I have always been told that the bible is an excellent source of wisdom and ethics.
So here is my question.
Where in the bible does it say not to hurt people?
I don't mean murder, I mean cause grievous bodily harm...
Does it say anything about punching someone in the face?
How about going around kicking people in the groin?
This activity is obviously immoral, but what does the bible have to say about it?
I tried to search a couple of places, but I can't find anything about injuring or assaulting other people...
Judges 12:6 "Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand."
That seems like unneccesary violence is encouraged
If I recall though, the bible does offer some handy tips on when it is not appropriate to beat ones slave.
And how long he must live after a beating for you not to have committed murder(three days?).
Grumpy
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Dec 6 2008, 01:04 PM)
And how long he must live after a beating for you not to have committed murder(three days?).
Grumpy
Yes, I believe it was ok if the Sla..'Manservant/Maidservant' lived for 2 days.
However if an eye or tooth is damaged beyond repair they should be set free.
Grumpy
Yes, I believe it was ok if the Sla..'Manservant/Maidservant' lived for 2 days.
However if an eye or tooth is damaged beyond repair they should be set free.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
Does it say anything about punching someone in the face?
How about going around kicking people in the groin?
This activity is obviously immoral, but what does the bible have to say about it?
I guess It's ok to beat up slaves anyway you like provided you do not blind in one eye or knock a tooth out. Perhaps this is why they were often whipped on the back, legs and torso etc. Rules is rules!!
How about going around kicking people in the groin?
This activity is obviously immoral, but what does the bible have to say about it?
I guess It's ok to beat up slaves anyway you like provided you do not blind in one eye or knock a tooth out. Perhaps this is why they were often whipped on the back, legs and torso etc. Rules is rules!!
There may be a handful who want to be kicked in the groin and slapped in the face, but for the majority of people I would think that would come under the Golden Rule. Matthew 7:12.
I don't know...
Think of a fist fight
Is a fist fight allowed?
Obviously if I punch someone, I expect them to punch back.
I may not enjoy it, but I would expect it
Think of a fist fight
Is a fist fight allowed?
Obviously if I punch someone, I expect them to punch back.
I may not enjoy it, but I would expect it
So many ignoramuses, so little time...
QUOTE (SinisterUtopia+)
If I recall though, the bible does offer some handy tips on when it is not appropriate to beat ones slave.
SinisterUtopia: Do you mind if I just call you "Sinister", for short? "The Bible"? No, you only mean a portion of the Bible, namely the Old Testament, which you neither understand nor desire to understand. Isn't this correct? Of course, it is. I'll get to what "THE BIBLE" has to say in regards to the handling of one's slave/servant in just a minute. In the meantime, let's briefly bring that other ignoramus into the conversation, shall we?
SinisterUtopia: Do you mind if I just call you "Sinister", for short? "The Bible"? No, you only mean a portion of the Bible, namely the Old Testament, which you neither understand nor desire to understand. Isn't this correct? Of course, it is. I'll get to what "THE BIBLE" has to say in regards to the handling of one's slave/servant in just a minute. In the meantime, let's briefly bring that other ignoramus into the conversation, shall we?
QUOTE (Grumpy+)
And how long he must live after a beating for you not to have committed murder(three days?).
Grumpy: I suppose it's safe to assume that this is the text to which you refer:
"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."(Exodus 21:20-21)
"...if he continue a day or two" most likely implies that he resumed his functions as a servant a day or two later or that he fully recovered and NOT that he died a day or two later as you imply. In fact, this is how that verse is translated in some versions such as the following:
http://gwt.scripturetext.com/exodus/21.htm
"Whenever an owner hits his male or female slave with a stick so that the slave dies from the beating, the owner must be punished. But if the slave gets up in a day or two, the owner must not be punished. The slave is his property.(Exodus 21:20-21, God's Word Translation)
http://worldebible.com/exodus/21.htm
"If a man strikes his servant or his maid with a rod, and he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he gets up after a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his property."(Exodus 21:20-21, World English Bible)
http://bible.crosswalk.com/ParallelBible/bible.cgi
"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."(Exodus 21:20-21, New International Version)
Additionally, as "Sinister" correctly noted, even UNDER THE OLD TESTAMENT, if a servant/slave endured physical damage, such as the loss of an eye or the loss of a tooth, then that servant was to be set free.
"And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out is manservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."(Exodus 21:26-27)
Anyhow, enough of your deliberate clinging to the Old Testament...unless of course you've got the balls to bring your complaints DIRECTLY TO THE JEWS WHO STILL CLING TO THIS OLD TESTAMENT LAW? Nah, you're just another coward who hides behind a computer screen, aren't you? I thought so. Where was I? Ah, yes...I was about to discuss what THE BIBLE has to say about the treatment/handling of one's servant. Let's start with Jesus, shall we?
"And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him. The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour."(Matthew 8:5-13)
JESUS CHRIST, the One Whom Christians follow, healed the Roman centurion's servant. Get's you "right there", doesn't it? There's more:
"And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him."
(Luke 22:50-51)
Jesus healed the ear of the high priest's servant...the same servant who came to assist in Jesus' arrest and consequential condemnation by the same high priest whom he served. In fact, if you read the same account elsewhere, then you will notice that Jesus also REBUKED Peter for HARMING the servant, didn't He? Of course, He did. Now, THAT sounds just like JESUS, doesn't it? Sure it does. You know Who Jesus is, don't you? Sure you do. He's the One Who told HIS DISCIPLES who were jockeying for position to be MINISTERS/SERVANTS:
"But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."(Matthew 20:25-28)
Finally(for now), it might interest one of you(gmilam...he's not as corrupt as the rest of you) to know that Christians were slaves/servants, too, during the time of the New Testament writers.
"Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. Brethren, let every man wherein he is called, therein abide with God."(I Corinthians 7:20-24)
While writing to THE CHURCH at Corinth, Paul reminds CHRISTIANS that whether they are bond or free in regards TO MAN, they are still SERVANTS OF GOD and should behave themselves accordingly. He gives more insight in some of his other epistles, such as the following:
"Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."(Ephesians 6:5-9)
Here, Paul admonishes Christians to be obedient to their "masters according to the flesh" as good SERVANTS OF CHRIST. He also reminds these "fleshly masters" that they have a heavenly Master as well and admonishes them to even forbear threatening of their servants. See(try opening your eyes for a change)? NOTHING about beating or killing servants. I could give more(why bother...it just falls on deaf ears), but I'll conclude with a portion of Paul's letter to Philemon for now:
"Wherefore, though I might be much bold in Christ to enjoin thee that which is convenient, Yet for love's sake I rather beseech thee, being such an one as Paul the aged, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ. I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds: Which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me: Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels: Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel: But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly. For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever; Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more to thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord? If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself. If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee aught, put that on mine account; I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides. Yea, brother, let me now have joy of thee in the Lord: refresh my bowels in the Lord. Having confidence in thy obedience I wrote unto thee, knowing that thou wilt also do more than I say."(Philemon 1:8-21)
Onesimus was apparently a runaway servant/slave of Philemon's who had also apparently stolen some of his goods along the way. Paul admonished Philemon to receive Onesimus back as more than a servant, but also as a brother. Just for the record.
Grumpy: I suppose it's safe to assume that this is the text to which you refer:
"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."(Exodus 21:20-21)
"...if he continue a day or two" most likely implies that he resumed his functions as a servant a day or two later or that he fully recovered and NOT that he died a day or two later as you imply. In fact, this is how that verse is translated in some versions such as the following:
http://gwt.scripturetext.com/exodus/21.htm
"Whenever an owner hits his male or female slave with a stick so that the slave dies from the beating, the owner must be punished. But if the slave gets up in a day or two, the owner must not be punished. The slave is his property.(Exodus 21:20-21, God's Word Translation)
http://worldebible.com/exodus/21.htm
"If a man strikes his servant or his maid with a rod, and he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he gets up after a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his property."(Exodus 21:20-21, World English Bible)
http://bible.crosswalk.com/ParallelBible/bible.cgi
"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."(Exodus 21:20-21, New International Version)
Additionally, as "Sinister" correctly noted, even UNDER THE OLD TESTAMENT, if a servant/slave endured physical damage, such as the loss of an eye or the loss of a tooth, then that servant was to be set free.
"And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out is manservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."(Exodus 21:26-27)
Anyhow, enough of your deliberate clinging to the Old Testament...unless of course you've got the balls to bring your complaints DIRECTLY TO THE JEWS WHO STILL CLING TO THIS OLD TESTAMENT LAW? Nah, you're just another coward who hides behind a computer screen, aren't you? I thought so. Where was I? Ah, yes...I was about to discuss what THE BIBLE has to say about the treatment/handling of one's servant. Let's start with Jesus, shall we?
"And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him. The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour."(Matthew 8:5-13)
JESUS CHRIST, the One Whom Christians follow, healed the Roman centurion's servant. Get's you "right there", doesn't it? There's more:
"And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him."
(Luke 22:50-51)
Jesus healed the ear of the high priest's servant...the same servant who came to assist in Jesus' arrest and consequential condemnation by the same high priest whom he served. In fact, if you read the same account elsewhere, then you will notice that Jesus also REBUKED Peter for HARMING the servant, didn't He? Of course, He did. Now, THAT sounds just like JESUS, doesn't it? Sure it does. You know Who Jesus is, don't you? Sure you do. He's the One Who told HIS DISCIPLES who were jockeying for position to be MINISTERS/SERVANTS:
"But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."(Matthew 20:25-28)
Finally(for now), it might interest one of you(gmilam...he's not as corrupt as the rest of you) to know that Christians were slaves/servants, too, during the time of the New Testament writers.
"Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. Brethren, let every man wherein he is called, therein abide with God."(I Corinthians 7:20-24)
While writing to THE CHURCH at Corinth, Paul reminds CHRISTIANS that whether they are bond or free in regards TO MAN, they are still SERVANTS OF GOD and should behave themselves accordingly. He gives more insight in some of his other epistles, such as the following:
"Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."(Ephesians 6:5-9)
Here, Paul admonishes Christians to be obedient to their "masters according to the flesh" as good SERVANTS OF CHRIST. He also reminds these "fleshly masters" that they have a heavenly Master as well and admonishes them to even forbear threatening of their servants. See(try opening your eyes for a change)? NOTHING about beating or killing servants. I could give more(why bother...it just falls on deaf ears), but I'll conclude with a portion of Paul's letter to Philemon for now:
"Wherefore, though I might be much bold in Christ to enjoin thee that which is convenient, Yet for love's sake I rather beseech thee, being such an one as Paul the aged, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ. I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds: Which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me: Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels: Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel: But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly. For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever; Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more to thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord? If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself. If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee aught, put that on mine account; I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides. Yea, brother, let me now have joy of thee in the Lord: refresh my bowels in the Lord. Having confidence in thy obedience I wrote unto thee, knowing that thou wilt also do more than I say."(Philemon 1:8-21)
Onesimus was apparently a runaway servant/slave of Philemon's who had also apparently stolen some of his goods along the way. Paul admonished Philemon to receive Onesimus back as more than a servant, but also as a brother. Just for the record.
QUOTE (gmilam+)
There may be a handful who want to be kicked in the groin and slapped in the face, but for the majority of people I would think that would come under the Golden Rule. Matthew 7:12.
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."(Matthew 7:12)
gmilam: Of course, in this, you are correct. THIS IS THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS...not the garbage that our resident ignoramuses constantly spew. The only question that I have for you is this:
Seeing how you apparently have more decency and honestly than most on this forum, why then do you continue to company with such indecent and dishonest "men"(used loosely)?
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."(Matthew 7:12)
gmilam: Of course, in this, you are correct. THIS IS THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS...not the garbage that our resident ignoramuses constantly spew. The only question that I have for you is this:
Seeing how you apparently have more decency and honestly than most on this forum, why then do you continue to company with such indecent and dishonest "men"(used loosely)?
QUOTE (newguy+Dec 8 2008, 02:10 PM)
Anyhow, enough of your deliberate clinging to the Old Testament...unless of course you've got the balls to bring your complaints DIRECTLY TO THE JEWS WHO STILL CLING TO THIS OLD TESTAMENT LAW? Nah, you're just another coward who hides behind a computer screen, aren't you? I thought so. Where was I? Ah, yes...I was about to discuss what THE BIBLE has to say about the treatment/handling of one's servant. Let's start with Jesus, shall we?
(New Testement Quote)
JESUS CHRIST, the One Whom Christians follow, healed the Roman centurion's servant. Get's you "right there", doesn't it? There's more:
(New Testement Quote)
Jesus healed the ear of the high priest's servant...the same servant who came to assist in Jesus' arrest and consequential condemnation by the same high priest whom he served. In fact, if you read the same account elsewhere, then you will notice that Jesus also REBUKED Peter for HARMING the servant, didn't He? Of course, He did. Now, THAT sounds just like JESUS, doesn't it? Sure it does. You know Who Jesus is, don't you? Sure you do. He's the One Who told HIS DISCIPLES who were jockeying for position to be MINISTERS/SERVANTS:
(New Testement Quote)
So your point is that because Jesus didn't pick fistfights and assault people, that means that good christian's wont, either?
Jesus didn't get married.
Jesus didn't procreate.
Jesus didn't go to church.
Jesus didn't do charity work (although he did do a lot of charitable things...).
Jesus didn't run for public office.
So there's a few more things good Christians shouldn't do. I especially like the second. We could rid Ireland and parts of the Middle East and Russia of sectarian violence in a single generation, with that one!
(New Testement Quote)
JESUS CHRIST, the One Whom Christians follow, healed the Roman centurion's servant. Get's you "right there", doesn't it? There's more:
(New Testement Quote)
Jesus healed the ear of the high priest's servant...the same servant who came to assist in Jesus' arrest and consequential condemnation by the same high priest whom he served. In fact, if you read the same account elsewhere, then you will notice that Jesus also REBUKED Peter for HARMING the servant, didn't He? Of course, He did. Now, THAT sounds just like JESUS, doesn't it? Sure it does. You know Who Jesus is, don't you? Sure you do. He's the One Who told HIS DISCIPLES who were jockeying for position to be MINISTERS/SERVANTS:
(New Testement Quote)
So your point is that because Jesus didn't pick fistfights and assault people, that means that good christian's wont, either?
Jesus didn't get married.
Jesus didn't procreate.
Jesus didn't go to church.
Jesus didn't do charity work (although he did do a lot of charitable things...).
Jesus didn't run for public office.
So there's a few more things good Christians shouldn't do. I especially like the second. We could rid Ireland and parts of the Middle East and Russia of sectarian violence in a single generation, with that one!
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
So your point is that because Jesus didn't pick fistfights and assault people, that means that good christian's wont, either?
MjolnirPants: That would be ONE of my points.
MjolnirPants: That would be ONE of my points.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
Jesus didn't get married.
As I've explained numerous times already, Jesus is referred to as "the bridegroom", whereas the church is referred to as His "bride". In fact, Christians are spoken of as being "espoused" to Christ:
"For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ."(II Corinthians 11:2)
"The marriage supper of the Lamb" will officially take place when Christ returns to earth. Would you like chapter and verse to support this claim of mine? Additionally, as I've also explained via chapter and verse numerous times in the past, Jesus did most certainly allow for Christians to be married.
As I've explained numerous times already, Jesus is referred to as "the bridegroom", whereas the church is referred to as His "bride". In fact, Christians are spoken of as being "espoused" to Christ:
"For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ."(II Corinthians 11:2)
"The marriage supper of the Lamb" will officially take place when Christ returns to earth. Would you like chapter and verse to support this claim of mine? Additionally, as I've also explained via chapter and verse numerous times in the past, Jesus did most certainly allow for Christians to be married.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
Jesus didn't procreate.
He did, however, certainly allow for Christians to do so. As I've also explained numerous times in the past, the spiritual union between Christ and His church is likened to a natural marriage throughout scripture. Although Jesus did not procreate naturally, He expects procreation spiritually through those to whom He is "married". In other words, those who truly belong to the Lord will "bear fruit for Him"...I'm specifically referring to the process of going out and making disciples unto the Lord. You can understand that, can't you? Anyhow, like I said, Jesus did allow for procreation amongst Christians. If you're trying to suggest that Jesus also allowed for fistfighting or assault amongst Christians, then please cite New Testament chapter and verse. Thanks.
He did, however, certainly allow for Christians to do so. As I've also explained numerous times in the past, the spiritual union between Christ and His church is likened to a natural marriage throughout scripture. Although Jesus did not procreate naturally, He expects procreation spiritually through those to whom He is "married". In other words, those who truly belong to the Lord will "bear fruit for Him"...I'm specifically referring to the process of going out and making disciples unto the Lord. You can understand that, can't you? Anyhow, like I said, Jesus did allow for procreation amongst Christians. If you're trying to suggest that Jesus also allowed for fistfighting or assault amongst Christians, then please cite New Testament chapter and verse. Thanks.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
Jesus didn't go to church.
Actually, Jesus did appear in the temple and in synagogues quite regularly. Although He did heal and teach people in such surroundings, He also quite regularly confronted religious hypocrisy there as well. Your point?
Actually, Jesus did appear in the temple and in synagogues quite regularly. Although He did heal and teach people in such surroundings, He also quite regularly confronted religious hypocrisy there as well. Your point?
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
Jesus didn't do charity work (although he did do a lot of charitable things...).
You're splitting hairs. In any case, Jesus did instruct His disciples to do charitable works. Your point?
You're splitting hairs. In any case, Jesus did instruct His disciples to do charitable works. Your point?
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
Jesus didn't run for public office.
True, even though He will return one day as "King of kings and Lord of lords". I've already made my viewpoints perfectly clear in regards to Christians and government MULTIPLE TIMES...would you like to hear them, again? If not, then what is your point? That so-called Christians are trying to legislate morality through earthly government? If so, then I agree with your assessment, but NOT with their practices as I've plainly stated umpteen times.
True, even though He will return one day as "King of kings and Lord of lords". I've already made my viewpoints perfectly clear in regards to Christians and government MULTIPLE TIMES...would you like to hear them, again? If not, then what is your point? That so-called Christians are trying to legislate morality through earthly government? If so, then I agree with your assessment, but NOT with their practices as I've plainly stated umpteen times.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
So there's a few more things good Christians shouldn't do.
ONLY in your misinterpretation/misrepresentation of scripture.
ONLY in your misinterpretation/misrepresentation of scripture.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
I especially like the second. We could rid Ireland and parts of the Middle East and Russia of sectarian violence in a single generation, with that one!
Baloney. I've already challenged several other forum members to cite New Testament chapter and verse where Christians are instructed/admonished towards violence. Will you be the one to provide the documentation? Since we both know that you won't be the one(since no such documentation exists), then you should just keep your ignorant opinions to yourself. Christians don't partake in "sectarian violence"...unless, of course, they are the ones who are genuinely being persecuted for righteousness' sake.
Take care.
P.S. My comments regarding Christians and sectarian violence are only to be construed as meaning that Christians may find themselves on THE RECEIVING END of violence, but NOT on THE GIVING END of violence. Thanks.
Baloney. I've already challenged several other forum members to cite New Testament chapter and verse where Christians are instructed/admonished towards violence. Will you be the one to provide the documentation? Since we both know that you won't be the one(since no such documentation exists), then you should just keep your ignorant opinions to yourself. Christians don't partake in "sectarian violence"...unless, of course, they are the ones who are genuinely being persecuted for righteousness' sake.
Take care.
P.S. My comments regarding Christians and sectarian violence are only to be construed as meaning that Christians may find themselves on THE RECEIVING END of violence, but NOT on THE GIVING END of violence. Thanks.
QUOTE (newguy+Dec 8 2008, 09:10 AM)
gmilam: Of course, in this, you are correct. THIS IS THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS...not the garbage that our resident ignoramuses constantly spew. The only question that I have for you is this:
Seeing how you apparently have more decency and honestly than most on this forum, why then do you continue to company with such indecent and dishonest "men"(used loosely)?
I'd be pretty lonely if I only hung out with perfect people.
Just trying to understand my fellow humans.
Seeing how you apparently have more decency and honestly than most on this forum, why then do you continue to company with such indecent and dishonest "men"(used loosely)?
I'd be pretty lonely if I only hung out with perfect people.
Just trying to understand my fellow humans.
QUOTE (gmilam+)
I'd be pretty lonely if I only hung out with perfect people.
gmilam: In case there was some biting sarcasm in that statement, I'll remind you that I'm far from perfect myself and knowingly so. In fact, the vast majority of what I've learned in relation to God/Christ has come "the hard way"...through rebuke/correction from God Himself. I hope that you can recognize that one is allowed, scripturally speaking, to admonish others AFTER removing the beam from his/her own eye. The areas in which I speak the most straightforwardly/unwaveringly are the areas in which I've personally received the most correction myself. I hope that makes sense.
gmilam: In case there was some biting sarcasm in that statement, I'll remind you that I'm far from perfect myself and knowingly so. In fact, the vast majority of what I've learned in relation to God/Christ has come "the hard way"...through rebuke/correction from God Himself. I hope that you can recognize that one is allowed, scripturally speaking, to admonish others AFTER removing the beam from his/her own eye. The areas in which I speak the most straightforwardly/unwaveringly are the areas in which I've personally received the most correction myself. I hope that makes sense.
QUOTE (gmilam+)
Just trying to understand my fellow humans.
Fair enough...NOT that you need my "approval rating". Take care.
Fair enough...NOT that you need my "approval rating". Take care.
QUOTE (newguy+Dec 8 2008, 03:45 PM)
ONLY in your misinterpretation/misrepresentation of scripture.
Misrepresentation? Unfounded accusations are inherently dishonest, even when they're accusations of dishonesty, newguy.
You yourself admitted that your point was "Jesus didn't do it, so Christians shouldn't do it."
I simply applied this very same logic to other things Jesus didn't do. I didn't even bring into consideration things Jesus couldn't have done (like driving a car, investing in biotech research, etc...) because that would have been dishonest.
