NationStates Jolt Archive

(Adapted from the most recent issue of the New Internationalist)

Exodus 21:7 sanctions selling your daughter into slavery.
Lev 15:19-24 forbids contact with a woman during her period. Erm, how do you know?
Lev 25:44 allows possession of slaves providing they come from neighbouring countries.
Exodus 35:2 orders the death of anyone who works on the Sabbath
Lev 11:10 forbids eating shellfish.
Lev 21:20 maintains that no-one lame, crippled, visually defective or basically anyone not in perfect shape should not be allowed near an altar.
Lev 19:27 says that any males having their hair cut around the temples should be killed.
Lev 11:6-8 says touching a dead pig's skin makes you unclean. How do you play football?
Lev 19:19 - you can't plant different crops in the same field.
Lev 24:10-16 - people who curse and blaspheme should be stoned.
Lev 20:14 - people who sleep with their in-laws should be killed.
Plus commands of male prisoners of war to be killed, non-virgin prisoners of war to be killed, virgin women taken in war are allowed to be forced into marriage, and if a woman doesn't scream loud enough while being raped, she should be stoned to death. Yet people still use the Bible to condemn homosexuality (Lev 18:22, for one reference). Isn't it time some of this outdated, chauvinistic, racist, ludicrous and generally barbaric dogma was dropped?!

To hijack:

I was watching a VH1 documentary on M.C. Hammer or something like that and the narrator said, "That's when his world, literally, came crashing down upon him." And I thought, "Man. I hate that."

Last year I had a writing text book that said writing has to actually affect people's emotions through the senses and the only way to do that is by going "literally, straight to the limbic system." It's a book about writing. Don't you think somebody should've mentioned how a literal movement to the limbic system would hurt most readers on some level that writers are supposed to avoid.

/pencil to the brain

Yeah, I hate the overuse of the word "literal". Especially with sports commentators:
"Look at him go! He's literally on fire!"

But to regain control...

Isn't it time some of this outdated, chauvinistic, racist, ludicrous and generally barbaric dogma was dropped?!

Most of the practices and sacrifices explained in the Old Testement were stopped by Jesus. They were no longer needed and no longer should be followed.

Most of the practices and sacrifices explained in the Old Testement were stopped by Jesus. They were no longer needed and no longer should be followed.
Jesus Christ came to earth to give us a new covenant with God, his Father. And yes, many of the practices prescribed in the Old Testament were made unnecessary through God's new Covenant, sealed with Jesus' blood on the Cross.

However, you (and I don't necessarily mean The Trilateral, I mean anyone who wants to use Bible verses in this discussion,) need to read the entire New Testament. The Apostle Paul, writing under the influence of God through the Holy Spirit, routinely condemns, not just homosexuality, but many other forms of what God describes as "sexual immorality."

So, while many of the practices prescribed in Leviticus and Exodus are not necessary (and remember, by the time Jesus came to earth, the Law of Moses had grown from 10 simple commandments to well over 600, but most were laws coming from men, instead of coming from God,) the New Covenant, as signed by Jesus on the cross of Calvary, does continue to prohibit homosexuality, among other practices.

Spend some time reading the Bible (http://www.biblegateway.com) (both Old and New Testaments.) Your life is likely to undergo a radical change.

Yes, Paul does condemn homosexuality in his letter to the Corinthians...I think...but I don't think Jesus preached himself against homosexuality. I do tend to like some of Jesus' preachings, but I don't like God in the Old Testament at all. Selfish, schizophrenic, mad, sadistic, greedy, violent, racist, sexist, unjust. So thanks for the other, but I'm not suddenly going to become a born-again Christian.

Random trivia: Did you know that Jesus never claimed to be the son of God, and that idea was only formalised in the 4th century?

My question is (especially to those Christian fanatics who bash the Qu'ran), if the Bible is the word of God, do you believe in the examples I have given?

Yes, Paul does condemn homosexuality in his letter to the Corinthians...I think...but I don't think Jesus preached himself against homosexuality.
You must have not read the Bible, because in practically every letter from Paul, he condemns homosexuality and other forms of "sexual immorality." What your reply also tells me is that you're using verses provided to you by someone else (maybe a homosexual lobby,) in order to bash (not "bask") Christians. That's ok, though.


Random trivia: Did you know that Jesus never claimed to be the son of God, and that idea was only formalised in the 4th century?
I insist, you must have missed all the times Jesus says He is the Son of God, throughout the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.) Therefore, it probably isn't very smart of you to issue such "trivia."


My question is (especially to those Christian fanatics who bask the Qu'ran), if the Bible is the word of God, do you believe in the examples I have given? The trouble with your examples is that you're using Old Testament references only, and I won't rehash my point about those laws being rescinded with Jesus's death on the Cross.

I insist, you must have missed all the times Jesus says He is the Son of God, throughout the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.) Therefore, it probably isn't very smart of you to issue such "trivia."

Doesn't he say hew is the Son of Man?

