn't read things.

and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'

He was calling the Pharisees hypocrites because they didn't practice this.

And "I have come not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it" was a reference to Mosaic Law. He was stating that he has not come to abolish the law of the Old Testament. Even if he did, what is written in the Old Testament is still a reflection on the Christian God.

He was calling the Pharisees hypocrites because they didn't practice this.

No, he wasn't. He was calling the Pharisees hypocrites for saying this and then saying that any help they may have given their parents is a gift to God, thus not honoring their parents with what SHOULD have been honoring their parents. Did you read the chapter? (Goodness I sound too much like an English teacher.)

In other words, Jesus is saying, "Why have you not put yourselves to death for dishonoring your fathers and mothers? You do it to other people; what a double-standard!" So if I were to kill someone for violating Mosaic Law, I would be no better than the Pharisees whom Jesus is chastising here. That does not sound like a very Christian thing to do.

And "I have come not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it" was a reference to Mosaic Law. He was stating that he has not come to abolish the law of the Old Testament.

Actually, the statement is, "I have come not to abolish the law or the prophets, but to fulfill them," referencing the Old Testament prophecies (including those promising a new covenant and atonement for sins) he is fulfilling by, well, being Jesus. He is saying that he's not here just to say, "TO HELL WITH THE OLD LAWS," he is actually here to fulfill the prophecies and establish a new relationship between God and man.

Even if he did, what is written in the Old Testament is still a reflection on the Christian God.

How do you come to that conclusion? "Christian" is defined as a follower of Christ, so the New Testament is undoubtedly a more accurate reflection. You can't simply NOT take the New Testament into account when reflecting on the Christian God.

Is there anything else?

No, he wasn't. He was calling the Pharisees hypocrites for saying this and then saying that any help they may have given their parents is a gift to God, thus not honoring their parents with what SHOULD have been honoring their parents. Did you read the chapter? (Goodness I sound too much like an English teacher.)

In other words, Jesus is saying, "Why have you not put yourselves to death for dishonoring your fathers and mothers? You do it to other people; what a double-standard!" So if I were to kill someone for violating Mosaic Law, I would be no better than the Pharisees whom Jesus is chastising here. That does not sound like a very Christian thing to do.

He's implying that they should be put to death. Also, elaborate on this:

That does not sound like a very Christian thing to do.


Actually, the statement is, "I have come not to abolish the law or the prophets, but to fulfill them," referencing the Old Testament prophecies (including those promising a new covenant and atonement for sins) he is fulfilling by, well, being Jesus. He is saying that he's not here just to say, "TO HELL WITH THE OLD LAWS," he is actually here to fulfill the prophecies and establish a new relationship between God and man.

Just? You're trying to spin it so that he looks like he is there to abolish Mosaic Law, and also to fulfil the prophecies. My quote there was a copy+paste of the one you used in an earlier post by the way. The "or the prophets" part was irrelevant anyway.

How do you come to that conclusion? "Christian" is defined as a follower of Christ, so the New Testament is undoubtedly a more accurate reflection. You can't simply NOT take the New Testament into account when reflecting on the Christian God.

Yes, a Christian is a follower of Christ, but Christians still worship God, don't they? And the God of the Old Testament is the same as the God of the New Testament. Considering the Old Testament =/= ignoring the New Testament.

He's implying that they should be put to death.

No, he really isn't. I have shown you that it is otherwise. Read the whole passage and you will see why.

Just? You're trying to spin it so that he looks like he is there to abolish Mosaic Law, and also to fulfil the prophecies. My quote there was a copy+paste of the one you used in an earlier post by the way. The "or the prophets" part was irrelevant anyway.

I'm not trying to spin it at all; I'm telling you what it is. If he has come to fulfill the law then it makes the judicial and ceremonial precepts obsolete. The Acts of the Apostles chapter I linked you to previously clarifies this nicely.