No matter how Jesus analogized his relationship to the church, he didn't get married to a woman (or a man), so using the logic you yourself attempted to use here means Christians should not get married. Period.
Same thing with procreation, running for public office, etc.
Maybe the charity thing was splitting hairs, but I still don't recall any passage of the bible that had Jesus heading off to some famine-stricken area of the world with a boatload of food. There's an appreciable difference between that and helping out some stranger you just met.
Please quote back where I claimed the bible instructs christians to engage in sectarian violence.
Oh wait, I didn't claim that, so you're just being dishonest here. Ok.
Well, sectarian violence happens among christians, and against christians, so if all christians stopped breeding, pretty soon there'd be no christians, and no christian-involved sectarian violence.
Please quote back where I claimed the bible instructs christians to engage in sectarian violence.
Oh wait, I didn't claim that, so you're just being dishonest here. Ok.
Well, sectarian violence happens among christians, and against christians, so if all christians stopped breeding, pretty soon there'd be no christians, and no christian-involved sectarian violence.
then you should just keep your ignorant opinions to yourself.
Says the man who must put words in my mouth in order to respond properly...
Tsk tsk, newguy. Doesn't the bible say something about dishonesty?
Talk about ignorance...
Crusades
The Troubles
Christians have engaged in violence for as long as there have been christians.
Talk about ignorance...
Crusades
The Troubles
Christians have engaged in violence for as long as there have been christians.
P.S. My comments regarding Christians and sectarian violence are only to be construed as meaning that Christians may find themselves on THE RECEIVING END of violence, but NOT on THE GIVING END of violence. Thanks.
Both of my links falsify that.
Misrepresentation? Unfounded accusations are inherently dishonest, even when they're accusations of dishonesty, newguy.
You yourself admitted that your point was "Jesus didn't do it, so Christians shouldn't do it."
I simply applied this very same logic to other things Jesus didn't do. I didn't even bring into consideration things Jesus couldn't have done (like driving a car, investing in biotech research, etc...) because that would have been dishonest.
No matter how Jesus analogized his relationship to the church, he didn't get married to a woman (or a man), so using the logic you yourself attempted to use here means Christians should not get married. Period.
Same thing with procreation, running for public office, etc.
Maybe the charity thing was splitting hairs, but I still don't recall any passage of the bible that had Jesus heading off to some famine-stricken area of the world with a boatload of food. There's an appreciable difference between that and helping out some stranger you just met.
QUOTE
Baloney. I've already challenged several other forum members to cite New Testament chapter and verse where Christians are instructed/admonished towards violence.
Please quote back where I claimed the bible instructs christians to engage in sectarian violence.
Oh wait, I didn't claim that, so you're just being dishonest here. Ok.
Well, sectarian violence happens among christians, and against christians, so if all christians stopped breeding, pretty soon there'd be no christians, and no christian-involved sectarian violence.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Baloney. I've already challenged several other forum members to cite New Testament chapter and verse where Christians are instructed/admonished towards violence. |
Please quote back where I claimed the bible instructs christians to engage in sectarian violence.
Oh wait, I didn't claim that, so you're just being dishonest here. Ok.
Well, sectarian violence happens among christians, and against christians, so if all christians stopped breeding, pretty soon there'd be no christians, and no christian-involved sectarian violence.
then you should just keep your ignorant opinions to yourself.
Says the man who must put words in my mouth in order to respond properly...
Tsk tsk, newguy. Doesn't the bible say something about dishonesty?
QUOTE
Christians don't partake in "sectarian violence"...unless, of course, they are the ones who are genuinely being persecuted for righteousness' sake.
Talk about ignorance...
Crusades
The Troubles
Christians have engaged in violence for as long as there have been christians.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Christians don't partake in "sectarian violence"...unless, of course, they are the ones who are genuinely being persecuted for righteousness' sake. |
Talk about ignorance...
Crusades
The Troubles
Christians have engaged in violence for as long as there have been christians.
P.S. My comments regarding Christians and sectarian violence are only to be construed as meaning that Christians may find themselves on THE RECEIVING END of violence, but NOT on THE GIVING END of violence. Thanks.
Both of my links falsify that.
newguy
Why such an a$$hole today???
I reject the CRAP in both the old and the new testament. I also respect the GOOD to be found in either.
It really amazes me that you accuse US of clinging to the Old Testament, yet you continue to hold up the condemnation of gays to be found there and think Sodom and Gomorra are valid moral lessons against homosexuality(it isn't, in fact it isn't about gays at all, but against the RELIGIOUS practices of Ba'al worship).
It seems even YOU use the Old Testament when it suits your arguments and discount it when it is so embarrassingly wrong, hmm???
And you bring up the Roman's manservant seemingly unaware of the historically known HOMOSEXUAL relationship implicit in it. The Roman officer was so upset because his LOVER was dying, a historically accurate interpretation. Prior to the Christian era homosexuality was quite common and accepted in Roman society and especially the military. That Jesus supposedly healed the manservant without condemning that lifestyle says a lot about Jesus's attitude. He never said a word condemning gays, nor did the Ten Commandments(Old Testament, again).
Coward??? Based on what??? I try not to be too rude about it when speaking to relatively sane Christians, but I make no bones about how I feel or what I think about their irrational beliefs, never have(and deep in the Bible Belt, no less), never will. That I prefer not to have crazy nutjobs with snuff fantasies(duh!) knocking on my door is just common sense, not fear. I'm not afraid of you or of any other believer(at least the sane ones, the insane would need to be put down like rabid dogs if they were stupid enough to act on their sick fantasies(again, duh!)).
I reject the CRAP in both the old and the new testament. I also respect the GOOD to be found in either.
It really amazes me that you accuse US of clinging to the Old Testament, yet you continue to hold up the condemnation of gays to be found there and think Sodom and Gomorra are valid moral lessons against homosexuality(it isn't, in fact it isn't about gays at all, but against the RELIGIOUS practices of Ba'al worship).
It seems even YOU use the Old Testament when it suits your arguments and discount it when it is so embarrassingly wrong, hmm???
And you bring up the Roman's manservant seemingly unaware of the historically known HOMOSEXUAL relationship implicit in it. The Roman officer was so upset because his LOVER was dying, a historically accurate interpretation. Prior to the Christian era homosexuality was quite common and accepted in Roman society and especially the military. That Jesus supposedly healed the manservant without condemning that lifestyle says a lot about Jesus's attitude. He never said a word condemning gays, nor did the Ten Commandments(Old Testament, again).
Coward??? Based on what??? I try not to be too rude about it when speaking to relatively sane Christians, but I make no bones about how I feel or what I think about their irrational beliefs, never have(and deep in the Bible Belt, no less), never will. That I prefer not to have crazy nutjobs with snuff fantasies(duh!) knocking on my door is just common sense, not fear. I'm not afraid of you or of any other believer(at least the sane ones, the insane would need to be put down like rabid dogs if they were stupid enough to act on their sick fantasies(again, duh!)).
...Useless and tedious arguments about angels dancing on pins...
A$$HOLE!!! Remove the beam from your own eye before you start calling others "such indecent and dishonest "men"(used loosely)". If you can't be civil to those who disagree with the great newguy, SOD OFF!!!
Grumpy
Why such an a$$hole today???
QUOTE
Anyhow, enough of your deliberate clinging to the Old Testament...unless of course you've got the balls to bring your complaints DIRECTLY TO THE JEWS WHO STILL CLING TO THIS OLD TESTAMENT LAW? Nah, you're just another coward who hides behind a computer screen, aren't you? I thought so.
I reject the CRAP in both the old and the new testament. I also respect the GOOD to be found in either.
It really amazes me that you accuse US of clinging to the Old Testament, yet you continue to hold up the condemnation of gays to be found there and think Sodom and Gomorra are valid moral lessons against homosexuality(it isn't, in fact it isn't about gays at all, but against the RELIGIOUS practices of Ba'al worship).
It seems even YOU use the Old Testament when it suits your arguments and discount it when it is so embarrassingly wrong, hmm???
And you bring up the Roman's manservant seemingly unaware of the historically known HOMOSEXUAL relationship implicit in it. The Roman officer was so upset because his LOVER was dying, a historically accurate interpretation. Prior to the Christian era homosexuality was quite common and accepted in Roman society and especially the military. That Jesus supposedly healed the manservant without condemning that lifestyle says a lot about Jesus's attitude. He never said a word condemning gays, nor did the Ten Commandments(Old Testament, again).
Coward??? Based on what??? I try not to be too rude about it when speaking to relatively sane Christians, but I make no bones about how I feel or what I think about their irrational beliefs, never have(and deep in the Bible Belt, no less), never will. That I prefer not to have crazy nutjobs with snuff fantasies(duh!) knocking on my door is just common sense, not fear. I'm not afraid of you or of any other believer(at least the sane ones, the insane would need to be put down like rabid dogs if they were stupid enough to act on their sick fantasies(again, duh!)).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Anyhow, enough of your deliberate clinging to the Old Testament...unless of course you've got the balls to bring your complaints DIRECTLY TO THE JEWS WHO STILL CLING TO THIS OLD TESTAMENT LAW? Nah, you're just another coward who hides behind a computer screen, aren't you? I thought so. |
I reject the CRAP in both the old and the new testament. I also respect the GOOD to be found in either.
It really amazes me that you accuse US of clinging to the Old Testament, yet you continue to hold up the condemnation of gays to be found there and think Sodom and Gomorra are valid moral lessons against homosexuality(it isn't, in fact it isn't about gays at all, but against the RELIGIOUS practices of Ba'al worship).
It seems even YOU use the Old Testament when it suits your arguments and discount it when it is so embarrassingly wrong, hmm???
And you bring up the Roman's manservant seemingly unaware of the historically known HOMOSEXUAL relationship implicit in it. The Roman officer was so upset because his LOVER was dying, a historically accurate interpretation. Prior to the Christian era homosexuality was quite common and accepted in Roman society and especially the military. That Jesus supposedly healed the manservant without condemning that lifestyle says a lot about Jesus's attitude. He never said a word condemning gays, nor did the Ten Commandments(Old Testament, again).
Coward??? Based on what??? I try not to be too rude about it when speaking to relatively sane Christians, but I make no bones about how I feel or what I think about their irrational beliefs, never have(and deep in the Bible Belt, no less), never will. That I prefer not to have crazy nutjobs with snuff fantasies(duh!) knocking on my door is just common sense, not fear. I'm not afraid of you or of any other believer(at least the sane ones, the insane would need to be put down like rabid dogs if they were stupid enough to act on their sick fantasies(again, duh!)).
...Useless and tedious arguments about angels dancing on pins...
QUOTE
gmilam: Of course, in this, you are correct. THIS IS THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS...not the garbage that our resident ignoramuses constantly spew. The only question that I have for you is this:
Seeing how you apparently have more decency and honestly than most on this forum, why then do you continue to company with such indecent and dishonest "men"(used loosely)?
Seeing how you apparently have more decency and honestly than most on this forum, why then do you continue to company with such indecent and dishonest "men"(used loosely)?
A$$HOLE!!! Remove the beam from your own eye before you start calling others "such indecent and dishonest "men"(used loosely)". If you can't be civil to those who disagree with the great newguy, SOD OFF!!!
Grumpy
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
So there's a few more things good Christians shouldn't do.
QUOTE (newguy+)
ONLY in your misinterpretation/misrepresentation of scripture.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
Misrepresentation? Unfounded accusations are inherently dishonest, even when they're accusations of dishonesty, newguy.
MjolnirPants: YES, not only a "misrepresentation", but, more specifically, A MISREPRESENTATION OF SCRIPTURE, just like I said. You initially implied and just flat out said that...
"Christians should not get married" and, yet, SCRIPTURE clearly states that Christians can get married. Like I said, YOU MISREPRESENTED SCRIPTURE.
"Christians should not procreate" and, yet, SCRIPTURE clearly states that Christians can procreate. Like I said, YOU MISREPRESENTED SCRIPTURE.
"Jesus didn't go to church" and therefore "Christians shouldn't go to church" and, yet, SCRIPTURE clearly states that Jesus went to the temple and the synagogues(the churches of His day) and scripture also clearly states that Christians went to church(the epistles were written to THE CHURCHES, for crying out loud). Like I said, YOU MISREPRESENTED SCRIPTURE.
"Christians shouldn't do charity work" and, yet, SCRIPTURE clearly states that Christians should do charity work. Like I said, YOU MISREPRESENTED SCRIPTURE.
Got it? No? Then keep reading...
MjolnirPants: YES, not only a "misrepresentation", but, more specifically, A MISREPRESENTATION OF SCRIPTURE, just like I said. You initially implied and just flat out said that...
"Christians should not get married" and, yet, SCRIPTURE clearly states that Christians can get married. Like I said, YOU MISREPRESENTED SCRIPTURE.
"Christians should not procreate" and, yet, SCRIPTURE clearly states that Christians can procreate. Like I said, YOU MISREPRESENTED SCRIPTURE.
"Jesus didn't go to church" and therefore "Christians shouldn't go to church" and, yet, SCRIPTURE clearly states that Jesus went to the temple and the synagogues(the churches of His day) and scripture also clearly states that Christians went to church(the epistles were written to THE CHURCHES, for crying out loud). Like I said, YOU MISREPRESENTED SCRIPTURE.
"Christians shouldn't do charity work" and, yet, SCRIPTURE clearly states that Christians should do charity work. Like I said, YOU MISREPRESENTED SCRIPTURE.
Got it? No? Then keep reading...
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
You yourself admitted that your point was "Jesus didn't do it, so Christians shouldn't do it."
I simply applied this very same logic to other things Jesus didn't do. I didn't even bring into consideration things Jesus couldn't have done (like driving a car, investing in biotech research, etc...) because that would have been dishonest.
Nice try. ACTUALLY, what I admitted was that "Jesus" NOT ONLY "didn't do it", but, ALSO THAT HE DIDN'T TEACH IT? You really are a dishonest twister of words, aren't you? Of course, you are. Knowing how dishonest you are, I anticipated your course of action and included the following in my initial response to you:
I simply applied this very same logic to other things Jesus didn't do. I didn't even bring into consideration things Jesus couldn't have done (like driving a car, investing in biotech research, etc...) because that would have been dishonest.
Nice try. ACTUALLY, what I admitted was that "Jesus" NOT ONLY "didn't do it", but, ALSO THAT HE DIDN'T TEACH IT? You really are a dishonest twister of words, aren't you? Of course, you are. Knowing how dishonest you are, I anticipated your course of action and included the following in my initial response to you:
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
So your point is that because Jesus didn't pick fistfights and assault people, that means that good christian's wont, either?
QUOTE (newguy+)
That would be ONE of my points.
Didn't you notice where I said "ONE of my points"?
I touched upon ANOTHER DIRECTLY RELATED POINT when I said...
Didn't you notice where I said "ONE of my points"?
I touched upon ANOTHER DIRECTLY RELATED POINT when I said...
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
If you're trying to suggest that Jesus also allowed for fistfighting or assault amongst Christians, then please cite New Testament chapter and verse. Thanks.
...and also when I said...
...and also when I said...
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
I've already challenged several other forum members to cite New Testament chapter and verse where Christians are instructed/admonished towards violence. Will you be the one to provide the documentation? Since we both know that you won't be the one(since no such documentation exists), then you should just keep your ignorant opinions to yourself.
So, liar, where is your documentation? Don't have any, RIGHT?!? I thought not.
So, liar, where is your documentation? Don't have any, RIGHT?!? I thought not.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
No matter how Jesus analogized his relationship to the church, he didn't get married to a woman (or a man), so using the logic you yourself attempted to use here means Christians should not get married. Period.
Same thing with procreation, running for public office, etc.
More baloney. "The logic that I attempted to use here", according to you, is just another attempt at deceit ON YOUR PART. MY "logic" has been the same throughout all of the threads. I've repeatedly explained how Jesus' relationship with the church is likened to the natural relationship between a man and his wife(Got that, Grumpy...man and wife). I've also repeatedly stressed THE FACT that I am here, primarily, to defend BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY. Biblical Christianity clearly supports the things that I've stated and, simultaneously, clearly refutes the MISREPRESENTATIONS OF SCRIPTURE that are being spouted by YOU. Deal with it...although I doubt that you're capable of honest introspection.
Same thing with procreation, running for public office, etc.
More baloney. "The logic that I attempted to use here", according to you, is just another attempt at deceit ON YOUR PART. MY "logic" has been the same throughout all of the threads. I've repeatedly explained how Jesus' relationship with the church is likened to the natural relationship between a man and his wife(Got that, Grumpy...man and wife). I've also repeatedly stressed THE FACT that I am here, primarily, to defend BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY. Biblical Christianity clearly supports the things that I've stated and, simultaneously, clearly refutes the MISREPRESENTATIONS OF SCRIPTURE that are being spouted by YOU. Deal with it...although I doubt that you're capable of honest introspection.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
Please quote back where I claimed the bible instructs christians to engage in sectarian violence.
Oh wait, I didn't claim that, so you're just being dishonest here. Ok.
Well, sectarian violence happens among christians, and against christians, so if all christians stopped breeding, pretty soon there'd be no christians, and no christian-involved sectarian violence.
Well, although I doubt that you're unfamiliar with my posting history in this regard, I'll still give you the benefit of the doubt. Once again, MY DEFENSE IS OF BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY. If you cannot cite chapter and verse where CHRIST(hence, CHRISTianity) instructed His disciples to engage/be involved in "sectarian violence", "Crusades", "The Troubles", etc., etc., then you've "falsified" NOTHING BUT YOUR OWN POSITION. Take care.
Oh wait, I didn't claim that, so you're just being dishonest here. Ok.
Well, sectarian violence happens among christians, and against christians, so if all christians stopped breeding, pretty soon there'd be no christians, and no christian-involved sectarian violence.
Well, although I doubt that you're unfamiliar with my posting history in this regard, I'll still give you the benefit of the doubt. Once again, MY DEFENSE IS OF BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY. If you cannot cite chapter and verse where CHRIST(hence, CHRISTianity) instructed His disciples to engage/be involved in "sectarian violence", "Crusades", "The Troubles", etc., etc., then you've "falsified" NOTHING BUT YOUR OWN POSITION. Take care.
QUOTE (Newguy+)
SinisterUtopia: Do you mind if I just call you "Sinister", for short?
Call me what you will, I know how you like to twist things to suit yourself.
That 'portion' of the Bible is substantial and is the basis for the New Testament. So what if it's from the Old Testament, it's supposed to be the word of God isn't it?
How do you suddenly know what I desire to understand?
That 'portion' of the Bible is substantial and is the basis for the New Testament. So what if it's from the Old Testament, it's supposed to be the word of God isn't it?
How do you suddenly know what I desire to understand?
Additionally, as "Sinister" correctly noted, even UNDER THE OLD TESTAMENT, if a servant/slave endured physical damage, such as the loss of an eye or the loss of a tooth, then that servant was to be set free.
Yet I have no desire to understand it according to you.
Anyhow, enough of your deliberate clinging to the Old Testament
"Deliberate clinging?" The op asked for opinions on the subject matter to which I responded.
"Deliberate clinging?" The op asked for opinions on the subject matter to which I responded.
...unless of course you've got the balls to bring your complaints DIRECTLY TO THE JEWS WHO STILL CLING TO THIS OLD TESTAMENT LAW?
What you mean directly to Jews that still keep slaves? Show me where they are
Perhaps you and Dad1 should convert them to Christianity before it's too late? 
What? Do you want me to reveal myself?
You show me yours and I'll...actually I am a bit scared now.
Call me what you will, I know how you like to twist things to suit yourself.
QUOTE
"The Bible"? No, you only mean a portion of the Bible, namely the Old Testament, which you neither understand nor desire to understand. Isn't this correct? Of course, it is.
That 'portion' of the Bible is substantial and is the basis for the New Testament. So what if it's from the Old Testament, it's supposed to be the word of God isn't it?
How do you suddenly know what I desire to understand?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "The Bible"? No, you only mean a portion of the Bible, namely the Old Testament, which you neither understand nor desire to understand. Isn't this correct? Of course, it is. |
That 'portion' of the Bible is substantial and is the basis for the New Testament. So what if it's from the Old Testament, it's supposed to be the word of God isn't it?
How do you suddenly know what I desire to understand?
Additionally, as "Sinister" correctly noted, even UNDER THE OLD TESTAMENT, if a servant/slave endured physical damage, such as the loss of an eye or the loss of a tooth, then that servant was to be set free.
Yet I have no desire to understand it according to you.
QUOTE
Anyhow, enough of your deliberate clinging to the Old Testament
"Deliberate clinging?" The op asked for opinions on the subject matter to which I responded.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Anyhow, enough of your deliberate clinging to the Old Testament |
"Deliberate clinging?" The op asked for opinions on the subject matter to which I responded.
...unless of course you've got the balls to bring your complaints DIRECTLY TO THE JEWS WHO STILL CLING TO THIS OLD TESTAMENT LAW?
What you mean directly to Jews that still keep slaves? Show me where they are
Perhaps you and Dad1 should convert them to Christianity before it's too late? QUOTE
Nah, you're just another coward who hides behind a computer screen, aren't you? I thought so.
What? Do you want me to reveal myself?
You show me yours and I'll...actually I am a bit scared now.
Whoa! .....Like the baby that pukes on that popular commercial!
newguy.......you have seen the light! Unfortunately it's refracted/distorted as it passes through you!
newguy.......you have seen the light! Unfortunately it's refracted/distorted as it passes through you!
QUOTE (Grumpy+)
Why such an a$$hole today???
Grumpy: I chuckled when I saw the dollar signs. Don't worry...I'll make sure that you get your money's worth. I've got to run out and buy a new refrigerator...I've got to order it/pay for it by a certain time today to ensure delivery tomorrow. I'll answer your post, in full, later on today. Take care.
Grumpy: I chuckled when I saw the dollar signs. Don't worry...I'll make sure that you get your money's worth. I've got to run out and buy a new refrigerator...I've got to order it/pay for it by a certain time today to ensure delivery tomorrow. I'll answer your post, in full, later on today. Take care.