Doesn't he say hew is the Son of Man?
He talks (repeatedly,) about his Father in Heaven. 'Nuff said.

I think the actual problem is that we're using references from the testaments at all. I don't understand how Paul's letters are the standard for an objective moral framework to the Universe any more than Dear Abbey letters would be.

But that's just me.

He talks (repeatedly,) about his Father in Heaven. 'Nuff said.
He also said, Call no man father but God (Matt 23;9).

Still the fact remains that he never refered to himself as the Son of God, as far as I remember. Provide a verse if you want, I have my bible here next to me ;)

I think the actual problem is that we're using references from the testaments at all. I don't understand how Paul's letters are the standard for an objective moral framework to the Universe any more than Dear Abbey letters would be.

But that's just me.
I'll refer you to this.

Apostle Paul, writing under the influence of God through the Holy Spirit.

I think the actual problem is that we're using references from the testaments at all. I don't understand how Paul's letters are the standard for an objective moral framework to the Universe any more than Dear Abbey letters would be.

But that's just me.
Gee, let's see...the Bible is (according to Christian beliefs,) the Word of God as revealed to man. That includes the parts that are narratives.

So, (follow me here,) if you accept the premise that the letters in the New Testament are God's word, as expressed through the human writers (Paul, Peter, John, James, Jude,) then doesn't it follow that they express God's desire for our moral behavior?

And no, that's not just me.

He also said, Call no man father but God (Matt 23;9).

Still the fact remains that he never refered to himself as the Son of God, as far as I remember. Provide a verse if you want, I have my bible here next to me ;)
Whenever Jesus refers to Himself in the third person, he mentions the Son of Man (for example, Matthew 26:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=matthew+26%3A2&version=NIV).)

Now, go in the same chapter, to verse 29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=matthew+26%3A29&version=NIV), and while, granted, He doesn't expressly say "I'm the Son of God," He does mention His "Father's kingdom." Now, if that doesn't mean He is saying He is the Son of God, I don't know what it means, then.

So, (follow me here,) if you accept the premise that the letters in the New Testament are God's word, as expressed through the human writers (Paul, Peter, John, James, Jude,) then doesn't it follow that they express God's desire for our moral behavior?


Well, "Gee," that addressed the issue. If I accept that the letters in the New Testament are God's word because the New Testament says it is, then that would follow. But believing any part of the New Testament because the New Testament says to believe it seems like a bit of a leap. It's ludicrous that we have to take any such self-proclaimed text into account when deciding what the government should stop people from doing.

Well, "Gee," that addressed the issue. If I accept that the letters in the New Testament are God's word because the New Testament says it is, then that would follow. But believing any part of the New Testament because the New Testament says to believe it seems like a bit of a leap. It's ludicrous that we have to take any such self-proclaimed text into account when deciding what the government should stop people from doing.
Then I can't help you. If you can't or won't accept that the Bible (all of it) is the Word of God, we're not going anywhere with this debate. It doesn't make your argument any more or less compelling, but we're debating apples and oranges if you come from that perspective.

(Adapted from the most recent issue of the New Internationalist)

Exodus 21:7 sanctions selling your daughter into slavery.
Lev 15:19-24 forbids contact with a woman during her period. Erm, how do you know?
Lev 25:44 allows possession of slaves providing they come from neighbouring countries.
Exodus 35:2 orders the death of anyone who works on the Sabbath
Lev 11:10 forbids eating shellfish.
Lev 21:20 maintains that no-one lame, crippled, visually defective or basically anyone not in perfect shape should not be allowed near an altar.
Lev 19:27 says that any males having their hair cut around the temples should be killed.
Lev 11:6-8 says touching a dead pig's skin makes you unclean. How do you play football?
Lev 19:19 - you can't plant different crops in the same field.
Lev 24:10-16 - people who curse and blaspheme should be stoned.
Lev 20:14 - people who sleep with their in-laws should be killed.
Plus commands of male prisoners of war to be killed, non-virgin prisoners of war to be killed, virgin women taken in war are allowed to be forced into marriage, and if a woman doesn't scream loud enough while being raped, she should be stoned to death. Yet people still use the Bible to condemn homosexuality (Lev 18:22, for one reference). Isn't it time some of this outdated, chauvinistic, racist, ludicrous and generally barbaric dogma was dropped?!

It was. (I'm sure someone has already said this but I'm going to anyway). There's a verse in Romans that says Jesus came to fulfill the law, so that it is no longer necessary.

Whenever Jesus refers to Himself in the third person, he mentions the Son of Man (for example, Matthew 26:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=matthew+26%3A2&version=NIV).)

Now, go in the same chapter, to verse 29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=matthew+26%3A29&version=NIV), and while, granted, He doesn't expressly say "I'm the Son of God," He does mention His "Father's kingdom." Now, if that doesn't mean He is saying He is the Son of God, I don't know what it means, then.
As I said before, Jesus said "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven" (Matt 23;9), so saying that he refers to his Father's kingdom does not mean that he is saying he is the Son of God. All it means is that he is refering to his Father's Kingdom, your Father's Kingdom, my Father's Kingdom (I'm sure you get the point).