I didn't phrase it very well. What I meant is: Jesus is saying that he's not here to say "stop following Mosaic Law". He's saying that he's here to fulfill the promise of a New Covenant between God and man, which would nullify the "kill people who sin" doctrine. Jesus died for all of those sins so we don't need to kill people for them, you see? THAT is what is meant by all those passages that say we won't have to die for our sins anymore. Obviously, we still die, but now we don't have to kill each other for sinning. Christ died for us.

Yes, a Christian is a follower of Christ, but Christians still worship God, don't they? And the God of the Old Testament is the same as the God of the New Testament. Considering the Old Testament =/= ignoring the New Testament.

Good point. However, when the New Testament is taken into account, it becomes clear that the relationship between God and man has drastically changed with the death and resurrection of Christ.

They are reflections on the same God, but the relationship between God and man is not the same as it was in the Old Testament.

To elaborate on "Christian thing to do":
Condemning people for sinning when I am a sinner is just as hypocritical as the Pharisees in the aforementioned Gospel passage. Since Jesus is chastising them for being hypocritical, my own hypocrisy in condemning other people for sinning would also be condemned by Jesus since it is the same thing the Pharisees are doing. It follows that doing something which Jesus chastised people for doing is not a very Christian thing to do.

No, he really isn't. I have shown you that it is otherwise. Read the whole passage and you will see why.

I'm over the rest of it, but you'd think he'd speak against them murdering people for something that trivial at some point.

Uh... right... that's Catholic doctrine though; what's the problem?

What I was saying was the catholic doctrine doesn't line up verbatim with the teachings of Christ. Christ said faith alone is what causes salvation, while the Catholic church started adding stuff that you needed to do to ensure salvation and escape from purgatory.

The pope just decreed that pollution was a new deadly sin... it's not in the Bible. These kind of things make me skeptical of the Catholic faith. Not to say there won't be Catholics going to Heaven, but their doctrine has been twisted to say that you must have works along with your faith, when in reality, a true faith would merit good works, but that's different than saying "You must have good works and faith".

To sum up his argument, the ceremonial and judicial precepts of Mosaic Law no longer apply as per the coming of Christ. Hence, continuing to follow them is equivalent to denying the coming of Christ, which would be a mortal sin for a Christian. Therefore, it stands to reason that Christians should not follow these outdated precepts because they were nullified by Christ's atonement for our sins.


Except we can take the OT laws as not relevant in terms of salvation (due to the coming of Christ) yet still a morally good set of laws, as per their supposed perfection. Continuing to follow them, therefore, does not mean denying the coming of Christ because that is still the only road to salvation.

To call the OT laws outdated or wrong now is the equivalent of denying their perfection.

Except we can take the OT laws as not relevant in terms of salvation (due to the coming of Christ) yet still a morally good set of laws, as per their supposed perfection. Continuing to follow them, therefore, does not mean denying the coming of Christ because that is still the only road to salvation.

To call the OT laws outdated or wrong now is the equivalent of denying their perfection.

But should we still accept the idea of killing people for their sins, such as saying the punishments should still be intact? Or are we just saying the moral code is set there, the punishment has changed?

1. Carrying out punishment itself is an action governed by the moral guidelines - thus we can be certain that carrying out the punishment outlined is good too.

2. I don't see anywhere in the Bible where it says the perfection suddenly stops with the punishment.

1. Carrying out punishment itself is an action governed by the moral guidelines - thus we can be certain that carrying out the punishment outlined is good too.

2. I don't see anywhere in the Bible where it says the perfection suddenly stops with the punishment.

Well if you're saying that Jesus took that mantle of sin for us, wouldn't that mean his death exchanged the punishment of death for us?

You can claim it took the necessity out, but that doesn't suddenly make it bad.

You can claim it took the necessity out, but that doesn't suddenly make it bad.

But would it be wrong to say it was possible for his death and ressurection replaced the need for it? Therefore invalidating the punishment?

To call the OT laws outdated or wrong now is the equivalent of denying their perfection.