QUOTE (SinisterUtopia+)
What you mean directly to Jews that still keep slaves? Show me where they are Perhaps you and Dad1 should convert them to Christianity before it's too late?
QUOTE (SinisterUtopia+)
What? Do you want me to reveal myself?
You show me yours and I'll...actually I am a bit scared now.
SinisterUtopia: Actually, those two portions that you responded to were directed towards Grumpy and not you. Anyhow, as I just informed Grumpy, I've gotta run out for a while. I'll respond to what else you've written later on today. Take care.
You show me yours and I'll...actually I am a bit scared now.
SinisterUtopia: Actually, those two portions that you responded to were directed towards Grumpy and not you. Anyhow, as I just informed Grumpy, I've gotta run out for a while. I'll respond to what else you've written later on today. Take care.
QUOTE (newguy+Dec 8 2008, 05:10 PM)
QUOTE (SinisterUtopia+)
What you mean directly to Jews that still keep slaves? Show me where they are Perhaps you and Dad1 should convert them to Christianity before it's too late?
QUOTE (SinisterUtopia+)
What? Do you want me to reveal myself?
You show me yours and I'll...actually I am a bit scared now.
SinisterUtopia: Actually, those two portions that you responded to were directed towards Grumpy and not you. Anyhow, as I just informed Grumpy, I've gotta run out for a while. I'll respond to what else you've written later on today. Take care.
Phew!! I had my trousers off and everything.
You show me yours and I'll...actually I am a bit scared now.
SinisterUtopia: Actually, those two portions that you responded to were directed towards Grumpy and not you. Anyhow, as I just informed Grumpy, I've gotta run out for a while. I'll respond to what else you've written later on today. Take care.
Phew!! I had my trousers off and everything.
Don’t all major “ancient” religions have violent and intolerant legacies? Isn’t Christianity the least violent and least intolerant? If one does not believe in God, than why even debate a fantasy? Look at history; belief in God did not cause hatred, intolerance, cruelty, and violence. Mankind was able to do that without any divine inspiration.
QUOTE (newguy+Dec 8 2008, 04:56 PM)
MjolnirPants: YES, not only a "misrepresentation", but, more specifically, A MISREPRESENTATION OF SCRIPTURE, just like I said. You initially implied and just flat out said that...
"Christians should not get married" and, yet, SCRIPTURE clearly states that Christians can get married. Like I said, YOU MISREPRESENTED SCRIPTURE.
"Christians should not procreate" and, yet, SCRIPTURE clearly states that Christians can procreate. Like I said, YOU MISREPRESENTED SCRIPTURE.
"Christians shouldn't do charity work" and, yet, SCRIPTURE clearly states that Christians should do charity work. Like I said, YOU MISREPRESENTED SCRIPTURE.
I never once claimed that the bible said Christians should not get married. That was a conclusion based on the application of your own logic to other aspects of Jesus' life.
I also never claimed the bible said christians shouldn't procreate. That was -once again- a conclusion based on the application of your own logic to other aspects of Jesus' life.
You're being dishonest again, pretending I made claims about the bible which I've never made.
This one makes more sense. You're not being so dishonest in this one.
I did claim Jesus never went to church, however, I never specified what I meant by that. What I meant was that Jesus dod not hold a regular sunday worship service in the particular religion he espoused.
This one makes more sense. You're not being so dishonest in this one.
I did claim Jesus never went to church, however, I never specified what I meant by that. What I meant was that Jesus dod not hold a regular sunday worship service in the particular religion he espoused.
Nice try. ACTUALLY, what I admitted was that "Jesus" NOT ONLY "didn't do it", but, ALSO THAT HE DIDN'T TEACH IT?
Did he teach that christian's should get married? Or Procreate? Or did he not mention those things?
I'm still waiting for some quotes that prove I said the things you keep attributing to me, you lying sack of shіt.
I'm still waiting for some quotes that prove I said the things you keep attributing to me, you lying sack of shіt.
Didn't you notice where I said "ONE of my points"?
Yes.
You were falsly attributing arguments to me that I did not make. I'm sorry, I didn't know that forgiving and forgetting such unfounded accusations ggoes against your moral system. In the future, I'll call you out on every single lie you tell.
You were falsly attributing arguments to me that I did not make. I'm sorry, I didn't know that forgiving and forgetting such unfounded accusations ggoes against your moral system. In the future, I'll call you out on every single lie you tell.
So, liar, where is your documentation? Don't have any, RIGHT?!? I thought not.
I'm not about to provide documentation to support an argument I never made, you lying sack of shіt.
Prove it, then. Cite chapter and verse of the bible where Jesus marries another man or woman.
Jesus analogized himself as a shepherd, too. So how many sheep did he own? It's a valid question, considering the way you used an anology to argue with a claim based in reality.
Prove it, then. Cite chapter and verse of the bible where Jesus marries another man or woman.
Jesus analogized himself as a shepherd, too. So how many sheep did he own? It's a valid question, considering the way you used an anology to argue with a claim based in reality.
Well, although I doubt that you're unfamiliar with my posting history in this regard, I'll still give you the benefit of the doubt. Once again, MY DEFENSE IS OF BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY. If you cannot cite chapter and verse where CHRIST(hence, CHRISTianity) instructed His disciples to engage/be involved in "sectarian violence", "Crusades", "The Troubles", etc., etc., then you've "falsified" NOTHING BUT YOUR OWN POSITION. Take care.
WRONG!!!
You said:
and then you said:
and then you said:
P.S. My comments regarding Christians and sectarian violence are only to be construed as meaning that Christians may find themselves on THE RECEIVING END of violence, but NOT on THE GIVING END of violence.
Making it very clear that your position was that christians do not engage in violence against those with different religious beliefs.
The Crusades involved christians engaging in violence against Muslims.
The Troubles involved Catholics and Protestants (both christians) engaging in violence against each other.
You were flat out wrong in claiming christinas don't engage in sectarian violence.
Now, quote back where I claimed the bible prohibits marraige and procreation, where I claimed the bible encourages christians to engage in sectarian violence, and any other straw man you've dishonestly attributed to me.
"Christians should not get married" and, yet, SCRIPTURE clearly states that Christians can get married. Like I said, YOU MISREPRESENTED SCRIPTURE.
"Christians should not procreate" and, yet, SCRIPTURE clearly states that Christians can procreate. Like I said, YOU MISREPRESENTED SCRIPTURE.
"Christians shouldn't do charity work" and, yet, SCRIPTURE clearly states that Christians should do charity work. Like I said, YOU MISREPRESENTED SCRIPTURE.
I never once claimed that the bible said Christians should not get married. That was a conclusion based on the application of your own logic to other aspects of Jesus' life.
I also never claimed the bible said christians shouldn't procreate. That was -once again- a conclusion based on the application of your own logic to other aspects of Jesus' life.
You're being dishonest again, pretending I made claims about the bible which I've never made.
QUOTE
"Jesus didn't go to church" and therefore "Christians shouldn't go to church" and, yet, SCRIPTURE clearly states that Jesus went to the temple and the synagogues(the churches of His day) and scripture also clearly states that Christians went to church(the epistles were written to THE CHURCHES, for crying out loud). Like I said, YOU MISREPRESENTED SCRIPTURE.
This one makes more sense. You're not being so dishonest in this one.
I did claim Jesus never went to church, however, I never specified what I meant by that. What I meant was that Jesus dod not hold a regular sunday worship service in the particular religion he espoused.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Jesus didn't go to church" and therefore "Christians shouldn't go to church" and, yet, SCRIPTURE clearly states that Jesus went to the temple and the synagogues(the churches of His day) and scripture also clearly states that Christians went to church(the epistles were written to THE CHURCHES, for crying out loud). Like I said, YOU MISREPRESENTED SCRIPTURE. |
This one makes more sense. You're not being so dishonest in this one.
I did claim Jesus never went to church, however, I never specified what I meant by that. What I meant was that Jesus dod not hold a regular sunday worship service in the particular religion he espoused.
Nice try. ACTUALLY, what I admitted was that "Jesus" NOT ONLY "didn't do it", but, ALSO THAT HE DIDN'T TEACH IT?
Did he teach that christian's should get married? Or Procreate? Or did he not mention those things?
QUOTE
You really are a dishonest twister of words, aren't you?
I'm still waiting for some quotes that prove I said the things you keep attributing to me, you lying sack of shіt.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You really are a dishonest twister of words, aren't you? |
I'm still waiting for some quotes that prove I said the things you keep attributing to me, you lying sack of shіt.
Didn't you notice where I said "ONE of my points"?
Yes.
QUOTE
I touched upon ANOTHER DIRECTLY RELATED POINT when I said...
You were falsly attributing arguments to me that I did not make. I'm sorry, I didn't know that forgiving and forgetting such unfounded accusations ggoes against your moral system. In the future, I'll call you out on every single lie you tell.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I touched upon ANOTHER DIRECTLY RELATED POINT when I said... |
You were falsly attributing arguments to me that I did not make. I'm sorry, I didn't know that forgiving and forgetting such unfounded accusations ggoes against your moral system. In the future, I'll call you out on every single lie you tell.
So, liar, where is your documentation? Don't have any, RIGHT?!? I thought not.
I'm not about to provide documentation to support an argument I never made, you lying sack of shіt.
QUOTE
More baloney. "The logic that I attempted to use here", according to you, is just another attempt at deceit ON YOUR PART.
Prove it, then. Cite chapter and verse of the bible where Jesus marries another man or woman.
Jesus analogized himself as a shepherd, too. So how many sheep did he own? It's a valid question, considering the way you used an anology to argue with a claim based in reality.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| More baloney. "The logic that I attempted to use here", according to you, is just another attempt at deceit ON YOUR PART. |
Prove it, then. Cite chapter and verse of the bible where Jesus marries another man or woman.
Jesus analogized himself as a shepherd, too. So how many sheep did he own? It's a valid question, considering the way you used an anology to argue with a claim based in reality.
Well, although I doubt that you're unfamiliar with my posting history in this regard, I'll still give you the benefit of the doubt. Once again, MY DEFENSE IS OF BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY. If you cannot cite chapter and verse where CHRIST(hence, CHRISTianity) instructed His disciples to engage/be involved in "sectarian violence", "Crusades", "The Troubles", etc., etc., then you've "falsified" NOTHING BUT YOUR OWN POSITION. Take care.
WRONG!!!
You said:
QUOTE
Christians don't partake in "sectarian violence"...unless, of course, they are the ones who are genuinely being persecuted for righteousness' sake.
and then you said:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Christians don't partake in "sectarian violence"...unless, of course, they are the ones who are genuinely being persecuted for righteousness' sake. |
and then you said:
P.S. My comments regarding Christians and sectarian violence are only to be construed as meaning that Christians may find themselves on THE RECEIVING END of violence, but NOT on THE GIVING END of violence.
Making it very clear that your position was that christians do not engage in violence against those with different religious beliefs.
The Crusades involved christians engaging in violence against Muslims.
The Troubles involved Catholics and Protestants (both christians) engaging in violence against each other.
You were flat out wrong in claiming christinas don't engage in sectarian violence.
Now, quote back where I claimed the bible prohibits marraige and procreation, where I claimed the bible encourages christians to engage in sectarian violence, and any other straw man you've dishonestly attributed to me.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Dec 8 2008, 05:22 PM)
If one does not believe in God, than why even debate a fantasy?
On the weekend I went to a political rally.
One person had a "pro-family" sign.
I've never seen a "pro-family" person that wasn't trying to force people to live his way. And they usually abdicate all moral responsibility and blame the Bible.
for example "I don't hate fags, God hates fags."
And I still havn't seen Newguy explain why God either made people not able to understand the Bible or made the Bible not understandable to more than a very very few people.
On the weekend I went to a political rally.
One person had a "pro-family" sign.
I've never seen a "pro-family" person that wasn't trying to force people to live his way. And they usually abdicate all moral responsibility and blame the Bible.
for example "I don't hate fags, God hates fags."
And I still havn't seen Newguy explain why God either made people not able to understand the Bible or made the Bible not understandable to more than a very very few people.
QUOTE (newguy+)
Anyhow, enough of your deliberate clinging to the Old Testament...unless of course you've got the balls to bring your complaints DIRECTLY TO THE JEWS WHO STILL CLING TO THIS OLD TESTAMENT LAW? Nah, you're just another coward who hides behind a computer screen, aren't you? I thought so. Where was I? Ah, yes...I was about to discuss what THE BIBLE has to say about the treatment/handling of one's servant. Let's start with Jesus, shall we?
Yet Newguy, Christians frequently use samples of the old testament to make arguments...
The strongest phrasing against homosexuals comes from the old testament
The definition of marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman is also found in the old testament
I tell Jews they are full of crap all the time...so don't try that approach.
If you want to say that the Old Testament cannot be used against Christianity, then you must also admit that the laws of the old testament cannot be used indiscriminantly to support facets of Christianity
Corinthians 1
7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
Paul seems to begrudingly tolerate marriage, not fully support it.
In fact, none of Jesus' apostles were married. Not one of them.
Jesus didn't "certainly allow" for marriage, he seems to have discouraged it. As long as you believe Paul
Corinthians 1
7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
Paul seems to begrudingly tolerate marriage, not fully support it.
In fact, none of Jesus' apostles were married. Not one of them.
Jesus didn't "certainly allow" for marriage, he seems to have discouraged it. As long as you believe Paul
Baloney. I've already challenged several other forum members to cite New Testament chapter and verse where Christians are instructed/admonished towards violence. Will you be the one to provide the documentation? Since we both know that you won't be the one(since no such documentation exists), then you should just keep your ignorant opinions to yourself. Christians don't partake in "sectarian violence"...unless, of course, they are the ones who are genuinely being persecuted for righteousness' sake.
Ok...
Mt 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Acts 3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
Romans 1:32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Yet Newguy, Christians frequently use samples of the old testament to make arguments...
The strongest phrasing against homosexuals comes from the old testament
The definition of marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman is also found in the old testament
I tell Jews they are full of crap all the time...so don't try that approach.
If you want to say that the Old Testament cannot be used against Christianity, then you must also admit that the laws of the old testament cannot be used indiscriminantly to support facets of Christianity
QUOTE
He did, however, certainly allow for Christians to do so. As I've also explained numerous times in the past, the spiritual union between Christ and His church is likened to a natural marriage throughout scripture. Although Jesus did not procreate naturally, He expects procreation spiritually through those to whom He is "married". In other words, those who truly belong to the Lord will "bear fruit for Him"...I'm specifically referring to the process of going out and making disciples unto the Lord. You can understand that, can't you? Anyhow, like I said, Jesus did allow for procreation amongst Christians. If you're trying to suggest that Jesus also allowed for fistfighting or assault amongst Christians, then please cite New Testament chapter and verse. Thanks.
Corinthians 1
7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
Paul seems to begrudingly tolerate marriage, not fully support it.
In fact, none of Jesus' apostles were married. Not one of them.
Jesus didn't "certainly allow" for marriage, he seems to have discouraged it. As long as you believe Paul
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| He did, however, certainly allow for Christians to do so. As I've also explained numerous times in the past, the spiritual union between Christ and His church is likened to a natural marriage throughout scripture. Although Jesus did not procreate naturally, He expects procreation spiritually through those to whom He is "married". In other words, those who truly belong to the Lord will "bear fruit for Him"...I'm specifically referring to the process of going out and making disciples unto the Lord. You can understand that, can't you? Anyhow, like I said, Jesus did allow for procreation amongst Christians. If you're trying to suggest that Jesus also allowed for fistfighting or assault amongst Christians, then please cite New Testament chapter and verse. Thanks. |
Corinthians 1
7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
Paul seems to begrudingly tolerate marriage, not fully support it.
In fact, none of Jesus' apostles were married. Not one of them.
Jesus didn't "certainly allow" for marriage, he seems to have discouraged it. As long as you believe Paul
Baloney. I've already challenged several other forum members to cite New Testament chapter and verse where Christians are instructed/admonished towards violence. Will you be the one to provide the documentation? Since we both know that you won't be the one(since no such documentation exists), then you should just keep your ignorant opinions to yourself. Christians don't partake in "sectarian violence"...unless, of course, they are the ones who are genuinely being persecuted for righteousness' sake.
Ok...
Mt 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Acts 3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
Romans 1:32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Dec 8 2008, 06:35 PM)
Mt 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
I eagerly await the inevitable "you're quoting out of context' argument here, but I know the context. The passage holds the same meaning in context as out of context.
And yes, that is Jesus speaking.
Oh, but there's more...
And yes, that is Jesus speaking.
Oh, but there's more...
5. These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7. As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.' 8. Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,[b]drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. 9. Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; 10. take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep.
So apparently, Christianity is only for the Israelites. newguy, I sure hope you're jewish....
And what about that whole "suffer not a witch to live among you" thing? Jesus is telling these guys to perform magic! Raising the dead, healing the sick, exorcisms...
I use skeptics, because it is much easier to search.
i.e.
I remembered that Paul had written somewhere that people shouldn't get married. I didn't remember where.
This allowed me to sort "family values" "new testament" and then manually search for Marriage. Much faster, and he describes all of the ideas by paraphrasing them
I eagerly await the inevitable "you're quoting out of context' argument here, but I know the context. The passage holds the same meaning in context as out of context.
QUOTE
32. "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.
34. "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35. For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—
36. a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[e]
37. "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38. and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
34. "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35. For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—
36. a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[e]
37. "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38. and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
And yes, that is Jesus speaking.
Oh, but there's more...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 32. "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. 34. "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35. For I have come to turn " 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw— 36. a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[e] 37. "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38. and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. |
And yes, that is Jesus speaking.
Oh, but there's more...
5. These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7. As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.' 8. Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,[b]drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. 9. Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; 10. take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep.
So apparently, Christianity is only for the Israelites. newguy, I sure hope you're jewish....
And what about that whole "suffer not a witch to live among you" thing? Jesus is telling these guys to perform magic! Raising the dead, healing the sick, exorcisms...
I specifically tried to choose quotes that were not taken "out of context". Some of them were truncated to a single verse, but I specifically left out any quote that might be seen as "out of context"
As a side note...
Excellent resource for this kind of thing
Skeptic's Annotated Bible
It breaks down the bible, Quran, and the Book of Mormon
It has some excellent tools to sort based on topics discussed
Violence
Cruelty
Contradictions
etc
As a side note...
Excellent resource for this kind of thing
Skeptic's Annotated Bible
It breaks down the bible, Quran, and the Book of Mormon
It has some excellent tools to sort based on topics discussed
Violence
Cruelty
Contradictions
etc
QUOTE (PuckSR+Dec 8 2008, 06:50 PM)
I specifically tried to choose quotes that were not taken "out of context". Some of them were truncated to a single verse, but I specifically left out any quote that might be seen as "out of context"
You did a good job, I checked out the other passages you quoted and the context doesn't seem to change them, either.
I'll bookmark that link, I've never seen it before. I personally use BibleGateway.com for looking up passages. I like that it offers so many different versions: You can compare them to see if the meaning changes from, say the NIV to the NKJ versions.
You did a good job, I checked out the other passages you quoted and the context doesn't seem to change them, either.
QUOTE
As a side note...
Excellent resource for this kind of thing
Skeptic's Annotated Bible
It breaks down the bible, Quran, and the Book of Mormon
It has some excellent tools to sort based on topics discussed
Violence
Cruelty
Contradictions
etc
Excellent resource for this kind of thing
Skeptic's Annotated Bible
It breaks down the bible, Quran, and the Book of Mormon
It has some excellent tools to sort based on topics discussed
Violence
Cruelty
Contradictions
etc
I'll bookmark that link, I've never seen it before. I personally use BibleGateway.com for looking up passages. I like that it offers so many different versions: You can compare them to see if the meaning changes from, say the NIV to the NKJ versions.
QUOTE
I'll bookmark that link, I've never seen it before. I personally use BibleGateway.com for looking up passages. I like that it offers so many different versions: You can compare them to see if the meaning changes from, say the NIV to the NKJ versions.
I use skeptics, because it is much easier to search.
i.e.
I remembered that Paul had written somewhere that people shouldn't get married. I didn't remember where.
This allowed me to sort "family values" "new testament" and then manually search for Marriage. Much faster, and he describes all of the ideas by paraphrasing them
QUOTE (buttershug+Dec 8 2008, 05:34 PM)
On the weekend I went to a political rally.
One person had a "pro-family" sign.
I've never seen a "pro-family" person that wasn't trying to force people to live his way. And they usually abdicate all moral responsibility and blame the Bible.
What is the political agenda of "pro-family"? Is there a group that is opposed to family?
One person had a "pro-family" sign.
I've never seen a "pro-family" person that wasn't trying to force people to live his way. And they usually abdicate all moral responsibility and blame the Bible.
What is the political agenda of "pro-family"? Is there a group that is opposed to family?
newguy
And I've repeatedly explained that despite what you BELIEVE, the FACT is that being gay is just as natural, whether you like it or not. Natural and Biblical are two entirely different concepts. And in this country any other persons rights are EXACTLY as important and valid as yours. And that on this point(and on many others) the Bible(Old and New books) is WRONG and EVIL(despite it being RIGHT and GOOD on other points, just like every other book written by men). Bigots have often used the words of the Bible to justify their bigotry, slave owners to justify slavery, misogynous men to justify unequal, chattel status for women, Christians(and Jews) to justify the slaughter of people of other faiths or no faith at all and homophobes to persecute, repress and murder gays(for their own good, of course). And don't get me started on those poor people who ignorant, superstitious and religiously manipulated people think are witches. Or the us versus them mentality fostered by the BELIEF that some are a god's chosen, all others are enemies, worthy of death.("Strangers").
Don't give me the malarky about "no true Scotsmen", the Bible isn't that hard to understand, the instructions are pretty clear.
And if the Old Testament is no longer valid(something Jesus disagreed with) why is it still part of the Bible at all??? Why are it's precepts still taught??? Why are it's obvious falsehood and evils still used(when it suits)??? How can it be believed that it was written by the same god(or "inspired" by him) as supposedly Jesus was the spokesman of(or Paul, for that matter)???