Yes, Paul does condemn homosexuality in his letter to the Corinthians...I think...but I don't think Jesus preached himself against homosexuality. I do tend to like some of Jesus' preachings, but I don't like God in the Old Testament at all. Selfish, schizophrenic, mad, sadistic, greedy, violent, racist, sexist, unjust. So thanks for the other, but I'm not suddenly going to become a born-again Christian.

But it's the same God. There's always been a plan, a covenent, extending back to God's promise in the Garden of Eden to send a savior. Establishing a chosen people and divine rules to govern them was an integral part of the plan to redeem humanity. Note that some of the rules given to Israel are universally true, while some were purely specific to the time and culture. Deciding which are which is sometimes a tough job, but we give it our best shot, letting scripture interpret itself.

Random trivia: Did you know that Jesus never claimed to be the son of God, and that idea was only formalised in the 4th century?

I didn't know that. I guess I was sort of confused by:

John 14:6 "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me.'"

John 18:37 "'You are a king, then!' said Pilate. Jesus answered, 'You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.'"

Matthew 16:15-17 "'But what about you?' Jesus asked. 'Who do you say I am?' Simon Peter answered, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Jesus replied, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.'"

There's more. A lot more, but I don't have time to list them. Perhaps you're referring to the process of cannonization. That's a discussion I'm personally tired of, going back to arguments with my friends over Dan Brown and the like. I prefer St. Paul and St. Peter to Dan Brown, but there's no accounting for taste.

Denying the deity of Christ is to deny the power of his sacrifice, to deny redemption and salvation.

My question is (especially to those Christian fanatics who bask the Qu'ran), if the Bible is the word of God, do you believe in the examples I have given?

Does bask=bash? Back, maybe? I don't know a lot about the Qu'ran, but the fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity is, of course, Christ. Islam LITERALLY means submission before god, and therefore is in many ways parallel to the Old Testament: both stress Law. The message of Christ and the gospel is different in that it stresses being saved not by legalistic adherence to Law, but by faith in Christ. Just having a law with no gospel only gives us half a picture.

So now I believe you're asking me what I think of the law now. As I've explained before, the examples you showed before were meant purely as legal laws for the nation of Israel. As another poster pointed out, those laws don't apply to us now. St. Paul wrote: "Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts." (1 Corinthians 7:18-19). Circumcision was a Jewish ceremonial custom, just like those other examples you showed were.

As for how we should deal with the rest of the law which is not customs but universal, Paul wrote a great deal about that in Romans 7:7-13, one of my favorite chapters.

"What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful."

Does that answer your question?

Moreover, I had a question for you if you don't mind. In your post, you said "I do tend to like some of Jesus' preachings." How is he any different from a prophet or great man, in your opinion? What about his greatest preaching: the salvation of mankind? What's the point of the crucifixion if he is NOT the Son of God?

I never understood how the Bible was supposed to be believed just because it said it was the word of God. That assumes you already believe it. I'm not bashing Christianity, but I never understood why that was used as an argument that the Bible is true.

Then I can't help you. If you can't or won't accept that the Bible (all of it) is the Word of God, we're not going anywhere with this debate. It doesn't make your argument any more or less compelling, but we're debating apples and oranges if you come from that perspective.

What I'm asking is this: "Why should we consider the Bible when instrumenting policy?" So answers could be things like, "Because it also gives the reasoning for God's laws." or "There are lots of people who think the Bible is important." And I don't know why there's such a reluctance to go down that path.

For a government to be legitimate, I think that the majority of citizens need to recognize it as legitimate. So, knowing that not everybody believes the Bible is the final word on objective morality, shouldn't people have some argument for why it should be used to govern?

note: I can't distinguish what parts of this thread are apples and what parts are oranges. I think the term "comparing apples and oranges" is usually reserved to when people are trying to compare things that have vast disparity between them. This is more like, "two ships passing in the night."

Mention: The entire second letter to the Corinthians (Corinthians II) is about shedding the Old Testament's laws because Jesus' sacrifice cleansed us of our sins against God that the repentance-issues of the OT were for.

Also:

"John 14:6 "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me.'" "

This is not saying he is the soul Son of God. This is saying that he is more enlightened than those around him and, like any prophet, knows the Way of God to bring you to see him. It is not to be taken literally, it's a metaphor.



"John 18:37 "'You are a king, then!' said Pilate. Jesus answered, 'You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.'" "

He, again, is not saying he is the Son of God. He is saying that he was born, like any prophet of any God has said, to show people the Way, he is a King in the respect that he knows the Truth of God, and will lead, much likea King, towards salvation.