"Perfection" does not always mean the same thing. A tool designed to accomplish a certain task might be perfect for that task, but if the task changes, the tool is no longer perfect. This is pretty much analogous to Mosaic Law. The relationship between God and man has been fundamentally altered, and since Mosaic Law is said to have been perfect because it was the path to salvation, it can be said to be no longer perfect because it is not now the path to salvation.

I'm over the rest of it, but you'd think he'd speak against them murdering people for something that trivial at some point.

Well, personally I kind of feel like that's implied, but that's subjective.

But would it be wrong to say it was possible for his death and ressurection replaced the need for it? Therefore invalidating the punishment?

That's a non-sequitor. Again, you may say there is no need for it but that doesn't mean it's "invalidated" (whatever the hell that means).

Say I have a tiny scratch (a milimeter long). There is no need for me to use antibiotic ointment on it, but doing so wouldn't wrong. It's just unnecessary.

Same thing here. You can say the punishment is not needed, but that doesn't automatically mean it's wrong.

"Perfection" does not always mean the same thing. A tool designed to accomplish a certain task might be perfect for that task, but if the task changes, the tool is no longer perfect. This is pretty much analogous to Mosaic Law. The relationship between God and man has been fundamentally altered, and since Mosaic Law is said to have been perfect because it was the path to salvation, it can be said to be no longer perfect because it is not now the path to salvation.

No, you're using a convenient definition of perfection. Saying "perfect for X task" is code for "not perfect, just good at doing certain tasks and fails miserably at others".

I would define perfection and something that cannot be improved. Moral laws that have an expiration date can be improved.

Moral laws that have an expiration date can be improved.

So what if Mosaic Law is not perfect? What then?

Well the idea of it being perfect comes from the Bible and the idea that everything god does or says is perfect. It being imperfect brings this into question.

I been thinking about some stuff lately.

Most people claim to be Christians, but are they really?

It seems the majority of people I talk to (age<25) don't pray, haven't read the bible, only went to Sunday school because their parents forced them, and don't go to church anymore (except maybe easter or Christmas).

Yet they claim to be Christians, probably because thats how they were raised.

If they were Christians, shouldn't they be happy when their grandparents (or anyone) dies? I mean, if they honestly believed that they are moving from an old withered sore body to an eternity of pure bliss, shouldn't they be happy for them? Why cry at funnels? Why not bring a keg and throw a celebration party?

Being a Christian and crying at a funeral are two conflicting acts.

------

The other one I though of was gays.

Most people I know don't think there is anything wrong with being gay.

Bible says its your duty to stone gays to death
If you think its ok to be gay and not kill them on sight, then you're going against god's will.
If you go against god, you go to hell

So a Christian must believe at least one of the following things:
They are going to hell
It is wrong to be gay
The bible is wrong

How many Christians do you know that don't believe any of those things? It doesn't make any sense. They HAVE to pick one.

Here is another one
The bible says any women who isn't a virgin when she's married should be put to death.
Same thing as above, if you don't believe that, you go to hell.

So my (Christian) girlfriend's parents must believe one of the following:
Their daughter should be killed right away
They are going to hell
The bible is wrong

In response to situations like these, people make up excuses. Such as "the bible wasn't meant to be taken literally" or they simply ignore that part.

But it doesn't work like that.
Its an all or nothing deal.
You believe all of the bible, non of the bible, or you make up your own little sect of Christianity which picks and chooses from whatever parts you feel like.

That brings me to my next point. People make up shit randomly and start believing it. "I follow the bible, but the part about killing my daughter doesn't count"

ok....says who? You just made that up, just now, because its convenient. You want to make up random shit and start believing it, fine. But at least admit thats what you're doing.

Then there are Christians who believe in lucky charms, astrology, have superstitions, ect.

</rant>

So, input?

What I really want is someone to prove me wrong about the gay/virgin thing.

I think its a pretty good argument while debating a Christian.

You believe your daughter should be killed, that you are going to hell, or that the bible is wrong. Pick one

I think most people would just end it right there and resort to name calling, ect.