Makes much more sense to recognize that it was NOT written by or inspired by a god at all, but by fallible men writing about an evolving belief system based on superstition and ignorance, no fancy reasoning or excuses needed. That doesn't mean it is all bad(Jesus taught a largely good philosophy) but it does mean it is no more a moral authority than any other philosophical document except as the merit of it's writings earn. So questioning and testing each pronouncement in that tome is the ONLY logical attitude a reasonable person can adopt. It is not a reliable source other than that.
Grumpy
QUOTE
I've repeatedly explained how Jesus' relationship with the church is likened to the natural relationship between a man and his wife(Got that, Grumpy...man and wife).
And I've repeatedly explained that despite what you BELIEVE, the FACT is that being gay is just as natural, whether you like it or not. Natural and Biblical are two entirely different concepts. And in this country any other persons rights are EXACTLY as important and valid as yours. And that on this point(and on many others) the Bible(Old and New books) is WRONG and EVIL(despite it being RIGHT and GOOD on other points, just like every other book written by men). Bigots have often used the words of the Bible to justify their bigotry, slave owners to justify slavery, misogynous men to justify unequal, chattel status for women, Christians(and Jews) to justify the slaughter of people of other faiths or no faith at all and homophobes to persecute, repress and murder gays(for their own good, of course). And don't get me started on those poor people who ignorant, superstitious and religiously manipulated people think are witches. Or the us versus them mentality fostered by the BELIEF that some are a god's chosen, all others are enemies, worthy of death.("Strangers").
Don't give me the malarky about "no true Scotsmen", the Bible isn't that hard to understand, the instructions are pretty clear.
And if the Old Testament is no longer valid(something Jesus disagreed with) why is it still part of the Bible at all??? Why are it's precepts still taught??? Why are it's obvious falsehood and evils still used(when it suits)??? How can it be believed that it was written by the same god(or "inspired" by him) as supposedly Jesus was the spokesman of(or Paul, for that matter)???
Makes much more sense to recognize that it was NOT written by or inspired by a god at all, but by fallible men writing about an evolving belief system based on superstition and ignorance, no fancy reasoning or excuses needed. That doesn't mean it is all bad(Jesus taught a largely good philosophy) but it does mean it is no more a moral authority than any other philosophical document except as the merit of it's writings earn. So questioning and testing each pronouncement in that tome is the ONLY logical attitude a reasonable person can adopt. It is not a reliable source other than that.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Derek1148+Dec 8 2008, 08:16 PM)
What is the political agenda of "pro-family"? Is there a group that is opposed to family?
There are groups that are "live and let live", or "you do your thing, I'll do mine". The "pro-family" groups thinks these philosophies are anti-family.
How far would a group saying "we will tell you how to live", get?
The "pro-family" group are anti-gay marriage, anti Sunday shopping and anything else they don't agree with that they think they can prohibit using family values as an excuse.
Basically their political agenda is to make their morals manitory for everyone.
There are groups that are "live and let live", or "you do your thing, I'll do mine". The "pro-family" groups thinks these philosophies are anti-family.
How far would a group saying "we will tell you how to live", get?
The "pro-family" group are anti-gay marriage, anti Sunday shopping and anything else they don't agree with that they think they can prohibit using family values as an excuse.
Basically their political agenda is to make their morals manitory for everyone.
PLEAAAAASSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEEE....
AHHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!
OHHHH...OOOOHHHHHHHH......OOOOOOOO!!!!
AHHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!
OHHHH...OOOOHHHHHHHH......OOOOOOOO!!!!
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
Corinthians 1
7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
Paul seems to begrudingly tolerate marriage, not fully support it.
In fact, none of Jesus' apostles were married. Not one of them.
Jesus didn't "certainly allow" for marriage, he seems to have discouraged it. As long as you believe Paul
PuckSR: I think that I've overestimated your intelligence...which, by the way, is hard to do, since I've always viewed you as an ignoramus. Did you notice the "therefore" in your opening verse? You've violated one of the basic rules of Bible interpretation right off the bat. Haven't you heard? When you see a "therefore", you're supposed to look and see what it's "there for". Let's start your citation a couple of verses earlier, shall we?
"But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."(I Corinthians 7:6-9)
Why did Paul wish(it was NOT a command) that all men were unmarried as he was? Well, just read a little further and he'll tell you.
"But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. There is a difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction."(I Corinthians 7:32-35)
Paul simply was looking for those who could be totally devoted to the Lord without the normal "distractions" that are a part of married life. Elsewhere in this epistle and others, Paul gave clear instructions for the married, including those who had children. And? It wasn't too long ago that I commented how Paul's comments were similar to those of Jesus. Whereas Paul spoke of how "every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that" in relation to their decision to either marry or remain unmarried, Jesus engaged in the following conversation with the Pharisees and then His disciples:
"The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning, it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there be some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."(Matthew 19:3-11)
In relation to remaining unmarried or "becoming a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven's sake", Jesus said "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." So? Like Paul, Jesus gave instructions for both those who will marry and those who choose to remain unmarried. And? Did you notice how Jesus spoke of:
MALE AND FEMALE.
MAN AND WIFE.
FATHER AND MOTHER.
???
I did. Misinterpret that, if you can. I find it quite humorous how Grumpy tries to interject something into a portion of scripture that simply isn't there while simultaneously ignoring the plain teachings of Jesus. Additionally, as I've mentioned numerous times before, Jesus plainly stated that Moses "suffered" or permitted/allowed certain things solely due to the HARDNESS OF THE HEARTS OF THE PEOPLE. This is one factor that needs to be considered when reading Old Testament Laws. Some have carried over and are clearly reiterated in the New Testament, whereas others clearly fall into the category of "suffering" or permitting/allowing and were never part of God's original intent.
7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
Paul seems to begrudingly tolerate marriage, not fully support it.
In fact, none of Jesus' apostles were married. Not one of them.
Jesus didn't "certainly allow" for marriage, he seems to have discouraged it. As long as you believe Paul
PuckSR: I think that I've overestimated your intelligence...which, by the way, is hard to do, since I've always viewed you as an ignoramus. Did you notice the "therefore" in your opening verse? You've violated one of the basic rules of Bible interpretation right off the bat. Haven't you heard? When you see a "therefore", you're supposed to look and see what it's "there for". Let's start your citation a couple of verses earlier, shall we?
"But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."(I Corinthians 7:6-9)
Why did Paul wish(it was NOT a command) that all men were unmarried as he was? Well, just read a little further and he'll tell you.
"But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. There is a difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction."(I Corinthians 7:32-35)
Paul simply was looking for those who could be totally devoted to the Lord without the normal "distractions" that are a part of married life. Elsewhere in this epistle and others, Paul gave clear instructions for the married, including those who had children. And? It wasn't too long ago that I commented how Paul's comments were similar to those of Jesus. Whereas Paul spoke of how "every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that" in relation to their decision to either marry or remain unmarried, Jesus engaged in the following conversation with the Pharisees and then His disciples:
"The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning, it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there be some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."(Matthew 19:3-11)
In relation to remaining unmarried or "becoming a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven's sake", Jesus said "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." So? Like Paul, Jesus gave instructions for both those who will marry and those who choose to remain unmarried. And? Did you notice how Jesus spoke of:
MALE AND FEMALE.
MAN AND WIFE.
FATHER AND MOTHER.
???
I did. Misinterpret that, if you can. I find it quite humorous how Grumpy tries to interject something into a portion of scripture that simply isn't there while simultaneously ignoring the plain teachings of Jesus. Additionally, as I've mentioned numerous times before, Jesus plainly stated that Moses "suffered" or permitted/allowed certain things solely due to the HARDNESS OF THE HEARTS OF THE PEOPLE. This is one factor that needs to be considered when reading Old Testament Laws. Some have carried over and are clearly reiterated in the New Testament, whereas others clearly fall into the category of "suffering" or permitting/allowing and were never part of God's original intent.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
Ok...
Mt 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Oh, please. I already thoroughly explained this to that other ignoramus, SENT, some time ago. Well, since there's at least two new ignoramuses(you and MjolnirPants), here goes:
"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man come. The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household? Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known. What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows. Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me is not worthy of me."(Matthew 10:16-38)
THE ENTIRE DISCOURSE IS ABOUT HOW PEOPLE ARE GOING TO PERSECUTE/KILL CHRIST'S DISCIPLES...NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
Are you really that ignorant? Yes, apparently, you both are. Why do you suppose that Jesus spoke of His disciples TAKING UP THEIR CROSSES, hmmm? BECAUSE THE CROSS WAS A SIGN OF THE TYPE OF DEATH THAT THEY MIGHT FACE(some did) FOR FOLLOWING JESUS. Now, let's look at your partial quote:
Mt 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Oh, please. I already thoroughly explained this to that other ignoramus, SENT, some time ago. Well, since there's at least two new ignoramuses(you and MjolnirPants), here goes:
"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man come. The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household? Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known. What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows. Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me is not worthy of me."(Matthew 10:16-38)
THE ENTIRE DISCOURSE IS ABOUT HOW PEOPLE ARE GOING TO PERSECUTE/KILL CHRIST'S DISCIPLES...NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
Are you really that ignorant? Yes, apparently, you both are. Why do you suppose that Jesus spoke of His disciples TAKING UP THEIR CROSSES, hmmm? BECAUSE THE CROSS WAS A SIGN OF THE TYPE OF DEATH THAT THEY MIGHT FACE(some did) FOR FOLLOWING JESUS. Now, let's look at your partial quote:
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
Mt 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
How convenient of you to leave off the following two verses. You know, the verses that start with the word "FOR" or "BECAUSE". Here are the next two verses:
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."(Matthew 10:35-36)
You know(you don't), those verses sound kinda familiar...like I heard them somewhere before. Oh, yeah...Jesus was quoting from the Old Testament book of Micah(See? Try opening your eyes...this is one of those carry-over verses that I spoke of earlier):
"Trust ye not in a friend, put ye not confidence in a guide: keep the doors of thy mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom. For the son dishonoureth the father, the daughter riseth up against her mother, the daughter in law against her mother in law; a man's enemies are the men of his own house. Therefore I will look unto the LORD; I will wait for the God of my salvation: my God will hear me."(Micah 7:5-7)
Once again, it is clear(to those who aren't dumb as a rock) that the persecution is AGAINST the believer in God and NOT FROM the believer in God. Additionally, when one of Christ's followers did draw a sword(you know what's coming, don't you?):
"And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear. Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."(Matthew 26:50-52)
So much for Jesus desiring His disciples to fight, don't you think? The only "sword" that Jesus' disciples are supposed to be "weilding" is "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God". Here is the Christian's armour, straight from scripture:
"Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God..."(Ephesians 6:10-17)
"FOR WE(THE CHRISTIANS) WRESTLE NOT AGAINST FLESH AND BLOOD". Got it? WHEREFORE...here comes the spiritual armour:
The belt of truth.
The breastplate of righteousness.
Feet shod with the preparation OF THE GOSPEL OF PEACE.
The shield of faith.
The helmet of salvation.
The sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
Methinks(MEKNOWS!) that MjlonirPant's "Crusaders" missed the boat. "Feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace"? What is Paul talking about? You see(once again, try opening your eyes), my dear friends, PuckSR and MjolnirPants, Paul was quoting an Old Testament passage. Yep, another one of those carry-over verses. Would you like to hear it? Sure...no problem. Here it is:
"How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!"(Isaiah 52:7)
A Christian's "feet" are supposed to "bring good tidings" and "publish peace and salvation". They are NOT supposed to be sweating inside of COMBAT BOOTS! Got it? Christians are called TO PREACH...NOT TO FIGHT. Here's more from Paul in relation to this same verse:
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!"(Romans 10:13-15)
Christians are supposed to be telling people that they can call upon the name of the Lord and be saved. Christians DO NOT go around murdering in Christ's/God's name...HYPOCRITES DO! Learn how to read on your own, would you? Unless, of course, your goal is to be as ignorant as either kaneda or photojack...two other disciples of the skeptics annotated bible.
How convenient of you to leave off the following two verses. You know, the verses that start with the word "FOR" or "BECAUSE". Here are the next two verses:
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."(Matthew 10:35-36)
You know(you don't), those verses sound kinda familiar...like I heard them somewhere before. Oh, yeah...Jesus was quoting from the Old Testament book of Micah(See? Try opening your eyes...this is one of those carry-over verses that I spoke of earlier):
"Trust ye not in a friend, put ye not confidence in a guide: keep the doors of thy mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom. For the son dishonoureth the father, the daughter riseth up against her mother, the daughter in law against her mother in law; a man's enemies are the men of his own house. Therefore I will look unto the LORD; I will wait for the God of my salvation: my God will hear me."(Micah 7:5-7)
Once again, it is clear(to those who aren't dumb as a rock) that the persecution is AGAINST the believer in God and NOT FROM the believer in God. Additionally, when one of Christ's followers did draw a sword(you know what's coming, don't you?):
"And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear. Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."(Matthew 26:50-52)
So much for Jesus desiring His disciples to fight, don't you think? The only "sword" that Jesus' disciples are supposed to be "weilding" is "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God". Here is the Christian's armour, straight from scripture:
"Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God..."(Ephesians 6:10-17)
"FOR WE(THE CHRISTIANS) WRESTLE NOT AGAINST FLESH AND BLOOD". Got it? WHEREFORE...here comes the spiritual armour:
The belt of truth.
The breastplate of righteousness.
Feet shod with the preparation OF THE GOSPEL OF PEACE.
The shield of faith.
The helmet of salvation.
The sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
Methinks(MEKNOWS!) that MjlonirPant's "Crusaders" missed the boat. "Feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace"? What is Paul talking about? You see(once again, try opening your eyes), my dear friends, PuckSR and MjolnirPants, Paul was quoting an Old Testament passage. Yep, another one of those carry-over verses. Would you like to hear it? Sure...no problem. Here it is:
"How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!"(Isaiah 52:7)
A Christian's "feet" are supposed to "bring good tidings" and "publish peace and salvation". They are NOT supposed to be sweating inside of COMBAT BOOTS! Got it? Christians are called TO PREACH...NOT TO FIGHT. Here's more from Paul in relation to this same verse:
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!"(Romans 10:13-15)
Christians are supposed to be telling people that they can call upon the name of the Lord and be saved. Christians DO NOT go around murdering in Christ's/God's name...HYPOCRITES DO! Learn how to read on your own, would you? Unless, of course, your goal is to be as ignorant as either kaneda or photojack...two other disciples of the skeptics annotated bible.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
Acts 3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
In the process of telling a large group that had gathered in the temple that they were the murderers of Christ, Peter admonished them to:
"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which was before preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindred of the earth be blessed. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities. And as they spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them, Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead. And they laid hands on them, and put them in hold unto the next day: for it was now eventide."(Acts 3:19-4:3)
Peter preached unto a bunch of Jews from their own scriptures and reminded them of what their own prophets had written. As far as the "destroying from among the people" is concerned, Peter put it in its proper timeframe by declaring to the people that this would occur AT THE RETURN OF CHRIST, "Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things". Far from encouraging violence against non-believers, Peter and John were immediately arrested and thrown into prison. METHINKS(MEKNOWS!) that, once again, you've got everything @ss-backwards.
In the process of telling a large group that had gathered in the temple that they were the murderers of Christ, Peter admonished them to:
"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which was before preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindred of the earth be blessed. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities. And as they spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them, Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead. And they laid hands on them, and put them in hold unto the next day: for it was now eventide."(Acts 3:19-4:3)
Peter preached unto a bunch of Jews from their own scriptures and reminded them of what their own prophets had written. As far as the "destroying from among the people" is concerned, Peter put it in its proper timeframe by declaring to the people that this would occur AT THE RETURN OF CHRIST, "Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things". Far from encouraging violence against non-believers, Peter and John were immediately arrested and thrown into prison. METHINKS(MEKNOWS!) that, once again, you've got everything @ss-backwards.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
Romans 1:32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Oh, my...your ignorance is astounding. Well, I have to pick it up somewhere:
"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile; For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel."(Romans 1:28-2:16)
As with your previous citation, the timeframe is clearly speaking of THE DAY OF GOD'S JUDGMENT. It is NOT an admonition for Christians to do violence. PERIOD.
That's all that I have time for, right now. My apologies to the others who are awaiting a response from me. I'll get to my other "fan mail" when I have more time. Take care.
EDIT: Oh, I almost forgot...
There are rules?
I thought you Christian idiots just made it all up as you go along...
You don't seem to use any real methodology in your interpretation.
You use a translation of a text rather than the original. In fact, the only Christians I ever hear reference "in the original Greek" are the Catholics.
You pick and choose which passages in the Old Testament are valid to this day, despite Jesus saying that the Old Laws and prophets still hold sway
Please post a list of these imaginary "rules"!
There are rules?
I thought you Christian idiots just made it all up as you go along...
You don't seem to use any real methodology in your interpretation.
You use a translation of a text rather than the original. In fact, the only Christians I ever hear reference "in the original Greek" are the Catholics.
You pick and choose which passages in the Old Testament are valid to this day, despite Jesus saying that the Old Laws and prophets still hold sway
Please post a list of these imaginary "rules"!
QUOTE (PuckSR)
In fact, none of Jesus' apostles were married. Not one of them.
Liar.
Actually, I was wrong...
Early Christian documents indicate that most of the Apostles were married at the time of their "calling".
Good on you..
See, this is called "Admitting your mistakes"
You christians don't seem to understand this concept
Oh, my...your ignorance is astounding. Well, I have to pick it up somewhere:
"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile; For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel."(Romans 1:28-2:16)
As with your previous citation, the timeframe is clearly speaking of THE DAY OF GOD'S JUDGMENT. It is NOT an admonition for Christians to do violence. PERIOD.
That's all that I have time for, right now. My apologies to the others who are awaiting a response from me. I'll get to my other "fan mail" when I have more time. Take care.
EDIT: Oh, I almost forgot...
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
In fact, none of Jesus' apostles were married. Not one of them.
Liar.
"And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever. And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them."(Matthew 8:14-15)
Ummm, PETER'S WIFE'S mother...
Peter was married, Einstein. Before you try to weasel out of this one by claiming that you were only referring to the writings of Paul, here's Paul's words on this topic:
"Mine answer to them that do examine me is this, Have we not power to eat and to drink? Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?"(I Corinthians 9:3-5)
For those who don't already know, "Cephas" is Peter. Not only did he have a wife, but apparently other apostles did as well, including some of Jesus' brothers.
Liar.
"And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever. And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them."(Matthew 8:14-15)
Ummm, PETER'S WIFE'S mother...
Peter was married, Einstein. Before you try to weasel out of this one by claiming that you were only referring to the writings of Paul, here's Paul's words on this topic:
"Mine answer to them that do examine me is this, Have we not power to eat and to drink? Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?"(I Corinthians 9:3-5)
For those who don't already know, "Cephas" is Peter. Not only did he have a wife, but apparently other apostles did as well, including some of Jesus' brothers.
QUOTE
You've violated one of the basic rules of Bible interpretation right off the bat.
There are rules?
I thought you Christian idiots just made it all up as you go along...
You don't seem to use any real methodology in your interpretation.
You use a translation of a text rather than the original. In fact, the only Christians I ever hear reference "in the original Greek" are the Catholics.
You pick and choose which passages in the Old Testament are valid to this day, despite Jesus saying that the Old Laws and prophets still hold sway
Please post a list of these imaginary "rules"!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You've violated one of the basic rules of Bible interpretation right off the bat. |
There are rules?
I thought you Christian idiots just made it all up as you go along...
You don't seem to use any real methodology in your interpretation.
You use a translation of a text rather than the original. In fact, the only Christians I ever hear reference "in the original Greek" are the Catholics.
You pick and choose which passages in the Old Testament are valid to this day, despite Jesus saying that the Old Laws and prophets still hold sway
Please post a list of these imaginary "rules"!
QUOTE (PuckSR)
In fact, none of Jesus' apostles were married. Not one of them.
Liar.
Actually, I was wrong...
Early Christian documents indicate that most of the Apostles were married at the time of their "calling".
Good on you..
See, this is called "Admitting your mistakes"
You christians don't seem to understand this concept
QUOTE (buttershug+Dec 8 2008, 10:11 PM)
There are groups that are "live and let live", or "you do your thing, I'll do mine". The "pro-family" groups thinks these philosophies are anti-family.
How far would a group saying "we will tell you how to live", get?
The "pro-family" group are anti-gay marriage, anti Sunday shopping and anything else they don't agree with that they think they can prohibit using family values as an excuse.
Basically their political agenda is to make their morals manitory for everyone.
A (good) family can be an important part of a child's life. And beneficial. I don't believe you need a "group" to be aware of that. We can't make morals mandatory. However, conduct can enforced.
How far would a group saying "we will tell you how to live", get?
The "pro-family" group are anti-gay marriage, anti Sunday shopping and anything else they don't agree with that they think they can prohibit using family values as an excuse.
Basically their political agenda is to make their morals manitory for everyone.
A (good) family can be an important part of a child's life. And beneficial. I don't believe you need a "group" to be aware of that. We can't make morals mandatory. However, conduct can enforced.
QUOTE (Grumpy+)
And if the Old Testament is no longer valid(something Jesus disagreed with) why is it still part of the Bible at all??? Why are it's precepts still taught???