"Matthew 16:15-17 "'But what about you?' Jesus asked. 'Who do you say I am?' Simon Peter answered, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Jesus replied, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.'"" "

Jesus himself is not saying he is the Son of the living God, Simon Peter is. Jesus did not deny it, but he also did not say it was true. He said only that Simon was told that by God.

Jesus fancied himself a Prophet, not the Son of God. That came later, and through interpretation, which seems like incorrect interpretation, if you ask me, but whatever.

Me.

To put it another way:

Keep trying. ;) I can do this all day.

No Prophet of any sort ever spoke clearly, Jesus is the most prime example of that. Look at the stories he told, his Parables are whimsical word dances around some very simple concepts. He may not be saying a whole lot, but he says it in a way that would confuse the people of the time, since most were poor and uneducated then, and it seems like he is speaking directly from the Mouth of God.

There are more reasons than just to relate something in a way people will understand that Philosophers tend to beat around the bush.

Jesus was a philosopher, of sorts.

Me.

(Adapted from the most recent issue of the New Internationalist)

Exodus 21:7 sanctions selling your daughter into slavery.
First off, slavery back then wasn't all that bad. And it doesn't sanction it, it says if it happens, not that it should happen.

Lev 15:19-24 forbids contact with a woman during her period. Erm, how do you know?
Ok, I'm not going to lecture you on the female anatomy. Just, duh, dude, duh.
And is there any particular reason why you'd want to be with her at that particular time? Is there any reason why you can't wait a week?

Lev 25:44 allows possession of slaves providing they come from neighbouring countries.
Read the passage above that, all about how you should treat your slaves like servants.
Also, it's not saying that anyone can have a slave if it's someone else, it's saying that the Israelites specifically cannot enslave other Israelites. Stop cherrypicking unless you're actually going to read what's around it. Come to think of it, have you read these at all?

Exodus 35:2 orders the death of anyone who works on the Sabbath
You're complaining that you get a day off?
The sabbath is the day when you're supposed to take rest, and praise God. If you work, you are 1) disobeying what God said, for whatever reason he said it, and 2) you're not focusing on what you're supposed to be focusing on, which is God.
I would also like to point out that God has the right to kill anyone he wants to. We were created by him, and despite how good we might think we are, we've all done something wrong at some point, and obviously God forgives you. Rather, he offers you the chance to be forgiven.

Lev 11:10 forbids eating shellfish.
Like the pig thing, these are things that God says are unclean. Why, I don't know, but he does. And it's not like he commands death, he just says you're unclean for a bit, which means you can't enter a temple. Apparently, God doesn't like shellfish, and doesn't want it near him. Again, I remind you, it is his temple, and his world.

Lev 21:20 maintains that no-one lame, crippled, visually defective or basically anyone not in perfect shape should not be allowed near an altar.
God is the physical embodiment of perfection, among other things. For any imperfect person (including those without birth defects) to be near where God resides would have killed them back then. In fact, it did kill a few priests who ventured into the Holy of Holies, and they spent months cleansing themselves.

Lev 19:27 says that any males having their hair cut around the temples should be killed.
Killed? Doesn't say that. It just says, "Don't do it" but not that you'll be killed.

Lev 11:6-8 says touching a dead pig's skin makes you unclean. How do you play football? See the shellfish thing.

Lev 19:19 - you can't plant different crops in the same field.
I'm not a farmer, but I think that it's easier on the soil, if not more organized. You have to realize that they didn't plant things in nice rows, they just tossed seed and hoped it grew. If you only plant one thing, it's easier to harvest and it's probably more likely to grow.

Lev 24:10-16 - people who curse and blaspheme should be stoned.
That's only cursing and blaspeming the name of God. Don't you get pissed when people curse you? In some cultures, it's a serious offense to curse someone's family name.
That, and it's ungrateful. God rescued their asses how many times?

Lev 20:14 - people who sleep with their in-laws should be killed.
That's all about no-incest. Tell me, do you want to marry your sister, or your mother-in-law?

Plus commands of male prisoners of war to be killed, non-virgin prisoners of war to be killed, virgin women taken in war are allowed to be forced into marriage, and if a woman doesn't scream loud enough while being raped, she should be stoned to death. Yet people still use the Bible to condemn homosexuality (Lev 18:22, for one reference). Isn't it time some of this outdated, chauvinistic, racist, ludicrous and generally barbaric dogma was dropped?!
Where're the verses for all that?

Blah. I missed this line.

"Denying the deity of Christ is to deny the power of his sacrifice, to deny redemption and salvation."

I may be an atheist, but I think this sentance is a load of crap.

Denying the deity of Jesus does not deny any sort of sacrifice he made. Nor does it deny redemption and salvation.

Even if he WAS just a man, he knowingly sacrificed his life for the good of everyone. God is supposedly all things, so he has to be love and compassion along with everything else. Such a selfless sacrifice would not go unnoticed. You would suspect it WOULD wash the original sin of man from existance, because one man took upon him the burden of all knowingly and purposefully, with the intention of giving himself up to God.

I would think that should count for something.

Me.