But if there is an intelligent retort, I would like to know it before I use this in an argument and end up looking like an idiot.

I think the parts you refer to are BEFORE the ten comandments were written dude...Not to be rude...but...Read the whole bible in order (front to back of course) first, then it will make more sense. (you still might not believe it, but it will make more sense).

I think the parts you refer to are BEFORE the ten comandments were written dude...Not to be rude...but...Read the whole bible in order (front to back of course) first, then it will make more sense. (you still might not believe it, but it will make more sense).

Why do you fail so hard?

Well the idea of it being perfect comes from the Bible and the idea that everything god does or says is perfect. It being imperfect brings this into question.

Paul has a whole lot to say about this in Colossians 2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=colossians%202&version=31), Romans 6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%206;&version=31;) and 10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2010;&version=31;), Galatians 3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203;&version=31;) and 4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galatians%204;&version=31;) , Ephesians 2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians%202;&version=31;) (specifically in verses 11-18), and Hebrews 7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews%207;&version=31;).

Just to name a few. Hebrews 8 and 9, incidentally, are a detailed rundown of the New Covenant. I've heard that there is reason to believe Paul did not actually write the letter to the Hebrews, but I really don't know anything about that one way or another. I don't know if that is any use to you.

Paul speaks FOR the law in a number of places also. He doesn't seem to be necessarily opposed to Mosaic Law, but he basically says that it's not law anymore. This is natural considering the great emphasis that Judaism and Christianity have placed on tradition, historically speaking.

I know that you have read the Bible. You can see why I place such emphasis on the New Testament here.

If God is perfect then He is an all-powerful being, because omnipotence is greater than being limited in ability. An omnipotent being, by definition, must literally be able to do the impossible, because not being able to do so would not be true omnipotence.

If you think about it, "it is impossible for a perfect being to do x" is a ridiculous statement, because ALL THINGS are possible for a perfect being. That's why I have always held that it IS possible for God to do evil, but because a perfect being is also all-good (all-good being better than any amount of evil whatsoever), and thus would never commit an evil act.

The answer is simple.

If one believes in Jesus, Then they should love and forgive everyone (gays). No matter how many things in the bible contradict this, if you are a true Christian, and believe in Jesus - then gays shouldn't bother you. This is coming from my mother...not me.

- my mother teaches at a catholic school and has her masters in religion or some shit. She doesnt go to church. And she isn't a crazy- christian. In fact, I think we only have one crucifix (or any symbol of god) in our entire house (and im italian!)
She believes that even if one doesnt pray, they are still praying subconciously through their actions. No matter how disconnected with god you think you are - you really are not (unless your an atheist). Shes more of a spiritualist than anything. Theres a major difference between being spiritual and religious (yet they are so interconnected!)

So your points about the people claiming to be Christian and not going to church and stuff are false. If you actually spoke to a modern/cultured priest...he would tell you that going to church or praying isn't even a huge part of being christian.

The answer is simple.

If one believes in Jesus, Then they should love and forgive everyone (gays). No matter how many things in the bible contradict this, if you are a true Christian, and believe in Jesus - then gays shouldn't bother you. This is coming from my mother...not me.

- my mother teaches at a catholic school and has her masters in religion or some shit. She doesnt go to church. And she isn't a crazy- christian. In fact, I think we only have one crucifix (or any symbol of god) in our entire house (and im italian!)
She believes that even if one doesnt pray, they are still praying subconciously through their actions. No matter how disconnected with god you think you are - you really are not (unless your an atheist). Shes more of a spiritualist than anything. Theres a major difference between being spiritual and religious (yet they are so interconnected!)

So your points about the people claiming to be Christian and not going to church and stuff are false. If you actually spoke to a modern/cultured priest...he would tell you that going to church or praying isn't even a huge part of being christian.

The christian holy book contradicts that.