Grumpy: I'll begin by briefly addressing this part of your questions and I'll see how it goes from there. I'm assuming, correct me if I'm wrong, that when you say "something Jesus disagreed with" in relation to the Old Testament no longer being valid, you are referring to the following words of Jesus:
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."(Matthew 5:17-18)
Is this correct? If so, then I would simply point out to you that Jesus TWICE mentioned things that are going to be "fulfilled". This would lead one to believe that He was specifically referring to Old Testament prophecies that were contained within the pages of both the law and the prophets. There is a BIG DIFFERENCE, AT TIMES, between the continued validity of prophecies and PRECEPTS. For example, just moments later in the same "Sermon on the mount", Jesus prefaced His take on certain commandments with the words "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time" and continued on with "But I say unto you". He did that 6 times, to be exact. One reason for this, as I've explained many times before, is because certain things were "suffered" or permitted/allowed solely because of the hardness of the hearts of the people with whom God was dealing. This is also why, as I've explained before, that the commandments were originally given in tables of stone, which were symbolic of the hard hearts of the people to whom they were given. There are Old Testament precepts that fall into this category and there are Old Testament precepts that have carried over to the New Testament. It is really not for one to "pick and choose"...the New Testament is rather clear on what is still in effect and what is not. I'll stop here until I know that I'm even understanding your questions correctly. Take care.
Grumpy: I'll begin by briefly addressing this part of your questions and I'll see how it goes from there. I'm assuming, correct me if I'm wrong, that when you say "something Jesus disagreed with" in relation to the Old Testament no longer being valid, you are referring to the following words of Jesus:
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."(Matthew 5:17-18)
Is this correct? If so, then I would simply point out to you that Jesus TWICE mentioned things that are going to be "fulfilled". This would lead one to believe that He was specifically referring to Old Testament prophecies that were contained within the pages of both the law and the prophets. There is a BIG DIFFERENCE, AT TIMES, between the continued validity of prophecies and PRECEPTS. For example, just moments later in the same "Sermon on the mount", Jesus prefaced His take on certain commandments with the words "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time" and continued on with "But I say unto you". He did that 6 times, to be exact. One reason for this, as I've explained many times before, is because certain things were "suffered" or permitted/allowed solely because of the hardness of the hearts of the people with whom God was dealing. This is also why, as I've explained before, that the commandments were originally given in tables of stone, which were symbolic of the hard hearts of the people to whom they were given. There are Old Testament precepts that fall into this category and there are Old Testament precepts that have carried over to the New Testament. It is really not for one to "pick and choose"...the New Testament is rather clear on what is still in effect and what is not. I'll stop here until I know that I'm even understanding your questions correctly. Take care.
QUOTE (newguy+)
You've violated one of the basic rules of Bible interpretation right off the bat.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
There are rules?
PuckSR: Of course, I was being a little facetious. However, at the same time, the law of COMMON SENSE ought to apply. I mean, come on...if you see a "therefore", don't you think you should read what was written beforehand to see what the writer is basing his/her conclusion/point upon?
PuckSR: Of course, I was being a little facetious. However, at the same time, the law of COMMON SENSE ought to apply. I mean, come on...if you see a "therefore", don't you think you should read what was written beforehand to see what the writer is basing his/her conclusion/point upon?
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
I thought you Christian idiots just made it all up as you go along...
I'm no idiot. You, of all people, ought to have realized this by now.
I'm no idiot. You, of all people, ought to have realized this by now.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
You don't seem to use any real methodology in your interpretation.
You use a translation of a text rather than the original. In fact, the only Christians I ever hear reference "in the original Greek" are the Catholics.
Oh, there's plenty of "methodology"...much to your chagrin. Additionally, they are NOT "my interpretations", but, rather, the clear teachings of scripture. I've repeatedly cited the interpretations of the writers of scripture and I've also repeatedly shown the Old Testament passages that they were referencing in their interpretations. Now, you're free to dismiss it all, if you'd like, but to call it "my interpretations" is just plain old dishonest. As far as "originals" are concerned, don't you think that my memory still serves me correctly? I know how your desperate arguments go. They go something like this:
I show you to be clearly wrong and then you blame it on a "translation" or an "interpretation"...
I go to the original Hebrew or Greek(as I've done with you before) and then you state that I'm not a Hebrew or Greek scholar...
RIGHT?!? Of course, that's right.
You use a translation of a text rather than the original. In fact, the only Christians I ever hear reference "in the original Greek" are the Catholics.
Oh, there's plenty of "methodology"...much to your chagrin. Additionally, they are NOT "my interpretations", but, rather, the clear teachings of scripture. I've repeatedly cited the interpretations of the writers of scripture and I've also repeatedly shown the Old Testament passages that they were referencing in their interpretations. Now, you're free to dismiss it all, if you'd like, but to call it "my interpretations" is just plain old dishonest. As far as "originals" are concerned, don't you think that my memory still serves me correctly? I know how your desperate arguments go. They go something like this:
I show you to be clearly wrong and then you blame it on a "translation" or an "interpretation"...
I go to the original Hebrew or Greek(as I've done with you before) and then you state that I'm not a Hebrew or Greek scholar...
RIGHT?!? Of course, that's right.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
You pick and choose which passages in the Old Testament are valid to this day, despite Jesus saying that the Old Laws and prophets still hold sway.
Actually, USUALLY, I'm either putting Old Testament passages THAT YOU(individually and collectively) HAVE PICKED AND CHOSEN in their proper context or showing YOU(individually and collectively) the interpretations of such passages that were given by the writers of the New Testament. How's that for a reality check? There's no need for me to "pick and choose". I've read every word in the Bible, from cover to cover, MULTIPLE TIMES.
Actually, USUALLY, I'm either putting Old Testament passages THAT YOU(individually and collectively) HAVE PICKED AND CHOSEN in their proper context or showing YOU(individually and collectively) the interpretations of such passages that were given by the writers of the New Testament. How's that for a reality check? There's no need for me to "pick and choose". I've read every word in the Bible, from cover to cover, MULTIPLE TIMES.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
Please post a list of these imaginary "rules"!
In my last post to Grumpy, I began to briefly mention a couple of these "rules". Like I said, I'll see how it goes before deciding whether or not to proceed.
How do our previous conversations lead me to any other conclusion?
How do our previous conversations lead me to any other conclusion?
Additionally, they are NOT "my interpretations", but, rather, the clear teachings of scripture
Really?
They are clear?
So, I guess there aren't any competing interpretations within Christianity?
Of course not..
All christians agree on the same thing...duh
There isn't a splintering of denominations even within Fundamentalist Christianity
What a joke!
Actually...you must have forgotten
I have tried to tell you many times, there are NO originals.
Find me a single "original"...you CANNOT
Actually...you must have forgotten
I have tried to tell you many times, there are NO originals.
Find me a single "original"...you CANNOT
Actually, USUALLY, I'm either putting Old Testament passages THAT YOU(individually and collectively) HAVE PICKED AND CHOSEN in their proper context or showing YOU(individually and collectively) the interpretations of such passages that were given by the writers of the New Testament. How's that for a reality check? There's no need for me to "pick and choose". I've read every word in the Bible, from cover to cover, MULITIPLE TIMES.
Alright...then can you explain this
Leviticus 20:13 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.
vs.
Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
So, the first is a frequently quoted passage of God condemning homosexuality
The second is his condemnation of adultery
Yet both demand the death penalty, so why aren't Christians who quote Leviticus 20:13 demanding the death penalty for gay people and adulterers?
Seems like picking and choosing to me
In my last post to Grumpy, I began to briefly mention a couple of these "rules". Like I said, I'll see how it goes before deciding whether or not to proceed.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
Actually, I was wrong...
Early Christian documents indicate that most of the Apostles were married at the time of their "calling".
Good on you..
See, this is called "Admitting your mistakes"
You christians don't seem to understand this concept
I understand the concept quite well. As I've repeatedly stated and as those who actually know me could easily attest, the vast majority of my fellowship with God has come in the form of PERSONAL CORRECTION and I not only readily admit my mistakes, but I'm also known to easily apologize...as I've done many times on this particular forum. Anyhow, it's good to see you admit a mistake of your own...for your own sake. Good night.
Early Christian documents indicate that most of the Apostles were married at the time of their "calling".
Good on you..
See, this is called "Admitting your mistakes"
You christians don't seem to understand this concept
I understand the concept quite well. As I've repeatedly stated and as those who actually know me could easily attest, the vast majority of my fellowship with God has come in the form of PERSONAL CORRECTION and I not only readily admit my mistakes, but I'm also known to easily apologize...as I've done many times on this particular forum. Anyhow, it's good to see you admit a mistake of your own...for your own sake. Good night.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
Oh, but there's more...
QUOTE
5. These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7. As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.' 8. Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,[b]drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. 9. Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; 10. take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep.
So apparently, Christianity is only for the Israelites. newguy, I sure hope you're jewish....
And what about that whole "suffer not a witch to live among you" thing? Jesus is telling these guys to perform magic! Raising the dead, healing the sick, exorcisms...
MjolnirPants: Actually, according to God's Word, I'm part of "the Israel of God" that consists of both believing Jews and Gentiles. Anyhow, if you had a working knowledge of the Bible, then you would have been familiar with the following portion of scripture and others like it:
"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils..."(Mark 16:15-17)
Jesus initially reached out to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel". You know, trying to save the supposed "saved" first. Ultimately, He instructed His disciples to take the gospel to the whole world. Take care.
QUOTE
5. These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7. As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.' 8. Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,[b]drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. 9. Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; 10. take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep.
So apparently, Christianity is only for the Israelites. newguy, I sure hope you're jewish....
And what about that whole "suffer not a witch to live among you" thing? Jesus is telling these guys to perform magic! Raising the dead, healing the sick, exorcisms...
MjolnirPants: Actually, according to God's Word, I'm part of "the Israel of God" that consists of both believing Jews and Gentiles. Anyhow, if you had a working knowledge of the Bible, then you would have been familiar with the following portion of scripture and others like it:
"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils..."(Mark 16:15-17)
Jesus initially reached out to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel". You know, trying to save the supposed "saved" first. Ultimately, He instructed His disciples to take the gospel to the whole world. Take care.
QUOTE
I'm no idiot. You, of all people, ought to have realized this by now.
How do our previous conversations lead me to any other conclusion?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm no idiot. You, of all people, ought to have realized this by now. |
How do our previous conversations lead me to any other conclusion?
Additionally, they are NOT "my interpretations", but, rather, the clear teachings of scripture
Really?
They are clear?
So, I guess there aren't any competing interpretations within Christianity?
Of course not..
All christians agree on the same thing...duh
There isn't a splintering of denominations even within Fundamentalist Christianity
What a joke!
QUOTE
As far as "originals" are concerned, don't you think that my memory still serves me correctly? I know how your desperate arguments go. They go something like this:
I show you to be clearly wrong and then you blame it on a "translation" or an "interpretation"...
I go to the original Hebrew or Greek(as I've done with you before) and then you state that I'm not a Hebrew or Greek scholar...
RIGHT?!? Of course, that's right.
I show you to be clearly wrong and then you blame it on a "translation" or an "interpretation"...
I go to the original Hebrew or Greek(as I've done with you before) and then you state that I'm not a Hebrew or Greek scholar...
RIGHT?!? Of course, that's right.
Actually...you must have forgotten
I have tried to tell you many times, there are NO originals.
Find me a single "original"...you CANNOT
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As far as "originals" are concerned, don't you think that my memory still serves me correctly? I know how your desperate arguments go. They go something like this: I show you to be clearly wrong and then you blame it on a "translation" or an "interpretation"... I go to the original Hebrew or Greek(as I've done with you before) and then you state that I'm not a Hebrew or Greek scholar... RIGHT?!? Of course, that's right. |
Actually...you must have forgotten
I have tried to tell you many times, there are NO originals.
Find me a single "original"...you CANNOT
Actually, USUALLY, I'm either putting Old Testament passages THAT YOU(individually and collectively) HAVE PICKED AND CHOSEN in their proper context or showing YOU(individually and collectively) the interpretations of such passages that were given by the writers of the New Testament. How's that for a reality check? There's no need for me to "pick and choose". I've read every word in the Bible, from cover to cover, MULITIPLE TIMES.
Alright...then can you explain this
Leviticus 20:13 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.
vs.
Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
So, the first is a frequently quoted passage of God condemning homosexuality
The second is his condemnation of adultery
Yet both demand the death penalty, so why aren't Christians who quote Leviticus 20:13 demanding the death penalty for gay people and adulterers?
Seems like picking and choosing to me
QUOTE (newguy+)
Additionally, they are NOT "my interpretations", but, rather, the clear teachings of scripture
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
Really?
They are clear?
So, I guess there aren't any competing interpretations within Christianity?
Of course not..
All christians agree on the same thing...duh
There isn't a splintering of denominations even within Fundamentalist Christianity
What a joke!
PuckSR: I figured that you'd respond with something along these lines(you're not the first person here to do so...what a tired response...). Fine. Then let those with the "competing interpretations" have a nice little debate and see whose "interpretation" actually lines up with scripture. What's wrong with that approach? Why, it's an approach that I've taken RIGHT ON THIS FORUM MULTIPLE TIMES. Where is your refutation of our own "splintering" from earlier today? You are clearly in the wrong in everything that I addressed of your *AHEM* "in context" quotes from the skeptic's annotated bible. Well? What say ye? Let's hear your defense. No, you won't bother, will you? It's much easier to crap out with this lame excuse of yours(and others), isn't it? Of course, it is.
They are clear?
So, I guess there aren't any competing interpretations within Christianity?
Of course not..
All christians agree on the same thing...duh
There isn't a splintering of denominations even within Fundamentalist Christianity
What a joke!
PuckSR: I figured that you'd respond with something along these lines(you're not the first person here to do so...what a tired response...). Fine. Then let those with the "competing interpretations" have a nice little debate and see whose "interpretation" actually lines up with scripture. What's wrong with that approach? Why, it's an approach that I've taken RIGHT ON THIS FORUM MULTIPLE TIMES. Where is your refutation of our own "splintering" from earlier today? You are clearly in the wrong in everything that I addressed of your *AHEM* "in context" quotes from the skeptic's annotated bible. Well? What say ye? Let's hear your defense. No, you won't bother, will you? It's much easier to crap out with this lame excuse of yours(and others), isn't it? Of course, it is.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
Actually...you must have forgotten
I have tried to tell you many times, there are NO originals.
Find me a single "original"...you CANNOT
No, my dear friend, I haven't forgotten a thing. First of all, IT WAS YOU WHO FIRST MENTIONED AN "ORIGINAL".
I have tried to tell you many times, there are NO originals.
Find me a single "original"...you CANNOT
No, my dear friend, I haven't forgotten a thing. First of all, IT WAS YOU WHO FIRST MENTIONED AN "ORIGINAL".
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
You don't seem to use any real methodology in your interpretation.
You use a translation of a text rather than the original. In fact, the only Christians I ever hear reference "in the original Greek" are the Catholics.
IN MY RESPONSE TO WHAT YOU HAD WRITTEN, I deliberately put the word "original" in quotes, fully expecting this exact response from you. Additionally, YOU mentioned "the original Greek" which seemed to indicate that perhaps you would accept the Greek manuscripts as some basis for "truth". Like I said, I've already gone that route with you, only to watch you try to twist and squirm your way out of that as well. Same old Puck, I'm afraid.
You use a translation of a text rather than the original. In fact, the only Christians I ever hear reference "in the original Greek" are the Catholics.
IN MY RESPONSE TO WHAT YOU HAD WRITTEN, I deliberately put the word "original" in quotes, fully expecting this exact response from you. Additionally, YOU mentioned "the original Greek" which seemed to indicate that perhaps you would accept the Greek manuscripts as some basis for "truth". Like I said, I've already gone that route with you, only to watch you try to twist and squirm your way out of that as well. Same old Puck, I'm afraid.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
Alright...then can you explain this
Leviticus 20:13 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.
vs.
Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
So, the first is a frequently quoted passage of God condemning homosexuality
The second is his condemnation of adultery
Yet both demand the death penalty, so why aren't Christians who quote Leviticus 20:13 demanding the death penalty for gay people and adulterers?
Seems like picking and choosing to me
First of all, I NEVER said that so-called "Christians" don't pick and choose. I merely stated that I, personally, don't pick and choose. Additionally, although both you and Grumpy seem to be hung up on the topic of homosexuality, I have plainly stated, on more than one occasion, that I have taken a lot more flak for my stance on adultery than on my stance on homosexuality over the years. A LOT MORE. In fact, it's about 99.9% to .1% in favor of adultery(including flak from several of my own family members). Anyhow, BOTH practices are clearly condemned by God. And? As far as the "death penalty" part goes, that doesn't apply under New Testament teaching. In fact, in one of your disputed portions of scripture, the portion regarding Jesus and the woman caught in the act of adultery, some of this is rather apparent. Here's the account:
"Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 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. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."(John 8:1-11)
A few things to consider. First of all, since this "woman was taken in adultery, in the very act", then it stands to reason that there was ALSO a man present there, RIGHT? Why then didn't the scribes and Pharisees bring the man to Jesus as well? Hmmm? They spoke of Moses' commandment...the very commandment that you cited which clearly pronounces death upon BOTH the woman AND THE MAN. Secondly, did you notice how the scribes and Pharisees said to Jesus:
"Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?"
?
You don't suppose that the scribes and Pharisees asked this sort of question because they were still reeling from Jesus' "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old...But I say unto you..." from the Sermon on the Mount, do you? In any case, here is another clear cut example where Jesus will alter the commandment of Moses to give God's original intent and NOT the "sufferings" to the hardened of heart. Did Jesus pronounce the "death penalty"? Of course, He did NOT and neither should any Christian. Jesus not only gave the woman an opportunity to repent(while simultaneously dealing with the HYPOCRITICAL SCRIBES AND PHARISEES), but He also forgave her and admonished her to "go and sin no more". Finally, many have taken it upon themselves to guess exactly what Jesus wrote on the ground with His finger. It is quite possible/probable that He either wrote the TEN COMMANDMENTS(and not just the one that the scribes and Pharisees were capitalizing on) that were also "written with the finger of God"(Deuteronomy 9:10) or that He wrote the specific commandment of Moses that the scribes and Pharisees referred to, thus exposing their HYPOCRISY for not bringing THE MAN "to justice" as well. I wouldn't be surprised if He took the time to "write" simply because THE SCRIBES, whose job it was to write/copy scripture, were present. Anyhow, I hope/trust that this answers your questions. This time, my "Good night" is for real. Take care.
Leviticus 20:13 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.
vs.
Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
So, the first is a frequently quoted passage of God condemning homosexuality
The second is his condemnation of adultery
Yet both demand the death penalty, so why aren't Christians who quote Leviticus 20:13 demanding the death penalty for gay people and adulterers?
Seems like picking and choosing to me
First of all, I NEVER said that so-called "Christians" don't pick and choose. I merely stated that I, personally, don't pick and choose. Additionally, although both you and Grumpy seem to be hung up on the topic of homosexuality, I have plainly stated, on more than one occasion, that I have taken a lot more flak for my stance on adultery than on my stance on homosexuality over the years. A LOT MORE. In fact, it's about 99.9% to .1% in favor of adultery(including flak from several of my own family members). Anyhow, BOTH practices are clearly condemned by God. And? As far as the "death penalty" part goes, that doesn't apply under New Testament teaching. In fact, in one of your disputed portions of scripture, the portion regarding Jesus and the woman caught in the act of adultery, some of this is rather apparent. Here's the account:
"Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 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. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."(John 8:1-11)
A few things to consider. First of all, since this "woman was taken in adultery, in the very act", then it stands to reason that there was ALSO a man present there, RIGHT? Why then didn't the scribes and Pharisees bring the man to Jesus as well? Hmmm? They spoke of Moses' commandment...the very commandment that you cited which clearly pronounces death upon BOTH the woman AND THE MAN. Secondly, did you notice how the scribes and Pharisees said to Jesus:
"Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?"
?
You don't suppose that the scribes and Pharisees asked this sort of question because they were still reeling from Jesus' "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old...But I say unto you..." from the Sermon on the Mount, do you? In any case, here is another clear cut example where Jesus will alter the commandment of Moses to give God's original intent and NOT the "sufferings" to the hardened of heart. Did Jesus pronounce the "death penalty"? Of course, He did NOT and neither should any Christian. Jesus not only gave the woman an opportunity to repent(while simultaneously dealing with the HYPOCRITICAL SCRIBES AND PHARISEES), but He also forgave her and admonished her to "go and sin no more". Finally, many have taken it upon themselves to guess exactly what Jesus wrote on the ground with His finger. It is quite possible/probable that He either wrote the TEN COMMANDMENTS(and not just the one that the scribes and Pharisees were capitalizing on) that were also "written with the finger of God"(Deuteronomy 9:10) or that He wrote the specific commandment of Moses that the scribes and Pharisees referred to, thus exposing their HYPOCRISY for not bringing THE MAN "to justice" as well. I wouldn't be surprised if He took the time to "write" simply because THE SCRIBES, whose job it was to write/copy scripture, were present. Anyhow, I hope/trust that this answers your questions. This time, my "Good night" is for real. Take care.
---Puck has been drinking a lot of Jack and Coke
Sorry...I think the entire bible is the compilation of 2 millinea of people with personal agendas altering the bible
Your own hubris is amazing though...
I would be willing to bet you couldn't name 10 famous Christian theologians, with half of them predating the Protestant Reformation
Sorry...I think the entire bible is the compilation of 2 millinea of people with personal agendas altering the bible
Your own hubris is amazing though...
I would be willing to bet you couldn't name 10 famous Christian theologians, with half of them predating the Protestant Reformation
No, my dear friend, I haven't forgotten a thing. First of all, IT WAS YOU WHO FIRST MENTIONED AN "ORIGINAL".
QUOTE (PuckSR)
You don't seem to use any real methodology in your interpretation.
You use a translation of a text rather than the original. In fact, the only Christians I ever hear reference "in the original Greek" are the Catholics.
IN MY RESPONSE TO WHAT YOU HAD WRITTEN, I deliberately put the word "original" in quotes, fully expecting this exact response from you. Additionally, YOU mentioned "the original Greek" which seemed to indicate that perhaps you would accept the Greek manuscripts as some basis for "truth". Like I said, I've already gone that route with you, only to watch you try to twist and squirm your way out of that as well. Same old Puck, I'm afraid.
Original in my context was a reference to the original "Greek", not the original manuscript. i.e. Greek was the original language of almost every New Testament book
As far as twisting, where have i ever twisted or squirmed.