"Like the pig thing, these are things that God says are unclean. Why, I don't know, but he does. And it's not like he commands death, he just says you're unclean for a bit, which means you can't enter a temple. Apparently, God doesn't like shellfish, and doesn't want it near him. Again, I remind you, it is his temple, and his world."

Uhm. Actually, the reason that pigs, shellfish, and so on were "unclean" are due to disease. The various things, such as no meat on fridays, piggies=bad, and shellfish=bad were put in there for health reasons.

Pigs and shellfish were not something that could be easily prepared at that time, and various diseases would run rampant from eating them.

No meat on fridays was put in to push more people to eat fish and grain after a population explosion.

Me.

So, while many of the practices prescribed in Leviticus and Exodus are not necessary (and remember, by the time Jesus came to earth, the Law of Moses had grown from 10 simple commandments to well over 600, but most were laws coming from men, instead of coming from God,) the New Covenant, as signed by Jesus on the cross of Calvary, does continue to prohibit homosexuality, among other practices.

um, no. technically speaking, if you believe that moses wrote any of them down, you're supposed to believe that moses wrote all of them down. they are all in 'his' writings.

i've never understood how anybody could believe in the God of the Bible. if God EVER supported slavery, rape, murder, and all these other attrocities, then doesn't that make him an evil and unworthy diety, one who we should fight rather than worship? to say that it's all cool because Jesus took back those nasty things is crap, because Jesus IS God according to the New Testament and the concept of the Trinity. that would mean that God changed his mind, and why would He ever need to do that? why would He change his rules, or decide to hold humans to different standards all of a sudden, if He is always right and morality is objective?

and if one claims that those horrible things in the Old Testament need to be kept in perspective in terms of the culture they were written in, then what the hell does that mean? that we are supposed to realize the writers of the Bible LIED about God's word? that they wrote it according to their biases and not according to the actual will of God? then why follow the Bible? and if they actually were accurately reporting God's will then we are back where we started; why would we ever want to worship or respect a diety who EVER supported such barbarism?

Uhm. Actually, the reason that pigs, shellfish, and so on were "unclean" are due to disease. The various things, such as no meat on fridays, piggies=bad, and shellfish=bad were put in there for health reasons.

Pigs and shellfish were not something that could be easily prepared at that time, and various diseases would run rampant from eating them.

you know, i hear this alot, but i've seen no reason to believe it. its not like all the other cultures that did eat pigs and shellfish all were so weakened by disease that they were unable to have huge and powerful civilizations that repeatedly attacked and defeated the puny little city-states of israel.

Blah. I missed this line.

"Denying the deity of Christ is to deny the power of his sacrifice, to deny redemption and salvation."

I may be an atheist, but I think this sentance is a load of crap.

Denying the deity of Jesus does not deny any sort of sacrifice he made. Nor does it deny redemption and salvation.

Even if he WAS just a man, he knowingly sacrificed his life for the good of everyone. God is supposedly all things, so he has to be love and compassion along with everything else. Such a selfless sacrifice would not go unnoticed. You would suspect it WOULD wash the original sin of man from existance, because one man took upon him the burden of all knowingly and purposefully, with the intention of giving himself up to God.

I would think that should count for something.

Me.

Like it or not, Jesus did die for you. Denying it means you make his sacrifice in vain. It's like signing a surrender to Hitler at the WWII memorial.

And yes, it did wash away the original sin of Adam and Eve, but, it can't stop people from sinning. Fortunately for us, his sacrifice goes for sin that hasn't happened yet as well as sin that's done.

"Like the pig thing, these are things that God says are unclean. Why, I don't know, but he does. And it's not like he commands death, he just says you're unclean for a bit, which means you can't enter a temple. Apparently, God doesn't like shellfish, and doesn't want it near him. Again, I remind you, it is his temple, and his world."

Uhm. Actually, the reason that pigs, shellfish, and so on were "unclean" are due to disease. The various things, such as no meat on fridays, piggies=bad, and shellfish=bad were put in there for health reasons.

Pigs and shellfish were not something that could be easily prepared at that time, and various diseases would run rampant from eating them.

No meat on fridays was put in to push more people to eat fish and grain after a population explosion.

Me.

That too...

"you know, i hear this alot, but i've seen no reason to believe it. its not like all the other cultures that did eat pigs and shellfish all were so weakened by disease that they were unable to have huge and powerful civilizations that repeatedly attacked and defeated the puny little city-states of israel."

Other nations had different methods of preparation, concepts like Salt, things like that, more so than the Jews.

Pork, at the time, was notorious, no matter the nation, for causing salmonella, botulism, and other very happy stomach problems. That doesn't necessarily mean the diseases are FATAL, but why eat something at all that will make you sick at all?

Shellfish - Red tide. Need I say more?


"Like it or not, Jesus did die for you. Denying it means you make his sacrifice in vain. It's like signing a surrender to Hitler at the WWII memorial."