If God is perfect then He is an all-powerful being, because omnipotence is greater than being limited in ability. An omnipotent being, by definition, must literally be able to do the impossible, because not being able to do so would not be true omnipotence.


I don't understand what your point is. You asked me what if it were imperfect. If it were imperfect then it would question the sources used by (many) Christians and Jews to argue that it's perfect in the first place; namely the Bible.

If you're suggesting that because he's omnipotent then he can do the illogical, and thus he can create a perfect moral guideline that is imperfect, then I would say that's ultimately not a position a Christian that considers the consequences of that would take.

If he can do the illogical, then we cannot possibly know when and where he has done so! Who are you to say that he hasn't done the illogical with the New Covenant?

The answer is simple.

If one believes in Jesus, Then they should love and forgive everyone (gays). No matter how many things in the bible contradict this, if you are a true Christian, and believe in Jesus - then gays shouldn't bother you. This is coming from my mother...not me.

- my mother teaches at a catholic school and has her masters in religion or some shit. She doesnt go to church. And she isn't a crazy- christian. In fact, I think we only have one crucifix (or any symbol of god) in our entire house (and im italian!)
She believes that even if one doesnt pray, they are still praying subconciously through their actions. No matter how disconnected with god you think you are - you really are not (unless your an atheist). Shes more of a spiritualist than anything. Theres a major difference between being spiritual and religious (yet they are so interconnected!)

So your points about the people claiming to be Christian and not going to church and stuff are false. If you actually spoke to a modern/cultured priest...he would tell you that going to church or praying isn't even a huge part of being christian.

Just because your mother likes to think she'll go to heaven without having to do anything doesn't make it so.

Who are you to say that he hasn't done the illogical with the New Covenant?

Yes, exactly, who am I to say that He hasn't? After all, the idea of a timeless sacrifice made once but providing atonement for all sins, even those which had not occurred at the time of the sacrifice, is pretty illogical.

Also, I would like to know which verses are saying that Mosaic Law is perfect.

I don't like to resort to "God can do anything" because in 99% of cases, it's a cop-out. Now I hope that you can see that I am a reasonable man and a seeker of truth. Being such, I will continue to search for a different answer to this question, just so none of us have to feel like that was a cheap shot.

If you actually spoke to a modern/cultured priest...he would tell you that going to church or praying isn't even a huge part of being christian.

Actually, a modern/cultured priest would tell you that "faith without works is dead". Your mother teaches at a Catholic school so that means the Book of James is not apocryphal for you, and you should know that verse pretty well, since it is close to the heart of Catholic doctrine.

Yes, exactly, who am I to say that He hasn't? After all, the idea of a timeless sacrifice made once but providing atonement for all sins, even those which had not occurred at the time of the sacrifice, is pretty illogical.

So then you agree that this would be a problem for the Christian perspective?

If we can't rely on the assumption that what god does makes reason, then we cannot reaonably conclude anything from what he said (or inspired). For all we know he could have meant the oppossite.


Also, I would like to know which verses are saying that Mosaic Law is perfect.


I don't think there is a direct reference like "The OT Laws are perfect", but that they are perfect is something dereived from other comments - like God being perfect and thus implying what he does and commands is perfect.

Psalms 18:30 "As for God, his way is perfect".

If what the Christian god commands isn't perfect, then a similar problem as with his ability to do imperfection arises.

So then you agree that this would be a problem for the Christian perspective?

Not at all. Christians have known for thousands of years that it's impossible to understand God.

If we can't rely on the assumption that what god does makes reason, then we cannot reaonably conclude anything from what he said (or inspired). For all we know he could have meant the oppossite.

The problem here is that God never said, "Hey, my Old Testament laws are perfect," so there would be absolutely no reason to assume that he meant the opposite of anything he said. In fact, God said wayyyy before He ever established the OT laws that one day everything would change; see below...

I don't think there is a direct reference like "The OT Laws are perfect", but that they are perfect is something dereived from other comments - like God being perfect and thus implying what he does and commands is perfect.