I have directed you towards books written by experts on the topic that you seem to want to ignore
This is actually interesting...
Science has clearly demonstrated that homosexuality is a perfectly natural behavior. In fact, it is common in almost every animal we have researched.
So, are you claiming that God purposefully created homosexuals with the desire to be homosexual despite personally despising the act? Isn't that a bit fucked up?
MjolnirPants: Actually, according to God's Word, I'm part of "the Israel of God" that consists of both believing Jews and Gentiles. Anyhow, if you had a working knowledge of the Bible, then you would have been familiar with the following portion of scripture and others like it:
"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils..."(Mark 16:15-17)
Jesus initially reached out to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel". You know, trying to save the supposed "saved" first. Ultimately, He instructed His disciples to take the gospel to the whole world. Take care.
So he wasn't limiting christianity to the Israelites, he was...
Contradicting himself...
After limiting christianity to the Israelites.
So even Jesus can't make up his damn mind. It's no wonder, I've always known the religiously inspired to be a bit wishy-washy.
So when am I going to get those quotes, you dishonest sack of shіt?
I'm waiting...
I have a feeling I'll be waiting a while...
...
...
Still waiting....
Sigh...
QUOTE
PuckSR: I figured that you'd respond with something along these lines(you're not the first person here to do so...what a tired response...). Fine. Then let those with the "competing interpretations" have a nice little debate and see whose "interpretation" actually lines up with scripture. What's wrong with that approach? Why, it's an approach that I've taken RIGHT ON THIS FORUM MULTIPLE TIMES. Where is your refutation of our own "splintering" from earlier today? You are clearly in the wrong in everything that I addressed of your *AHEM* "in context" quotes from the skeptic's annotated bible. Well? What say ye? Let's hear your defense. No, you won't bother, will you? It's much easier to crap out with this lame excuse of yours(and others), isn't it? Of course, it is.
Sorry...I think the entire bible is the compilation of 2 millinea of people with personal agendas altering the bible
Your own hubris is amazing though...
I would be willing to bet you couldn't name 10 famous Christian theologians, with half of them predating the Protestant Reformation
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| PuckSR: I figured that you'd respond with something along these lines(you're not the first person here to do so...what a tired response...). Fine. Then let those with the "competing interpretations" have a nice little debate and see whose "interpretation" actually lines up with scripture. What's wrong with that approach? Why, it's an approach that I've taken RIGHT ON THIS FORUM MULTIPLE TIMES. Where is your refutation of our own "splintering" from earlier today? You are clearly in the wrong in everything that I addressed of your *AHEM* "in context" quotes from the skeptic's annotated bible. Well? What say ye? Let's hear your defense. No, you won't bother, will you? It's much easier to crap out with this lame excuse of yours(and others), isn't it? Of course, it is. |
Sorry...I think the entire bible is the compilation of 2 millinea of people with personal agendas altering the bible
Your own hubris is amazing though...
I would be willing to bet you couldn't name 10 famous Christian theologians, with half of them predating the Protestant Reformation
No, my dear friend, I haven't forgotten a thing. First of all, IT WAS YOU WHO FIRST MENTIONED AN "ORIGINAL".
QUOTE (PuckSR)
You don't seem to use any real methodology in your interpretation.
You use a translation of a text rather than the original. In fact, the only Christians I ever hear reference "in the original Greek" are the Catholics.
IN MY RESPONSE TO WHAT YOU HAD WRITTEN, I deliberately put the word "original" in quotes, fully expecting this exact response from you. Additionally, YOU mentioned "the original Greek" which seemed to indicate that perhaps you would accept the Greek manuscripts as some basis for "truth". Like I said, I've already gone that route with you, only to watch you try to twist and squirm your way out of that as well. Same old Puck, I'm afraid.
Original in my context was a reference to the original "Greek", not the original manuscript. i.e. Greek was the original language of almost every New Testament book
As far as twisting, where have i ever twisted or squirmed.
I have directed you towards books written by experts on the topic that you seem to want to ignore
QUOTE
First of all, I NEVER said that so-called "Christians" don't pick and choose. I merely stated that I, personally, don't pick and choose. Additionally, although both you and Grumpy seem to be hung up on the topic of homosexuality, I have plainly stated, on more than one occasion, that I have taken a lot more flak for my stance on adultery than on my stance on homosexuality over the years. A LOT MORE. In fact, it's about 99.9% to .1% in favor of adultery(including flak from several of my own family members). Anyhow, BOTH practices are clearly condemned by God. And? As far as the "death penalty" part goes, that doesn't apply under New Testament teaching. In fact, in one of your disputed portions of scripture, the portion regarding Jesus and the woman caught in the act of adultery, some of this is rather apparent. Here's the account:
This is actually interesting...
Science has clearly demonstrated that homosexuality is a perfectly natural behavior. In fact, it is common in almost every animal we have researched.
So, are you claiming that God purposefully created homosexuals with the desire to be homosexual despite personally despising the act? Isn't that a bit fucked up?
QUOTE (PuckSR+Dec 9 2008, 02:35 AM)
---Puck has been drinking a lot of Jack and Coke
Is that like a disclaimer?
Is that like a disclaimer?
I always like to inform any potential reader
Alcohol consumption can be a positive ingredient in creativity. Look at Ernest Hemingway. Certainly a great writer.
QUOTE (newguy+Dec 9 2008, 12:14 AM)
MjolnirPants: Actually, according to God's Word, I'm part of "the Israel of God" that consists of both believing Jews and Gentiles. Anyhow, if you had a working knowledge of the Bible, then you would have been familiar with the following portion of scripture and others like it:
"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils..."(Mark 16:15-17)
Jesus initially reached out to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel". You know, trying to save the supposed "saved" first. Ultimately, He instructed His disciples to take the gospel to the whole world. Take care.
So he wasn't limiting christianity to the Israelites, he was...
Contradicting himself...
After limiting christianity to the Israelites.
So even Jesus can't make up his damn mind. It's no wonder, I've always known the religiously inspired to be a bit wishy-washy.
So when am I going to get those quotes, you dishonest sack of shіt?
I'm waiting...
I have a feeling I'll be waiting a while...
...
...
Still waiting....
Sigh...
QUOTE (PuckSR+Dec 6 2008, 05:30 PM)
I have always been told that the bible is an excellent source of wisdom and ethics.
So here is my question.
Where in the bible does it say not to hurt people?
I don't mean murder, I mean cause grievous bodily harm...
Does it say anything about punching someone in the face?
How about going around kicking people in the groin?
This activity is obviously immoral, but what does the bible have to say about it?
I tried to search a couple of places, but I can't find anything about injuring or assaulting other people...
Judges 12:6 "Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand."
That seems like unneccesary violence is encouraged
The answer is quite simple.
"Treat your neighbor as you would like to be treated."
This means that if you want to be kicked.....Kick
But if you want your brother, wife, daughter,son,father, cousins, Grandparents and friends kicked as well, the rule applies to them as well. See, nothing in the rule says that YOUR kick only comes back to you.
The person you kick is some ones brother, wife, daughter,son,father, cousins, Grandparents and friends. So the rule is universally fair. It says,"do you want this sort of world for yourself that you create for others".
Cheers
Iseason
So here is my question.
Where in the bible does it say not to hurt people?
I don't mean murder, I mean cause grievous bodily harm...
Does it say anything about punching someone in the face?
How about going around kicking people in the groin?
This activity is obviously immoral, but what does the bible have to say about it?
I tried to search a couple of places, but I can't find anything about injuring or assaulting other people...
Judges 12:6 "Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand."
That seems like unneccesary violence is encouraged
The answer is quite simple.
"Treat your neighbor as you would like to be treated."
This means that if you want to be kicked.....Kick
But if you want your brother, wife, daughter,son,father, cousins, Grandparents and friends kicked as well, the rule applies to them as well. See, nothing in the rule says that YOUR kick only comes back to you.
The person you kick is some ones brother, wife, daughter,son,father, cousins, Grandparents and friends. So the rule is universally fair. It says,"do you want this sort of world for yourself that you create for others".
Cheers
Iseason
Matthew 10:36 - And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
newguy
I am so "hung up" on the topic because homosexuals are the new "slavery" in that society in general and "Christians" in particular are of the opinion that persecution of gays is "justified" by their religious beliefs. It is the right thing, morally, to stamp out this evil and, if your religion justifies it, to stamp out that immoral religion(and Islam for it's immoral teaching).
I also do not buy the epistemology of your convoluted explanation of what is and isn't a valid Christian precept from the Old Testament. A much more easily understood explanation is that the religious beliefs CHANGED due to man's having gotten it so wrong the first time(IE the OT was WRONG, in error, not moral but truly EVIL in many of it's teachings). The Bible is not the inspired word of a god, but the codification of the flawed philosophical beliefs of the men at that time. There can be no reconciliation between the Old and New after the fact. Jesus's teachings did not fulfill prophecy(there is no such thing in reality), it entirely REPLACED the OT teachings(that was a GOOD thing IMHO). And even though JC's teaching were an improvement and in some ways still good ones, he is 2000 years behind in others. The Bible is not, nor has it ever been, the ultimate moral authority, nor is any other book. Morality is and always will be a work in progress.
Are we more moral than the people of Biblical times??? You Betcha'!!! And often it is BECAUSE we have repudiated the morals codified in the Bible. Just as Jesus REPUDIATED the teachings of the OT re Stoning the woman. Stoning was a hard and fast OT precept("Do as I Command"), Jesus replaced it with the philosophy of do unto others as your INTELLECT informs you to do. This was JC's greatest philosophical contribution to man's continued evolution of what morals should be.
Grumpy
QUOTE
First of all, I NEVER said that so-called "Christians" don't pick and choose. I merely stated that I, personally, don't pick and choose. Additionally, although both you and Grumpy seem to be hung up on the topic of homosexuality, I have plainly stated, on more than one occasion, that I have taken a lot more flak for my stance on adultery than on my stance on homosexuality over the years. A LOT MORE. In fact, it's about 99.9% to .1% in favor of adultery(including flak from several of my own family members). Anyhow, BOTH practices are clearly condemned by God. And? As far as the "death penalty" part goes, that doesn't apply under New Testament teaching. In fact, in one of your disputed portions of scripture, the portion regarding Jesus and the woman caught in the act of adultery, some of this is rather apparent. Here's the account:
I am so "hung up" on the topic because homosexuals are the new "slavery" in that society in general and "Christians" in particular are of the opinion that persecution of gays is "justified" by their religious beliefs. It is the right thing, morally, to stamp out this evil and, if your religion justifies it, to stamp out that immoral religion(and Islam for it's immoral teaching).
I also do not buy the epistemology of your convoluted explanation of what is and isn't a valid Christian precept from the Old Testament. A much more easily understood explanation is that the religious beliefs CHANGED due to man's having gotten it so wrong the first time(IE the OT was WRONG, in error, not moral but truly EVIL in many of it's teachings). The Bible is not the inspired word of a god, but the codification of the flawed philosophical beliefs of the men at that time. There can be no reconciliation between the Old and New after the fact. Jesus's teachings did not fulfill prophecy(there is no such thing in reality), it entirely REPLACED the OT teachings(that was a GOOD thing IMHO). And even though JC's teaching were an improvement and in some ways still good ones, he is 2000 years behind in others. The Bible is not, nor has it ever been, the ultimate moral authority, nor is any other book. Morality is and always will be a work in progress.
Are we more moral than the people of Biblical times??? You Betcha'!!! And often it is BECAUSE we have repudiated the morals codified in the Bible. Just as Jesus REPUDIATED the teachings of the OT re Stoning the woman. Stoning was a hard and fast OT precept("Do as I Command"), Jesus replaced it with the philosophy of do unto others as your INTELLECT informs you to do. This was JC's greatest philosophical contribution to man's continued evolution of what morals should be.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+)
I am so "hung up" on the topic because homosexuals are the new "slavery" in that society in general and "Christians" in particular are of the opinion that persecution of gays is "justified" by their religious beliefs. It is the right thing, morally, to stamp out this evil and, if your religion justifies it, to stamp out that immoral religion(and Islam for it's immoral teaching).
Grumpy: More baloney. If you had any understanding of scripture at all(in other words, if you weren't so pig-headed), then you would easily understand that Christians don't "persecute"...self-righteous, Pharisaical, hypocrites do. There is so much to support this in scripture, but, since you'd much rather just make things up as you go along, I really see no more need to bother with you.
Are we more moral than the people of Biblical times??? You Betcha'!!! And often it is BECAUSE we have repudiated the morals codified in the Bible. Just as Jesus REPUDIATED the teachings of the OT re Stoning the woman. Stoning was a hard and fast OT precept("Do as I Command"), Jesus replaced it with the philosophy of do unto others as your INTELLECT informs you to do. This was JC's greatest philosophical contribution to man's continued evolution of what morals should be.
Grumpy
Hi Grumpy.
While I agree with the above quote. I find history is underscored with "loose" interpretations of laws. Interestingly,Morals are usually the followers of laws, and rarely is it the other way around.
Why do we make a law for speeding?... Because it makes sense to us to do so.
But what enforces the underpinning attitude to the law to stop it from completely breaking down....(in this I am saying that it is not completely obeyed or broken).
Moral justification is a much greater force than any policemen. If You crash, I can point to a law which lays out the reasoning behind the law , it's consequences and Benefits. All morality supports a law.
It is true that we have a varying intrepation of the boundaries of the law, but it holds us all within it's boundaries because over time we all agree we should have the law.
The old testament and new were no different in this regard. But what was abhorrent or acceptable was very different because of the growth of the tool of morality .
There will never be a society whose judgment get's it just right. My fear is of the speed of information as it pertains to our making of laws and a morality that this invariably builds. Looking at the law makers.......I have my doubts.
Where before , the village chief tan affected a small community (Positively or negatively) The world couldn't be brought under one umbrella of morality/law. But now it can...and this is being done today under the same old rule...."might is right", "to the victor goes the spoils","Gather a crowd and then exploit it".
No Grumpy. There has never been a time to be more concerned about morality and it's future. You said there are a number of good laws in the bible. It seems in it's rush to crush belief,society will ignore the very long process of trial and error that gave us has already been trialed by fire.
Were the Pharisees any less passionate about the law? No they gave human judgment and sometimes exploited their office.
Are lawyers passionate about the law? Yes, but each takes an agenda to court.....That is to win.
Cheers
Iseason
Cheers
Iseason
Grumpy: More baloney. If you had any understanding of scripture at all(in other words, if you weren't so pig-headed), then you would easily understand that Christians don't "persecute"...self-righteous, Pharisaical, hypocrites do. There is so much to support this in scripture, but, since you'd much rather just make things up as you go along, I really see no more need to bother with you.
QUOTE (Grumpy+)
I also do not buy the epistemology of your convoluted explanation of what is and isn't a valid Christian precept from the Old Testament.
Of course, you don't. You wouldn't want to be bothered with the facts, would you? No, you'd much rather cling to your own bigotry. Isn't that correct? Sure it is. Your choice. Farewell.
Of course, you don't. You wouldn't want to be bothered with the facts, would you? No, you'd much rather cling to your own bigotry. Isn't that correct? Sure it is. Your choice. Farewell.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Dec 9 2008, 08:52 PM)
Are we more moral than the people of Biblical times??? You Betcha'!!! And often it is BECAUSE we have repudiated the morals codified in the Bible. Just as Jesus REPUDIATED the teachings of the OT re Stoning the woman. Stoning was a hard and fast OT precept("Do as I Command"), Jesus replaced it with the philosophy of do unto others as your INTELLECT informs you to do. This was JC's greatest philosophical contribution to man's continued evolution of what morals should be.
Grumpy
Hi Grumpy.
While I agree with the above quote. I find history is underscored with "loose" interpretations of laws. Interestingly,Morals are usually the followers of laws, and rarely is it the other way around.
Why do we make a law for speeding?... Because it makes sense to us to do so.
But what enforces the underpinning attitude to the law to stop it from completely breaking down....(in this I am saying that it is not completely obeyed or broken).
Moral justification is a much greater force than any policemen. If You crash, I can point to a law which lays out the reasoning behind the law , it's consequences and Benefits. All morality supports a law.
It is true that we have a varying intrepation of the boundaries of the law, but it holds us all within it's boundaries because over time we all agree we should have the law.
The old testament and new were no different in this regard. But what was abhorrent or acceptable was very different because of the growth of the tool of morality .
There will never be a society whose judgment get's it just right. My fear is of the speed of information as it pertains to our making of laws and a morality that this invariably builds. Looking at the law makers.......I have my doubts.
Where before , the village chief tan affected a small community (Positively or negatively) The world couldn't be brought under one umbrella of morality/law. But now it can...and this is being done today under the same old rule...."might is right", "to the victor goes the spoils","Gather a crowd and then exploit it".
No Grumpy. There has never been a time to be more concerned about morality and it's future. You said there are a number of good laws in the bible. It seems in it's rush to crush belief,society will ignore the very long process of trial and error that gave us has already been trialed by fire.
Were the Pharisees any less passionate about the law? No they gave human judgment and sometimes exploited their office.
Are lawyers passionate about the law? Yes, but each takes an agenda to court.....That is to win.
Cheers
Iseason
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+)
So he wasn't limiting christianity to the Israelites, he was...
Contradicting himself...
After limiting christianity to the Israelites.
So even Jesus can't make up his damn mind. It's no wonder, I've always known the religiously inspired to be a bit wishy-washy.
BigDumbWeirdo(so aptly named): Jesus never limited Christianity to the Israelites. That's just another invention of your sick, twisted mind. Enjoy it, if you'd like. For those who actually understand scripture, your twistings are of absolutely no effect whatsoever. Like it or not, the scriptures still teach that God even preached the gospel to Abraham(Galatians 3:8), way back when, and told him that "in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed"(Genesis 22:18). That "seed", my dear ignorant friend, is none other than Jesus Christ. As always, salvation is offered to those from "all the nations of the earth"...NOT just the Israelites, as you so mistakenly claim. Anyhow, knowing you to be dumb as a rock, I'll not bother you with any more scripture. Do say "hello" to Sapo for me, won't you? I just love how your girlfriend always seems to show up in my feedback whenever you're in trouble. Farewell.
Contradicting himself...
After limiting christianity to the Israelites.
So even Jesus can't make up his damn mind. It's no wonder, I've always known the religiously inspired to be a bit wishy-washy.
BigDumbWeirdo(so aptly named): Jesus never limited Christianity to the Israelites. That's just another invention of your sick, twisted mind. Enjoy it, if you'd like. For those who actually understand scripture, your twistings are of absolutely no effect whatsoever. Like it or not, the scriptures still teach that God even preached the gospel to Abraham(Galatians 3:8), way back when, and told him that "in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed"(Genesis 22:18). That "seed", my dear ignorant friend, is none other than Jesus Christ. As always, salvation is offered to those from "all the nations of the earth"...NOT just the Israelites, as you so mistakenly claim. Anyhow, knowing you to be dumb as a rock, I'll not bother you with any more scripture. Do say "hello" to Sapo for me, won't you? I just love how your girlfriend always seems to show up in my feedback whenever you're in trouble. Farewell.
QUOTE (newguy+Dec 9 2008, 09:41 AM)
BigDumbWeirdo(so aptly named):
OH MY GOD YOU CALLED ME BIGDUMBWEIRDO!!!!! Whatever will I do? How will I respond? What in the world is happening here??
Liar, I just quoted the passage where he does so yesterday. The fact that he later contradicted himself doesn't change this.
Liar, I just quoted the passage where he does so yesterday. The fact that he later contradicted himself doesn't change this.
That's just another invention of your sick, twisted mind.
A sick, twisted mind that nonetheless operates with far more acuity and integrity than yours, you lying sack of shіt.
Did you know most of my knowledge of the bible and theology comes from a pastor with a secular PhD in theology and a BA (or some other 4 year degree) from divinity school? I'm no expert myself, but most of my opinions about the bible are shared by the experts, no matter how much you wish that weren't so.
Did you know most of my knowledge of the bible and theology comes from a pastor with a secular PhD in theology and a BA (or some other 4 year degree) from divinity school? I'm no expert myself, but most of my opinions about the bible are shared by the experts, no matter how much you wish that weren't so.
As always, salvation is offered to those from "all the nations of the earth"...NOT just the Israelites, as you so mistakenly claim.
WRONG!!!
I just quoted you a passage that contradicts that claim. Simply because the bible contradicts itself doesn't make one half of that contradiction non-existant.
Why is it that people with an education always think I'm smart, and cranks/fundies/etc always think I'm dumb? It's like I piss these people off or something...
Why is it that people with an education always think I'm smart, and cranks/fundies/etc always think I'm dumb? It's like I piss these people off or something...
Do say "hello" to Sapo for me, won't you? I just love how your girlfriend always seems to show up in my feedback whenever you're in trouble. Farewell.
I've already told him how you claimed that christians don't engage in sectarian violence. hehehehehe
I'll be sure to tell him you said "Hi!" too.
PS. I'm still waiting for those quotes, you lying sack of shіt.
OH MY GOD YOU CALLED ME BIGDUMBWEIRDO!!!!! Whatever will I do? How will I respond? What in the world is happening here??
QUOTE
Jesus never limited Christianity to the Israelites.
Liar, I just quoted the passage where he does so yesterday. The fact that he later contradicted himself doesn't change this.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Jesus never limited Christianity to the Israelites. |
Liar, I just quoted the passage where he does so yesterday. The fact that he later contradicted himself doesn't change this.
That's just another invention of your sick, twisted mind.
A sick, twisted mind that nonetheless operates with far more acuity and integrity than yours, you lying sack of shіt. QUOTE
For those who actually understand scripture, your twistings are of absolutely no effect whatsoever.
Did you know most of my knowledge of the bible and theology comes from a pastor with a secular PhD in theology and a BA (or some other 4 year degree) from divinity school? I'm no expert myself, but most of my opinions about the bible are shared by the experts, no matter how much you wish that weren't so.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| For those who actually understand scripture, your twistings are of absolutely no effect whatsoever. |
Did you know most of my knowledge of the bible and theology comes from a pastor with a secular PhD in theology and a BA (or some other 4 year degree) from divinity school? I'm no expert myself, but most of my opinions about the bible are shared by the experts, no matter how much you wish that weren't so.