Jesus didn't die for me, I'm not a Christian, I'm an atheist. But regardless of that, how does denying him being God on earth deny that he died for you? He could be a mortal man, and he still willing sacrificed his life for all those who came after him in an attempt to wash away the origional sin. That is, like, the whole point I was making in the part you quoted there.

Me.

Exodus 21:7 sanctions selling your daughter into slavery.
Lev 15:19-24 forbids contact with a woman during her period. Erm, how do you know?

Lev 20:14 - people who sleep with their in-laws should be killed.
Plus commands of male prisoners of war to be killed,


All interesting, especially that last one. The reason I say that is because Onan was ordered by God to sleep with his sister-in-law when his brother died, and when he decided to do a little belly-painting instead of come inside her, God struck him dead. Sounds like conflicting dogma in different parts of the book.

As for the first one, that's the traditional purpose of marriage, even if people believe differently now, and the second...well, I suppose you'd have to find out the hard way or get her agreement to tell you. Chances are that she'd be the one punished, not you.

Some gnarly stuff in the bible. Check out the story of Lot, and really examine what they're saying a righteous man is like.

As I said before, Jesus said "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven" (Matt 23;9), so saying that he refers to his Father's kingdom does not mean that he is saying he is the Son of God. All it means is that he is refering to his Father's Kingdom, your Father's Kingdom, my Father's Kingdom (I'm sure you get the point).

There's a separate word there in the original text for the different fathers, I believe.
One word meaning paternal father, the other being more of the protective, loving, basically Godly father.

I'm an athiest and I probable got this wrong but if Jesus said that everybodys father was god then wouldn't that mean that we were all Gods children.

That was Jesus' entire point, CE. Everything he said throughout his entire adult life, that was his point.

Me.

Blah. I missed this line.

"Denying the deity of Christ is to deny the power of his sacrifice, to deny redemption and salvation."

I may be an atheist, but I think this sentance is a load of crap.

Denying the deity of Jesus does not deny any sort of sacrifice he made. Nor does it deny redemption and salvation.

Even if he WAS just a man, he knowingly sacrificed his life for the good of everyone. God is supposedly all things, so he has to be love and compassion along with everything else. Such a selfless sacrifice would not go unnoticed. You would suspect it WOULD wash the original sin of man from existance, because one man took upon him the burden of all knowingly and purposefully, with the intention of giving himself up to God.

I would think that should count for something.

Me.

But the idea that Jesus was not the Son of God means that he was merely a man, if an exceptional one at that, correct? I am also human, as are you. Can I accomplish what He did? Can you?

Paul again doesn't think so. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no one can boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9). I don't think I can do it myself since I am human. Do you?

There's a separate word there in the original text for the different fathers, I believe.
One word meaning paternal father, the other being more of the protective, loving, basically Godly father.
CAre to provide the original Greek (or whatever) versions of it?

Amazing that Christian will split hairs over translations like this, but over look the one regarding 'virgin.'

"you know, i hear this alot, but i've seen no reason to believe it. its not like all the other cultures that did eat pigs and shellfish all were so weakened by disease that they were unable to have huge and powerful civilizations that repeatedly attacked and defeated the puny little city-states of israel."

Other nations had different methods of preparation, concepts like Salt, things like that, more so than the Jews.

Pork, at the time, was notorious, no matter the nation, for causing salmonella, botulism, and other very happy stomach problems. That doesn't necessarily mean the diseases are FATAL, but why eat something at all that will make you sick at all?

Shellfish - Red tide. Need I say more?


"Like it or not, Jesus did die for you. Denying it means you make his sacrifice in vain. It's like signing a surrender to Hitler at the WWII memorial."

Jesus didn't die for me, I'm not a Christian, I'm an atheist. But regardless of that, how does denying him being God on earth deny that he died for you? He could be a mortal man, and he still willing sacrificed his life for all those who came after him in an attempt to wash away the origional sin. That is, like, the whole point I was making in the part you quoted there.

Me.

And the point I'm trying to make is that he did die for you, whether you accept it or not. Jesus didn't just die for the people who loved him, he died for the people He loved, which would be everyone.
Also, denying his being the Son of God means that he was insane, because he said he was the son of God. So you either have say he was Satan, God, or a lunatic.

Also, what Davistania said.

"But the idea that Jesus was not the Son of God means that he was merely a man, if an exceptional one at that, correct? I am also human, as are you. Can I accomplish what He did? Can you?

Paul again doesn't think so. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no one can boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9). I don't think I can do it myself since I am human. Do you?"

Personally? Hell no. I am nowhere near as selfless and loving as he was. Are you? Not knowing you, I can't say, though I would say I would doubt it.

Jesus, imho, was merely a man. A very exceptional man, but a man nonetheless. He had all the same faults as every other man, it is heavily rumored during much research that he took a wife, and, though controversial, it is very widely believed that, at the very least, he took a lover (Mary Magdalin (sp) ). He had all the same urges, wants, and needs of any human being, but, for the most part, he cast them all aside for all the other people in the world around him.