The other problem is that the Old Testament laws do not have to apply forever in order for them to be considered perfect. We must take into account that in the very first book of the Old Testament, before God even establishes the Mosaic Law, He kicks Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden but says to them that one day he's going to send a savior down for all of us and then everything's going to be different.


Psalms 18:30 "As for God, his way is perfect".

So doesn't that mean that His way as it is written in the New Testament, a more recent text, is perfect?

If what the Christian god commands isn't perfect, then a similar problem as with his ability to do imperfection arises.

God did a lot of things in the Old Testament that are completely out of place in the New Covenant, for instance, drowning everyone on the whole entire planet.

Not at all. Christians have known for thousands of years that it's impossible to understand God.

Whether they have known this or not doesn't magically do away with the problem; it's still there. You can say it's a known problem, but to say "we've known this for thousands of years" doesn't mean it isn't a problem.



The problem here is that God never said, "Hey, my Old Testament laws are perfect," so there would be absolutely no reason to assume that he meant the opposite of anything he said. In fact, God said wayyyy before He ever established the OT laws that one day everything would change; see below...

God also didn't literally say a multitude of things many Christians believe in. For example, abortion. There is no explicit condemnation of abortion in the Bible. The idea that it is bad or a sin comes from an implication Christians make: A festus is a life, it's wrong to take a life, therefore it's wrong to have an abortion.

Same thing here: His way is perfect, the moral guidelines he gives are part of his way, therefore the moral guidelines are perfect.

Also, nobody is "assuming the oppossite of anything" here..


The other problem is that the Old Testament laws do not have to apply forever in order for them to be considered perfect. We must take into account that in the very first book of the Old Testament, before God even establishes the Mosaic Law, He kicks Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden but says to them that one day he's going to send a savior down for all of us and then everything's going to be different.

... and He doesn't explicitly state that the OT laws would cease to be morally good ways of living! You're own argument works against you:

"The problem here is that God never said, 'Hey the laws I give are suddenly going to cease being morally good ways of living' so there would be absolutely no reason to assume that he meant the opposite of anything he said"



So doesn't that mean that His way as it is written in the New Testament, a more recent text, is perfect?

It means everything that is "his way", is. Nobody is denying the supposed perfection (for the sake of argument) of the salvation through Christ. What is being said is that on top of that, one can still follow the OT guidelines, and even if following them is not the road to salvation, we can still say they are morally good ways of living.



God did a lot of things in the Old Testament that are completely out of place in the New Covenant, for instance, drowning everyone on the whole entire planet.

Yet the point being discussed here is whether that's "morally bad" or not. Whether it's something he does or doesn't do in the NT, or whether it's something different than the new covenant, doesn't refute this.

Bitching won't change that.

what will

what will

Active participation.

But thats is also a change which I don't agree with ... I do not believe it would change the actual root of the problem, just the way the problem appears.

The other stuff.. Welll it's illegal to kill people so you gotta understand.

But really, being afraid of, ignoring, and hating death makes no sense to me!


Seriously, whenever you waste time you are ignoring death!

But it makes obvious sense to cry when people die, man.. you never get to see them again! But as far as being afraid of, and not embracing the fact that you will die.. well it's some backward ass shit to me man, people should be seizing their lives instead of doing things that they hate for a LARGE fraction of their lives in order to buy things they don't need..

Let's also look at the end of man's duty to judge man:

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Note that this does not stop various Christian Fundamentalist types from quoting Leviticus as their justification for persecuting gays. Most of these clods also do not refrain from, say, eating shellfish which is also prohibited in Leviticus. It is basically a collection of Rabbinic laws, E.g. those that predate modern Christianity or more accurately the split between Judaism and Christianity but remain for tradition's sake.

I don't point this out to argue with you, but to illustrate that some people who would identify themselves as part of "your" camp (that is, Christians with a capital 'C') claim draconian old testament passages as justification for what they do.

This is a big problem. I don't mind god so much, just the people who do reprehensible things in his name.