As always, salvation is offered to those from "all the nations of the earth"...NOT just the Israelites, as you so mistakenly claim.
WRONG!!!
I just quoted you a passage that contradicts that claim. Simply because the bible contradicts itself doesn't make one half of that contradiction non-existant.
QUOTE
Anyhow, knowing you to be dumb as a rock, I'll not bother you with any more scripture.
Why is it that people with an education always think I'm smart, and cranks/fundies/etc always think I'm dumb? It's like I piss these people off or something...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Anyhow, knowing you to be dumb as a rock, I'll not bother you with any more scripture. |
Why is it that people with an education always think I'm smart, and cranks/fundies/etc always think I'm dumb? It's like I piss these people off or something...
Do say "hello" to Sapo for me, won't you? I just love how your girlfriend always seems to show up in my feedback whenever you're in trouble. Farewell.
I've already told him how you claimed that christians don't engage in sectarian violence. hehehehehe
I'll be sure to tell him you said "Hi!" too.
PS. I'm still waiting for those quotes, you lying sack of shіt.
Wow!... The extent to which people will go to to delude themselves in order to bolster their belief above all others has always amazed me. How one belief in a non-existent entity is any more proper or correct or righteous then another blows the mind!
I'm sure there were people in Germany that felt just as strongly about the righteousness of the "final solution" as do certain individuals on this forum about their interpretation of the bible... There is good and evil in the bible, The evil has dominated and the "good" has cheery picked and rewritten/reinterpreted to suite their needs and largely allowed the evil to exist because it has supported the belief system in general.
What a load of crapola!
FGG
I'm sure there were people in Germany that felt just as strongly about the righteousness of the "final solution" as do certain individuals on this forum about their interpretation of the bible... There is good and evil in the bible, The evil has dominated and the "good" has cheery picked and rewritten/reinterpreted to suite their needs and largely allowed the evil to exist because it has supported the belief system in general.
What a load of crapola!
FGG
QUOTE (FGG+Dec 9 2008, 03:43 PM)
Wow!... The extent to which people will go to to delude themselves in order to bolster their belief above all others has always amazed me. How one belief in a non-existent entity is any more proper or correct or righteous then another blows the mind!
I'm sure there were people in Germany that felt just as strongly about the righteousness of the "final solution" as do certain individuals on this forum about their interpretation of the bible... There is good and evil in the bible, The evil has dominated and the "good" has cheery picked and rewritten/reinterpreted to suite their needs and largely allowed the evil to exist because it has supported the belief system in general.
What a load of crapola!
FGG
how very, very true...
I'm sure there were people in Germany that felt just as strongly about the righteousness of the "final solution" as do certain individuals on this forum about their interpretation of the bible... There is good and evil in the bible, The evil has dominated and the "good" has cheery picked and rewritten/reinterpreted to suite their needs and largely allowed the evil to exist because it has supported the belief system in general.
What a load of crapola!
FGG
how very, very true...
QUOTE (newguy+Dec 9 2008, 04:41 AM)
Do say "hello" to Sapo for me, won't you? I just love how your girlfriend always seems to show up in my feedback whenever you're in trouble. Farewell.
Farewell yourself, creep.
If you haven't figured it out yet, I have blocked your Palmerton IP, so shop around for another proxy...
Farewell yourself, creep.
If you haven't figured it out yet, I have blocked your Palmerton IP, so shop around for another proxy...
QUOTE (Sapo+)
If you haven't figured it out yet, I have blocked your Palmerton IP, so shop around for another proxy...
Sapo: Have you taken up drinking? I have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about. I not only don't have a "proxy", but I presently don't even know what one is(although I've heard GeneSplicer refer to them in the past). Additionally, I have the ability to view your website anytime that I want to from one of the laptops IN MY HOUSE(I just visited your site and I know, for instance, that BigDumbWeirdo became a father yesterday) and I also have the ability to view your website from any number of hotel computers that I log-in to WEEKLY due to my travels IF I BUT WANTED TO(it's really not on the list of my "things to do"). Anyhow, whoever it is that you've "blocked", it certainly isn't me. Just for the record.
EDIT: On second thought, perhaps you did block me as I can no longer access your site from my wife's laptop. No loss at this end. Anyhow, like I said, I have no idea whatsoever what a proxy is and my wife's laptop had nothing special done to it in order to access your site. Whatever.
P.S. I just looked up "proxy"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_server
I only sped read it, but it doesn't seem to apply to me. We simply have two computers in our home, one desktop and one laptop. Perhaps GeneSplicer, the one I usually go to for computer-related questions, can tell me if my set-up constitutes as a proxy or not. If it does(and I don't think that it does), then it was nothing intentional at my end. GeneSplicer...???
Sapo: Have you taken up drinking? I have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about. I not only don't have a "proxy", but I presently don't even know what one is(although I've heard GeneSplicer refer to them in the past). Additionally, I have the ability to view your website anytime that I want to from one of the laptops IN MY HOUSE(I just visited your site and I know, for instance, that BigDumbWeirdo became a father yesterday) and I also have the ability to view your website from any number of hotel computers that I log-in to WEEKLY due to my travels IF I BUT WANTED TO(it's really not on the list of my "things to do"). Anyhow, whoever it is that you've "blocked", it certainly isn't me. Just for the record.
EDIT: On second thought, perhaps you did block me as I can no longer access your site from my wife's laptop. No loss at this end. Anyhow, like I said, I have no idea whatsoever what a proxy is and my wife's laptop had nothing special done to it in order to access your site. Whatever.
P.S. I just looked up "proxy"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_server
I only sped read it, but it doesn't seem to apply to me. We simply have two computers in our home, one desktop and one laptop. Perhaps GeneSplicer, the one I usually go to for computer-related questions, can tell me if my set-up constitutes as a proxy or not. If it does(and I don't think that it does), then it was nothing intentional at my end. GeneSplicer...???
I'll accept that as an apology.
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
I'll accept that as an apology.
Derek1148: Are you talking to me?
Derek1148: Are you talking to me?
Yes. That was an apology, wasn't it?
QUOTE (newguy+Dec 11 2008, 02:46 PM)
I only sped read it, but it doesn't seem to apply to me.
Bullshit. I just blocked two proxy networks from anonymouse. Liar.
Bullshit. I just blocked two proxy networks from anonymouse. Liar.
So... I am confused...
Old testament, good for what, a couple of thousand years, right?
Then JC comes along and we can toss all that right out the window 'cause the big G changed his mind, and started over again by hanging his son on a cross, torturing him, then in the end, taking his life...
But wait! there's more! the big G let JC come back! and it was good.
Then a Roman Emperor, who's name was what... Constantine, got a bunch of his homies together and by way of divine intervention or really good acid decided what would be included as scripture and what would be heresy at the Council of Nicaea and that is where today's bible stands, and replaces the old testament...
Is that a fairly accurate statement?
WOW.
I wanna a god like that... change my mind when I feel like it, and make my son pay for my mistake with the human race.... Obviously I screwed it up and someone had to pay...... Oh wait, I can't make mistakes... or if I do I can start over by drowning them like rats... or sacrificing my son for these idiot... I mean great human souls...
Did anybody ever figure out how the christians got sold on their religion? What ever it is they are smoking... I want NO part of it...
Whoa.
Old testament, good for what, a couple of thousand years, right?
Then JC comes along and we can toss all that right out the window 'cause the big G changed his mind, and started over again by hanging his son on a cross, torturing him, then in the end, taking his life...
But wait! there's more! the big G let JC come back! and it was good.
Then a Roman Emperor, who's name was what... Constantine, got a bunch of his homies together and by way of divine intervention or really good acid decided what would be included as scripture and what would be heresy at the Council of Nicaea and that is where today's bible stands, and replaces the old testament...
Is that a fairly accurate statement?
WOW.
I wanna a god like that... change my mind when I feel like it, and make my son pay for my mistake with the human race.... Obviously I screwed it up and someone had to pay...... Oh wait, I can't make mistakes... or if I do I can start over by drowning them like rats... or sacrificing my son for these idiot... I mean great human souls...
Did anybody ever figure out how the christians got sold on their religion? What ever it is they are smoking... I want NO part of it...
Whoa.
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
Yes. That was an apology, wasn't it?
Derek1148: No, it was not, as I've got nothing to apologize for. May I ask you a SERIOUS question? It seems rather apparent, from your posting history, that your line of work is somehow related to police work. With this in mind, I'm curious as to whether or not you REALLY lack discernment or, as I've supposed(perhaps I'm the one who is lacking in discernment this time?), is this just another manifestation of your "brand" of humor? I'd really like to know...I've always assumed that you're joking, but I'd like to know if I've been wrong. In any case, as far as a "proxy" is concerned, I did just go back and reread the Wikipedia article and it doesn't seem to apply to my situation at all. I simply have two computers in my home...a desktop in my office and my wife's laptop that works in any room via WiFi. The reason that I originally balked at Sapo's "Palmerton" comment is because I live about 55 miles from Palmerton. If my wife's laptop is somehow linked to Palmerton, then it is certainly news to me. Anyhow, I'd appreciate it if you'd SERIOUSLY answer my question. I think that you're joking...
Derek1148: No, it was not, as I've got nothing to apologize for. May I ask you a SERIOUS question? It seems rather apparent, from your posting history, that your line of work is somehow related to police work. With this in mind, I'm curious as to whether or not you REALLY lack discernment or, as I've supposed(perhaps I'm the one who is lacking in discernment this time?), is this just another manifestation of your "brand" of humor? I'd really like to know...I've always assumed that you're joking, but I'd like to know if I've been wrong. In any case, as far as a "proxy" is concerned, I did just go back and reread the Wikipedia article and it doesn't seem to apply to my situation at all. I simply have two computers in my home...a desktop in my office and my wife's laptop that works in any room via WiFi. The reason that I originally balked at Sapo's "Palmerton" comment is because I live about 55 miles from Palmerton. If my wife's laptop is somehow linked to Palmerton, then it is certainly news to me. Anyhow, I'd appreciate it if you'd SERIOUSLY answer my question. I think that you're joking...
QUOTE (MaskedMarauder+)
Is that a fairly accurate statement?
MaskedMarauder: Not even close.
MaskedMarauder: Not even close.
QUOTE (newguy+Dec 11 2008, 08:28 PM)
... is this just another manifestation of your "brand" of humor?
When a suspect is asked a simple question and responds with an elaborate answer, which includes reasons he might appear guilty, it raises suspicions.
And, you don’t like my sense of humor? At work it seems to be appreciated.
When a suspect is asked a simple question and responds with an elaborate answer, which includes reasons he might appear guilty, it raises suspicions.
And, you don’t like my sense of humor? At work it seems to be appreciated.
Here, too! 
QUOTE (Sapo+)
Bullshit. I just blocked two proxy networks from anonymouse. Liar.
Sapo: I don't know what "Bullshit" you're talking about, but my computer situation is EXACTLY as I've described it. Period. Like I said, I don't see how my situation is likened to a "proxy" in any way, shape or form. At the same time, I did PM GeneSplicer to see what he has to say about my computer situation in regards to a "proxy". Once again, I simply have two computers...a desktop in my office and my wife's laptop that works in any room via WiFi. Any ideas of me doing something special to access your site are totally unfounded. That's reality...I'll stick with that. Take care.
Sapo: I don't know what "Bullshit" you're talking about, but my computer situation is EXACTLY as I've described it. Period. Like I said, I don't see how my situation is likened to a "proxy" in any way, shape or form. At the same time, I did PM GeneSplicer to see what he has to say about my computer situation in regards to a "proxy". Once again, I simply have two computers...a desktop in my office and my wife's laptop that works in any room via WiFi. Any ideas of me doing something special to access your site are totally unfounded. That's reality...I'll stick with that. Take care.
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
When a suspect is asked a simple question and responds with an elaborate answer, which includes reasons he might appear guilty, it raises suspicions.
And, you don’t like my sense of humor? At work it seems to be appreciated.
Derek1148: As usual, I can't get a straightforward answer from you. As far as MY "elaborate answers", as you call them, are concerned, being "elaborate" is NORMAL for me, as I have nothing to hide. Whatever you personally think of me(I've read of your accusations of me having a "Messiah complex", for example), I recognize that the God Who created the eye SEES and that the God Who created the ear HEARS. Why then would I bother to try to deceive any of you, seeing how my God will not be fooled? Certainly, you can understand such reasoning, can't you? Uh oh...there I go again, being "elaborate"...get the 'cuffs. Take care.
And, you don’t like my sense of humor? At work it seems to be appreciated.
Derek1148: As usual, I can't get a straightforward answer from you. As far as MY "elaborate answers", as you call them, are concerned, being "elaborate" is NORMAL for me, as I have nothing to hide. Whatever you personally think of me(I've read of your accusations of me having a "Messiah complex", for example), I recognize that the God Who created the eye SEES and that the God Who created the ear HEARS. Why then would I bother to try to deceive any of you, seeing how my God will not be fooled? Certainly, you can understand such reasoning, can't you? Uh oh...there I go again, being "elaborate"...get the 'cuffs. Take care.
Since I don't care whether you FOAD or not, I will explain my reasoning to others.
At about 2:34, I got tired of your camping here, and blocked the IP that resolves to Palmerton. I then made mention of it here. Within three minutes, another connection was made from a proxy server, two of whose networks are now also blocked.
The thought that there is someone else playing that kind of game at the exact same time that you scuff your toe and claim innocence is laughable.
Hypocrite and Liar.
At about 2:34, I got tired of your camping here, and blocked the IP that resolves to Palmerton. I then made mention of it here. Within three minutes, another connection was made from a proxy server, two of whose networks are now also blocked.
The thought that there is someone else playing that kind of game at the exact same time that you scuff your toe and claim innocence is laughable.
Hypocrite and Liar.
QUOTE (newguy+Dec 11 2008, 08:50 PM)
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
When a suspect is asked a simple question and responds with an elaborate answer, which includes reasons he might appear guilty, it raises suspicions.
And, you don’t like my sense of humor? At work it seems to be appreciated.
Derek1148: As usual, I can't get a straightforward answer from you. As far as MY "elaborate answers", as you call them, are concerned, being "elaborate" is NORMAL for me, as I have nothing to hide. Whatever you personally think of me(I've read of your accusations of me having a "Messiah complex", for example), I recognize that the God Who created the eye SEES and that the God Who created the ear HEARS. Why then would I bother to try to deceive any of you, seeing how my God will not be fooled? Certainly, you can understand such reasoning, can't you? Uh oh...there I go again, being "elaborate"...get the 'cuffs. Take care.
newguy,
You're taking this whole thing way too seriously. Do you think God cares if you use a proxy?
And, you don’t like my sense of humor? At work it seems to be appreciated.
Derek1148: As usual, I can't get a straightforward answer from you. As far as MY "elaborate answers", as you call them, are concerned, being "elaborate" is NORMAL for me, as I have nothing to hide. Whatever you personally think of me(I've read of your accusations of me having a "Messiah complex", for example), I recognize that the God Who created the eye SEES and that the God Who created the ear HEARS. Why then would I bother to try to deceive any of you, seeing how my God will not be fooled? Certainly, you can understand such reasoning, can't you? Uh oh...there I go again, being "elaborate"...get the 'cuffs. Take care.
newguy,
You're taking this whole thing way too seriously. Do you think God cares if you use a proxy?
QUOTE (Sapo+)
Since I don't care whether you FOAD or not, I will explain my reasoning to others.
At about 2:34, I got tired of your camping here, and blocked the IP that resolves to Palmerton. I then made mention of it here. Within three minutes, another connection was made from a proxy server, two of whose networks are now also blocked.
The thought that there is someone else playing that kind of game at the exact same time that you scuff your toe and claim innocence is laughable.
Hypocrite and Liar.
Sapo: Well, since I'm neither a hypocrite nor a liar, I'll answer you FOR YOUR OWN BENEFIT. My computer situation is EXACTLY as I've described. Perhaps, you should either GET SOME FACTS BEFORE MAKING UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS or, better yet, perhaps you should go see a psychiatrist for your paranoia or excessive self-worth. Like it or not, you're really not that important to me...at least not in the ways in which you apparently imagine to be. You really should get your head examined...you're living quite the delusion. Farewell.
At about 2:34, I got tired of your camping here, and blocked the IP that resolves to Palmerton. I then made mention of it here. Within three minutes, another connection was made from a proxy server, two of whose networks are now also blocked.
The thought that there is someone else playing that kind of game at the exact same time that you scuff your toe and claim innocence is laughable.
Hypocrite and Liar.
Sapo: Well, since I'm neither a hypocrite nor a liar, I'll answer you FOR YOUR OWN BENEFIT. My computer situation is EXACTLY as I've described. Perhaps, you should either GET SOME FACTS BEFORE MAKING UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS or, better yet, perhaps you should go see a psychiatrist for your paranoia or excessive self-worth. Like it or not, you're really not that important to me...at least not in the ways in which you apparently imagine to be. You really should get your head examined...you're living quite the delusion. Farewell.
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
newguy,
You're taking this whole thing way too seriously. Do you think God cares if you use a proxy?
Derek1148: As I've already stated, I didn't even know what a proxy was until I quickly researched it after Sapo's accusation, so a proxy is NOT the real issue with me. No, the real issue with me, whether or not any of you will ever understand it/believe it, is PEOPLE. When people make baseless allegations and seemingly TOTALLY BELIEVE SUCH BASELESS ALLEGATIONS...
Wouldn't you be concerned about such an individual/individuals?
That's the point. Sapo needs help...as do several other undiscerning folks around here. Take care.
P.S. What think ye of his desire for me to FOAD(F*ck Off And Die)? Maybe HE should arouse some suspicions? Nah, couldn't be.
You're taking this whole thing way too seriously. Do you think God cares if you use a proxy?
Derek1148: As I've already stated, I didn't even know what a proxy was until I quickly researched it after Sapo's accusation, so a proxy is NOT the real issue with me. No, the real issue with me, whether or not any of you will ever understand it/believe it, is PEOPLE. When people make baseless allegations and seemingly TOTALLY BELIEVE SUCH BASELESS ALLEGATIONS...
Wouldn't you be concerned about such an individual/individuals?
That's the point. Sapo needs help...as do several other undiscerning folks around here. Take care.
P.S. What think ye of his desire for me to FOAD(F*ck Off And Die)? Maybe HE should arouse some suspicions? Nah, couldn't be.
Everybody needs help but you? Maybe even most people? But not you.
Clown.
Clown.
QUOTE (Sapo+)
Everybody needs help but you? Maybe even most people? But not you.
Clown.
Sapo: Any yet ANOTHER of your delusions. From what did you derive this opinion? Certainly NOT from my own words. For example, I've REPEATEDLY stated that the vast majority of my fellowship with God has come in the form of PERSONAL CORRECTION. And, THIS, means that "everybody needs help but me"? Like I said, get your head examined. The sooner the better...FOR YOUR SAKE. Your delusions don't negatively affect me at all...except in the genuine grief that I feel for your soul. You can have the last word. You've already left the path of reality...there's no need for me to continue. I'll only continue my conversation with you if GeneSplicer(or anyone else who is computer-savvy) can convince me that my computer situation is anyhow related to a "proxy"...
Clown.
Sapo: Any yet ANOTHER of your delusions. From what did you derive this opinion? Certainly NOT from my own words. For example, I've REPEATEDLY stated that the vast majority of my fellowship with God has come in the form of PERSONAL CORRECTION. And, THIS, means that "everybody needs help but me"? Like I said, get your head examined. The sooner the better...FOR YOUR SAKE. Your delusions don't negatively affect me at all...except in the genuine grief that I feel for your soul. You can have the last word. You've already left the path of reality...there's no need for me to continue. I'll only continue my conversation with you if GeneSplicer(or anyone else who is computer-savvy) can convince me that my computer situation is anyhow related to a "proxy"...
What a complete fool you must be.
Well, since he gave me the "green light"...
PuckSR: I figured that you'd respond with something along these lines(you're not the first person here to do so...what a tired response...). Fine. Then let those with the "competing interpretations" have a nice little debate and see whose "interpretation" actually lines up with scripture.
How do people come up with competing interpretations?
Why is it possible for them to do so?
God made both the Word and the reader, so why is confusion even possible?
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+)
Re:Computer-related question...what else, Today at 12:52 AM
Newguy,
Feel free to repost this, but Sapo is right to a certain extent.
Most ISPs use proxy servers to some level. You may not have a proxy per say nor do I think based upon your past technical problem with your website and all that you would know how to use a proxy off hand, but it is a really easy thing to do and use.
Sapo is blocking access to his site via people who are not logged in (anonymous access) from what I am assuming is your location.
The only problem with this is that if your ISP is a large company that services people in a large region with internet access, then the proxy server or servers they use could be anywhere in the territory or region they cover.
I hope that helps.
--------------------
Check out my podcasts:
A Moment in Reason http://www.theshallowgenepool.com/podcast amir.htm
The Shallow Gene Pool http://www.theshallowgenepool.com/podcast.htm
Sapo: Although I admittedly still don't fully understand how a proxy works, AT BEST, it was something that transpired UNKNOWINGLY and UNDELIBERATELY(if that's a word) at my end. If your calling me a "fool" is linked to my lack of computer-savvy, then I'll gladly accept that...especially since I never claimed to be a computer expert. At the same time, your use of such terms as hypocrite and liar are still way off base. I hope that puts this to rest.
Newguy,
Feel free to repost this, but Sapo is right to a certain extent.
Most ISPs use proxy servers to some level. You may not have a proxy per say nor do I think based upon your past technical problem with your website and all that you would know how to use a proxy off hand, but it is a really easy thing to do and use.
Sapo is blocking access to his site via people who are not logged in (anonymous access) from what I am assuming is your location.