Do I believe I could do it? No. Is it because I'm human? No, it's because I am not now, nor will I likely ever be, as selfless or full of love for all things around me as he was. I may have the willpower to fight the normal urges a human has, but I choose to not use it often, he chose the opposite.

Do I think that someone else could accomplish it? Yeah, I do. Do I think they would? No, not at all.

But there is a difference between not being able to do something and not doing it.

Me.

Then again, I assume that in order to accomplish what Jesus did, God would probably have to chat with you now and again, too. ;)

Y'know, kinda say "Now, you should do this. And then this, all in my Name. Do enjoy".

;)

Me.

CAre to provide the original Greek (or whatever) versions of it?

Amazing that Christian will split hairs over translations like this, but over look the one regarding 'virgin.'

I can't, but I believe Aiera could. Mind you, he doesn't do NS much anymore, so I'd have to ask him next time he's online.

Also, it might take a bit to find it.


Which translation reguarding "virgin" would that be?

Mind you, even English has different definitions, ie: a virgin drink v. someone who hasn't had sex yet.

"But the idea that Jesus was not the Son of God means that he was merely a man, if an exceptional one at that, correct? I am also human, as are you. Can I accomplish what He did? Can you?

Paul again doesn't think so. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no one can boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9). I don't think I can do it myself since I am human. Do you?"

Personally? Hell no. I am nowhere near as selfless and loving as he was. Are you? Not knowing you, I can't say, though I would say I would doubt it.

Jesus, imho, was merely a man. A very exceptional man, but a man nonetheless. He had all the same faults as every other man, it is heavily rumored during much research that he took a wife, and, though controversial, it is very widely believed that, at the very least, he took a lover (Mary Magdalin (sp) ). He had all the same urges, wants, and needs of any human being, but, for the most part, he cast them all aside for all the other people in the world around him.

Do I believe I could do it? No. Is it because I'm human? No, it's because I am not now, nor will I likely ever be, as selfless or full of love for all things around me as he was. I may have the willpower to fight the normal urges a human has, but I choose to not use it often, he chose the opposite.

Do I think that someone else could accomplish it? Yeah, I do. Do I think they would? No, not at all.

But there is a difference between not being able to do something and not doing it.

Me.

See, that's where Him being God's son is important...Yes, he did have the same urges and temptations, but he didn't yeild to them. As in, he didn't sin, which is why his sacrifice meant something.
Killing a diseased, crippled, worthless lamb wouldn't be much of a sacrifice, would it? Jesus was the perfect "lamb."

"And the point I'm trying to make is that he did die for you, whether you accept it or not. Jesus didn't just die for the people who loved him, he died for the people He loved, which would be everyone."

Point. :)


"Also, denying his being the Son of God means that he was insane, because he said he was the son of God. So you either have say he was Satan, God, or a lunatic."

I disagree. (Circle gets the square!)

He said we're all God's children, which would make him one of God's Sons, wouldn't it? Also, I still haven't seen anyone show where he specifically said "I am The Only Son of God". I have seen people show metaphors he used to say other things that could be INTERPRETED to say that, but a failure of interpreting what someone says does not mean that they said something they didn't.

I see no reason to say he was insane just because I say that he isn't the physical embodiment of God on Earth, i.e. "The Son of God", vs. A Son of God.

Me.

First off, slavery back then wasn't all that bad. And it doesn't sanction it, it says if it happens, not that it should happen.


first off, daaaamn. you just jump straight on to justifying frelling slavery. doesn't that strike you as, i don't know...horribly wrong? anyway, god says

44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
god could have said "hey guys - slavery is bad, mmmkay?" but he didn't. he straight out says you can have slaves, as long as they aren't your own people. and not only that, but they are slaves for life and you can will them to your children.

Ok, I'm not going to lecture you on the female anatomy. Just, duh, dude, duh.
And is there any particular reason why you'd want to be with her at that particular time? Is there any reason why you can't wait a week?

it isn't even about sex. if you touch a chair she has used you become unclean. you really should read the passages in question.

I'm not a farmer, but I think that it's easier on the soil, if not more organized. You have to realize that they didn't plant things in nice rows, they just tossed seed and hoped it grew. If you only plant one thing, it's easier to harvest and it's probably more likely to grow.

and that's just factually wrong on all counts.

"See, that's where Him being God's son is important...Yes, he did have the same urges and temptations, but he didn't yeild to them. As in, he didn't sin, which is why his sacrifice meant something.
Killing a diseased, crippled, worthless lamb wouldn't be much of a sacrifice, would it? Jesus was the perfect "lamb.""

Well, barring his plausible relationship with Mary, he didn't, but taking a wife isn't a sin. So.. Hair-splitting, it is.

And yeah, he didn't yeild to them. He doesn't need to be God's only Son in order to not yeild to temptation to accomplish the goals he set for himself, or were set for him by God.