The only problem with this is that if your ISP is a large company that services people in a large region with internet access, then the proxy server or servers they use could be anywhere in the territory or region they cover.
I hope that helps.
--------------------
Check out my podcasts:
A Moment in Reason http://www.theshallowgenepool.com/podcast amir.htm
The Shallow Gene Pool http://www.theshallowgenepool.com/podcast.htm
Sapo: Although I admittedly still don't fully understand how a proxy works, AT BEST, it was something that transpired UNKNOWINGLY and UNDELIBERATELY(if that's a word) at my end. If your calling me a "fool" is linked to my lack of computer-savvy, then I'll gladly accept that...especially since I never claimed to be a computer expert. At the same time, your use of such terms as hypocrite and liar are still way off base. I hope that puts this to rest.
QUOTE (newguy+Dec 9 2008, 01:33 AM)
PuckSR: I figured that you'd respond with something along these lines(you're not the first person here to do so...what a tired response...). Fine. Then let those with the "competing interpretations" have a nice little debate and see whose "interpretation" actually lines up with scripture.
How do people come up with competing interpretations?
Why is it possible for them to do so?
God made both the Word and the reader, so why is confusion even possible?
QUOTE (buttershug+)
How do people come up with competing interpretations?
Why is it possible for them to do so?
God made both the Word and the reader, so why is confusion even possible?
buttershug: Here's ONE reason:
"Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink. For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned. Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among the people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid."(Isaiah 29:9-14)
GOD will actually close the eyes of hypocrites...those who only honour Him with their lips, while their hearts are far from Him. That, my dear friend, is one of the major reasons for the schisms within professing Christendom. There are others...
Why is it possible for them to do so?
God made both the Word and the reader, so why is confusion even possible?
buttershug: Here's ONE reason:
"Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink. For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned. Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among the people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid."(Isaiah 29:9-14)
GOD will actually close the eyes of hypocrites...those who only honour Him with their lips, while their hearts are far from Him. That, my dear friend, is one of the major reasons for the schisms within professing Christendom. There are others...
And how does one know if one is a hypocrite?
And most importantly if one were writing a book to be believed as the Word of God, one would put some along those lines in it. If it were not possible to write a false book with such an explanation it would suffice but you are using circular logic.
In fact I'm sure the Koran has something similar.
Do you really think there are so few who are not hypocrites?
And the part you quoted has an unclear antecedent. It uses "they" in the very fist sentence.
And most importantly if one were writing a book to be believed as the Word of God, one would put some along those lines in it. If it were not possible to write a false book with such an explanation it would suffice but you are using circular logic.
In fact I'm sure the Koran has something similar.
Do you really think there are so few who are not hypocrites?
And the part you quoted has an unclear antecedent. It uses "they" in the very fist sentence.
buttershug: Now it's my turn to ask YOU a question...
Have you ever even read the Bible?
If so, how much of it have you read?
Please answer those questions for me, if you would be so kind.
Thanks.
Have you ever even read the Bible?
If so, how much of it have you read?
Please answer those questions for me, if you would be so kind.
Thanks.
Yes al of it but so what?
Give me a test to tell if it is the real deal or not.
I've also read the Koran. (have you)
I've only read a little of the Mormon bible.
So the test will have to pass the Bible and fail the Koran.
Let me change my question from how is it possible for so many different people to have such different views on the Bible to Why did God use such a weak explanation?
What about people who study the Bible from an age so early they wouldn't know how to be a hypocrite?
Give me a test to tell if it is the real deal or not.
I've also read the Koran. (have you)
I've only read a little of the Mormon bible.
So the test will have to pass the Bible and fail the Koran.
Let me change my question from how is it possible for so many different people to have such different views on the Bible to Why did God use such a weak explanation?
What about people who study the Bible from an age so early they wouldn't know how to be a hypocrite?
QUOTE (newguy+Dec 11 2008, 09:08 PM)
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
newguy,
You're taking this whole thing way too seriously. Do you think God cares if you use a proxy?
Derek1148: As I've already stated, I didn't even know what a proxy was until I quickly researched it after Sapo's accusation, so a proxy is NOT the real issue with me. No, the real issue with me, whether or not any of you will ever understand it/believe it, is PEOPLE. When people make baseless allegations and seemingly TOTALLY BELIEVE SUCH BASELESS ALLEGATIONS...
Wouldn't you be concerned about such an individual/individuals?
That's the point. Sapo needs help...as do several other undiscerning folks around here. Take care.
P.S. What think ye of his desire for me to FOAD(F*ck Off And Die)? Maybe HE should arouse some suspicions? Nah, couldn't be.
newguy,
My question about God caring about one using a proxy was rhetorical. You're taking all this too personally. There is anonymity on this forum that makes any personal attack meaningless.
That said, I believe some of your interpretations are incorrect.
You're taking this whole thing way too seriously. Do you think God cares if you use a proxy?
Derek1148: As I've already stated, I didn't even know what a proxy was until I quickly researched it after Sapo's accusation, so a proxy is NOT the real issue with me. No, the real issue with me, whether or not any of you will ever understand it/believe it, is PEOPLE. When people make baseless allegations and seemingly TOTALLY BELIEVE SUCH BASELESS ALLEGATIONS...
Wouldn't you be concerned about such an individual/individuals?
That's the point. Sapo needs help...as do several other undiscerning folks around here. Take care.
P.S. What think ye of his desire for me to FOAD(F*ck Off And Die)? Maybe HE should arouse some suspicions? Nah, couldn't be.
newguy,
My question about God caring about one using a proxy was rhetorical. You're taking all this too personally. There is anonymity on this forum that makes any personal attack meaningless.
That said, I believe some of your interpretations are incorrect.
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
newguy,
My question about God caring about one using a proxy was rhetorical. You're taking all this too personally. There is anonymity on this forum that makes any personal attack meaningless.
That said, I believe some of your interpretations are incorrect.
Derek1148: Apparently, even after all this time, you still have no understanding in regards to "what makes me tick". "Personal attacks"? I couldn't care less about them. In fact, it would be a big stretch of my imagination to even consider ANYTHING that has transpired on this forum in the 3+ years that I've been here as a "personal attack". You should have been with me in the days when I attended church... Now, THERE were some PERSONAL ATTACKS. This, quite frankly, is child's play...I have a hard time even motivating myself to post here, anymore. No, Derek, my responses are NOT a defense of myself, as you might imagine. Rather, my responses are attempts to help those who are diametrically opposed TO THEMSELVES...whether they realize it or not. Additionally, I've never really been one for "anonymity"...I much prefer to "hide in plain sight". Most people here know my name...where then is the "anonymity"? Like I told you before, my God sees and hears everything that I do. I'm much more concerned about what HE thinks than any of you. Sorry...but that's just the way that it is. As far as my "interpretations" are concerned, feel free to offer a contradictory interpretation at any time. I'm always good for a chat...you should know that by now. Good night.
P.S. Was that elaborate enough for you?
My question about God caring about one using a proxy was rhetorical. You're taking all this too personally. There is anonymity on this forum that makes any personal attack meaningless.
That said, I believe some of your interpretations are incorrect.
Derek1148: Apparently, even after all this time, you still have no understanding in regards to "what makes me tick". "Personal attacks"? I couldn't care less about them. In fact, it would be a big stretch of my imagination to even consider ANYTHING that has transpired on this forum in the 3+ years that I've been here as a "personal attack". You should have been with me in the days when I attended church... Now, THERE were some PERSONAL ATTACKS. This, quite frankly, is child's play...I have a hard time even motivating myself to post here, anymore. No, Derek, my responses are NOT a defense of myself, as you might imagine. Rather, my responses are attempts to help those who are diametrically opposed TO THEMSELVES...whether they realize it or not. Additionally, I've never really been one for "anonymity"...I much prefer to "hide in plain sight". Most people here know my name...where then is the "anonymity"? Like I told you before, my God sees and hears everything that I do. I'm much more concerned about what HE thinks than any of you. Sorry...but that's just the way that it is. As far as my "interpretations" are concerned, feel free to offer a contradictory interpretation at any time. I'm always good for a chat...you should know that by now. Good night.
P.S. Was that elaborate enough for you?
QUOTE (buttershug+)
Yes al of it but so what?
Give me a test to tell if it is the real deal or not.
buttershug: As I've mentioned before, the purpose of "the book of the Lord" is to bring one into direct contact with "the Lord of the book". That, my friend, is the "test".
Give me a test to tell if it is the real deal or not.
buttershug: As I've mentioned before, the purpose of "the book of the Lord" is to bring one into direct contact with "the Lord of the book". That, my friend, is the "test".
QUOTE (buttershug+)
I've also read the Koran. (have you)
No, I have not. I have, however, spoken to many Muslims who have. I've had extremely different responses...
I've had a Muslim break down and cry when I spoke to him about Jesus...
I've had a Muslim charge at me to pummel me...
I've had a Muslim challenge me to a public debate in the street where he could call down curses upon me...
I'll never die of boredom. Bet on it.
No, I have not. I have, however, spoken to many Muslims who have. I've had extremely different responses...
I've had a Muslim break down and cry when I spoke to him about Jesus...
I've had a Muslim charge at me to pummel me...
I've had a Muslim challenge me to a public debate in the street where he could call down curses upon me...
I'll never die of boredom. Bet on it.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
I've only read a little of the Mormon bible.
I've never read any of it, although I have had Mormon's offer it to me(when they weren't busy giving me the finger as I was preaching on the streets). I have noticed, by the way, that all of the hotels that I've been staying in of late now include a "Book of Mormon" in the same drawer with the Bible.
I've never read any of it, although I have had Mormon's offer it to me(when they weren't busy giving me the finger as I was preaching on the streets). I have noticed, by the way, that all of the hotels that I've been staying in of late now include a "Book of Mormon" in the same drawer with the Bible.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
Let me change my question from how is it possible for so many different people to have such different views on the Bible to Why did God use such a weak explanation?
What about people who study the Bible from an age so early they wouldn't know how to be a hypocrite?
First of all, it's NOT a "weak explanation". I've personally met MULTITUDES of people that fit the description of the passage that I cited earlier. Anyhow, I said that was only ONE reason...there are plenty of other reasons, as well. I'm done for the night. Later...
What about people who study the Bible from an age so early they wouldn't know how to be a hypocrite?
First of all, it's NOT a "weak explanation". I've personally met MULTITUDES of people that fit the description of the passage that I cited earlier. Anyhow, I said that was only ONE reason...there are plenty of other reasons, as well. I'm done for the night. Later...
QUOTE (newguy+Dec 12 2008, 03:11 AM)
No, Derek, my responses are NOT a defense of myself, as you might imagine. Rather, my responses are attempts to help those who are diametrically opposed TO THEMSELVES...whether they realize it or not. Additionally, I've never really been one for "anonymity"...I much prefer to "hide in plain sight". Most people here know my name...where then is the "anonymity"?
So you're here to save us heathens. And unless your name is fact newguy, I don't know your name.
So you're here to save us heathens. And unless your name is fact newguy, I don't know your name.
QUOTE (newguy+Dec 12 2008, 03:11 AM)
Like I told you before, my God sees and hears everything that I do.
Does He also: See you when you're sleeping, and know when you're awake?
Does He also: See you when you're sleeping, and know when you're awake?
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
So you're here to save us heathens. And unless your name is fact newguy, I don't know your name.
Derek1148: I cannot "save" anyone, as salvation is of the Lord. Besides that, I really wasn't speaking of salvation when I spoke of those who are diametrically opposed to themselves. No, rather, I was simply referring to the types of individuals who have to use strawmen arguments, quote mine, make baseless/false accusations, etc. in order to convince themselves that they've either said or done something intelligent. As far as my name is concerned, it is Tom...that has been discussed in the past on this forum, as has my profession and my whereabouts. I've got a busy ten days or so ahead of me, so this might be the last time that I post on this thread for a while. Let me go check to see if I've received any "fan mail" elsewhere... Oh, I almost forgot...
Derek1148: I cannot "save" anyone, as salvation is of the Lord. Besides that, I really wasn't speaking of salvation when I spoke of those who are diametrically opposed to themselves. No, rather, I was simply referring to the types of individuals who have to use strawmen arguments, quote mine, make baseless/false accusations, etc. in order to convince themselves that they've either said or done something intelligent. As far as my name is concerned, it is Tom...that has been discussed in the past on this forum, as has my profession and my whereabouts. I've got a busy ten days or so ahead of me, so this might be the last time that I post on this thread for a while. Let me go check to see if I've received any "fan mail" elsewhere... Oh, I almost forgot...
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
Does He also: See you when you're sleeping, and know when you're awake?
Your sarcasm aside, Yes, He does. Out of curiosity, are you as sarcastic in regards to the professed Christianity of your own children(child)? Take care.
Your sarcasm aside, Yes, He does. Out of curiosity, are you as sarcastic in regards to the professed Christianity of your own children(child)? Take care.
QUOTE (newguy+)
Jesus never limited Christianity to the Israelites.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+)
Liar, I just quoted the passage where he does so yesterday. The fact that he later contradicted himself doesn't change this.
BigDumbWeirdo: The "passage" that you "quoted" was in Matthew chapter 10...correct? If you had paid closer attention, then you might have noticed a passage that I cited to Grumpy FROM MATTHEW CHAPTER 8 when he and I were discussing Jesus' interactions with servants. Here it is, again:
"And when Jesus was entered in Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him. The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour."(Matthew 8:5-13)
Here, Jesus contrasted the "great faith" OF A ROMAN CENTURION with the unbelief of Israelites...the so-called "chosen people". He went on to say that MANY Gentiles, those who "shall come from the east and west" will "sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven" or will be saved. At the same time, He also noted that "the children of the kingdom", DISBELIEVING JEWS, "shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth". This, my dear friend, is clearly stated ALL THROUGHOUT THE BIBLE, beginning with the book of Genesis. Just thought that I'd admonish you with THIS FACT one more time before you take your "revelation" to the world.
On another note, I understand that you became a father just the other day. Congratulations. May your son live a long and healthy life upon this earth. Take care.
BigDumbWeirdo: The "passage" that you "quoted" was in Matthew chapter 10...correct? If you had paid closer attention, then you might have noticed a passage that I cited to Grumpy FROM MATTHEW CHAPTER 8 when he and I were discussing Jesus' interactions with servants. Here it is, again:
"And when Jesus was entered in Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him. The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour."(Matthew 8:5-13)
Here, Jesus contrasted the "great faith" OF A ROMAN CENTURION with the unbelief of Israelites...the so-called "chosen people". He went on to say that MANY Gentiles, those who "shall come from the east and west" will "sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven" or will be saved. At the same time, He also noted that "the children of the kingdom", DISBELIEVING JEWS, "shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth". This, my dear friend, is clearly stated ALL THROUGHOUT THE BIBLE, beginning with the book of Genesis. Just thought that I'd admonish you with THIS FACT one more time before you take your "revelation" to the world.
On another note, I understand that you became a father just the other day. Congratulations. May your son live a long and healthy life upon this earth. Take care.
QUOTE (newguy+Dec 11 2008, 08:34 PM)
QUOTE (MaskedMarauder+)
Is that a fairly accurate statement?
MaskedMarauder: Not even close.
So where am I wrong?
MaskedMarauder: Not even close.
So where am I wrong?
QUOTE (buttershug+Dec 12 2008, 03:43 PM)
And how does one know if one is a hypocrite?
And most importantly if one were writing a book to be believed as the Word of God, one would put some along those lines in it. If it were not possible to write a false book with such an explanation it would suffice but you are using circular logic.
In fact I'm sure the Koran has something similar.
Do you really think there are so few who are not hypocrites?
And the part you quoted has an unclear antecedent. It uses "they" in the very fist sentence.
Why limit hypocrisy to religion.....It is a human trait, not a religious one.
Science has also put forwards as truth what was known to be false in it's long history.
Politics (without religious connotations) IS the most hypocritical by far.
Communism.... Lost the plot first time out.
Commercialism got it right....They said they were having you on to begin with..(they just forget to remind you of it regularly)
Racism.....reversed constantly."please acknowledge me as an underprivileged group" SO I CAN BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF YOU WITH IT.
In fact....If you can name it and it has any human connection...I can show you it's hypocrisy.
It's called patch protection.
For the Christians arguing here....No better...Still human...Pharisees dressed up as Lambs. Jesus introduced a methodology of reasoning rather than blind argument.Quoting scriptures is very bad form if it is based in super spiritualism.
He never elaborated enough on most of his statements to cover a subject completely...For Example.
"you must be born again"
This scripture is IMHO the most misrepresented piece of writing in the bible. Jesus asked if the teacher new the meaning . When he did not , he told him to go and learn the meaning.
The next we hear is that everyone is an expert on the subject. Paul was the most vocal writer we have on the subject after Jesus was gone.I have some real dispute with Paul. Some things are clear about humans when we look at the animal closely.
Just like the Tiger, One cannot leave the stripes on the last tree. Paul was a Pharisee. He continued to walk , talk and squawk like a Pharisee. He proposed more new laws than Jesus ever removed. So instead of a great freedom, Paul brought a greater oppression.
Many say the bible is "God Breathed". I happen to agree that it is. But I can say with conviction , that this does not remove the ability of human hypocrisy entering into it's covers. My firm belief from a life of discovery is that NOT preventing Man from expressing his avarice is PRECISELY what the bible is supposed to do.
"God breathed" is a term which appears to mean that GOD approved and edited the bible before it went to print. Unfortunately God seemed to stop doing this conveniently 2000 years ago. Either this or "patch protection" says that the early church decided that it was a complete work because Jesus was due back any minute. Whatever the reason, A human decision was made to lock out God from imparting "biblical" wisdom for the next 2000 years....Doesn't sound like the God of the testament.
I heard, hear God's wisdom imparted constantly in modern day churches. Unfortunately the clamor towards the "miracles " prevents it from being realistic. You can guarantee a collection of sermons which include DEVILS,ANGELS,LAYING OF HANDS,TALKING IN TONGUES....These subjects sell.....So they are not to be left out of a sermon.
But you will find it was Paul, not Jesus who spent time worrying and talking about them.......In fact , because some one else wrote the books, It is hearsay that he spent any time at all on them . Even then , the likelihood that he was misquoted was very high.
In any event, I much prefer to worry about the wisdom that the book has to offer and let the simple minded worry about what is wrong with it . You can't separate religion past from history and so the two are connected....No win to that argument. But you can add the pool of reason and modern knowledge to the wisdom that it does contain and come out a winner....is it God breathed?
Jesus said "you are Gods". If you change the apostrophe, you change the statement.
"you are Gods".............You are deities
"You are God's..............You belong to God
I can show you that the two are the same....But I really hate wasting my time.
Cheers
Iseason
And most importantly if one were writing a book to be believed as the Word of God, one would put some along those lines in it. If it were not possible to write a false book with such an explanation it would suffice but you are using circular logic.
In fact I'm sure the Koran has something similar.
Do you really think there are so few who are not hypocrites?
And the part you quoted has an unclear antecedent. It uses "they" in the very fist sentence.
Why limit hypocrisy to religion.....It is a human trait, not a religious one.
Science has also put forwards as truth what was known to be false in it's long history.
Politics (without religious connotations) IS the most hypocritical by far.
Communism.... Lost the plot first time out.
Commercialism got it right....They said they were having you on to begin with..(they just forget to remind you of it regularly)
Racism.....reversed constantly."please acknowledge me as an underprivileged group" SO I CAN BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF YOU WITH IT.
In fact....If you can name it and it has any human connection...I can show you it's hypocrisy.
It's called patch protection.
For the Christians arguing here....No better...Still human...Pharisees dressed up as Lambs. Jesus introduced a methodology of reasoning rather than blind argument.Quoting scriptures is very bad form if it is based in super spiritualism.
He never elaborated enough on most of his statements to cover a subject completely...For Example.
"you must be born again"
This scripture is IMHO the most misrepresented piece of writing in the bible. Jesus asked if the teacher new the meaning . When he did not , he told him to go and learn the meaning.
The next we hear is that everyone is an expert on the subject. Paul was the most vocal writer we have on the subject after Jesus was gone.I have some real dispute with Paul. Some things are clear about humans when we look at the animal closely.
Just like the Tiger, One cannot leave the stripes on the last tree. Paul was a Pharisee. He continued to walk , talk and squawk like a Pharisee. He proposed more new laws than Jesus ever removed. So instead of a great freedom, Paul brought a greater oppression.
Many say the bible is "God Breathed". I happen to agree that it is. But I can say with conviction , that this does not remove the ability of human hypocrisy entering into it's covers. My firm belief from a life of discovery is that NOT preventing Man from expressing his avarice is PRECISELY what the bible is supposed to do.
"God breathed" is a term which appears to mean that GOD approved and edited the bible before it went to print. Unfortunately God seemed to stop doing this conveniently 2000 years ago. Either this or "patch protection" says that the early church decided that it was a complete work because Jesus was due back any minute. Whatever the reason, A human decision was made to lock out God from imparting "biblical" wisdom for the next 2000 years....Doesn't sound like the God of the testament.
I heard, hear God's wisdom imparted constantly in modern day churches. Unfortunately the clamor towards the "miracles " prevents it from being realistic. You can guarantee a collection of sermons which include DEVILS,ANGELS,LAYING OF HANDS,TALKING IN TONGUES....These subjects sell.....So they are not to be left out of a sermon.
But you will find it was Paul, not Jesus who spent time worrying and talking about them.......In fact , because some one else wrote the books, It is hearsay that he spent any time at all on them . Even then , the likelihood that he was misquoted was very high.
In any event, I much prefer to worry about the wisdom that the book has to offer and let the simple minded worry about what is wrong with it . You can't separate religion past from history and so the two are connected....No win to that argument. But you can add the pool of reason and modern knowledge to the wisdom that it does contain and come out a winner....is it God breathed?
Jesus said "you are Gods". If you change the apostrophe, you change the statement.
"you are Gods".............You are deities
"You are God's..............You belong to God
I can show you that the two are the same....But I really hate wasting my time.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (MaskedMaruader+)
So where am I wrong?