See, one thing to bear in mind: If he was God's only Son, and thusly the embodiment of God on Earth (i.e. The Trinity), he would have no Free Will. God would just do what he wanted done. The thing that made him TRULY exceptional was that he accomplished all the things he did WHILE having Free Will.

Only humans, your average every day man, woman, and child, have Free Will.

Me.

"Also, denying his being the Son of God means that he was insane, because he said he was the son of God. So you either have say he was Satan, God, or a lunatic."

I disagree. (Circle gets the square!)

He said we're all God's children, which would make him one of God's Sons, wouldn't it? Also, I still haven't seen anyone show where he specifically said "I am The Only Son of God". I have seen people show metaphors he used to say other things that could be INTERPRETED to say that, but a failure of interpreting what someone says does not mean that they said something they didn't.

I see no reason to say he was insane just because I say that he isn't the physical embodiment of God on Earth, i.e. "The Son of God", vs. A Son of God.

Me.
See, that would be where the different words for "father" would be.
We have the same thing in english.

A kid gets adopted, who's his father? You have the adopted father, and the blood-father.

We are all the sons of God in that we are adopted by him. Jesus is (and claimed to be) the blood-son of God.

"We are all the sons of God in that we are adopted by him. Jesus is (and claimed to be) the blood-son of God."

And here I thought the whole idea of us being the children of God was because he CREATED us.

Go fig.

Me.

"See, that's where Him being God's son is important...Yes, he did have the same urges and temptations, but he didn't yeild to them. As in, he didn't sin, which is why his sacrifice meant something.
Killing a diseased, crippled, worthless lamb wouldn't be much of a sacrifice, would it? Jesus was the perfect "lamb.""

Well, barring his plausible relationship with Mary, he didn't, but taking a wife isn't a sin. So.. Hair-splitting, it is.

And yeah, he didn't yeild to them. He doesn't need to be God's only Son in order to not yeild to temptation to accomplish the goals he set for himself, or were set for him by God.

See, one thing to bear in mind: If he was God's only Son, and thusly the embodiment of God on Earth (i.e. The Trinity), he would have no Free Will. God would just do what he wanted done. The thing that made him TRULY exceptional was that he accomplished all the things he did WHILE having Free Will.

Only humans, your average every day man, woman, and child, have Free Will.

Me.

you're misinterpreting the Tinity. They aren't three puppets of some guy called God, they are three separate, distinct, yet connected parts of one person.
A really really good example of this would be in Orson Scott Card's "Xenocide" and/or "Children of the Mind," I forget which. Ender basically creates two beings (representations of his brother and sister, not gonna go into that). They are separate from him, and he doesn't consciously control their actions. They act indepently from Ender. But, his inner self, his "auia" (sp) they call it (i think), basically his soul is within all three bodies.
Jesus did have free will. You recall his prayer in the garden, in which he asked again and again that he wouldn't have to die, but said "Not my will, but yours be done." It means he has free will, but he did want God wanted because he knew it was the right thing to do.

"We are all the sons of God in that we are adopted by him. Jesus is (and claimed to be) the blood-son of God."

And here I thought the whole idea of us being the children of God was because he CREATED us.

Go fig.

Me.

That too. It is very complicated, yes? But when you boil it all down, that's what Jesus was refering to.

Also, while we were made by God, we are not of God...We are not God's offspring, we are creations of his.
You could think of it as me genetically altering your child. Not my kid, but I "made" him (not really, but you get what I mean).
So, it'd be my creation, but your child.

"you're misinterpreting the Tinity. They aren't three puppets of some guy called God, they are three separate, distinct, yet connected parts of one person."

No. See, the Trinity is all one person. God is God, the Son, AND the Holy Spirit. The fact that they are three connected parts of one whole makes the concept of JEsus' Free Will to be inherently false.


"A really really good example of this would be in Orson Scott Card's "Xenocide" and/or "Children of the Mind," I forget which. Ender basically creates two beings (representations of his brother and sister, not gonna go into that). They are separate from him, and he doesn't consciously control their actions. They act indepently from Ender. But, his inner self, his "auia" (sp) they call it (i think), basically his soul is within all three bodies."

You're speaking of Children of the Mind.

And I'm not really certain you're reading it correctly. ;) But it was a looong while back that I read that one.

Me.

Earlier you said you could keep going all day with the Bible verses. Here's a few more about the divinity of Christ. Tell me what you think.

John 1: 29-34: "The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is the one I meant when I said, 'A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel." Then John gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.' I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God."

Luke 22:47 "While he was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus to kiss him, but Jesus asked him, 'Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?"

And later in the same chapter, Luke 22:70, a really simple one: "They all asked, 'Are you then the Son of God?' Jesus replied, 'You are right in saying I am.'"

Matthew 26: 63-64 "The high priest said to him, 'I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.' 'Yes, it is as you say,' Jesus replied."

***


Also, you wrote: "See, one thing to bear in mind: If he was God's only Son, and thusly the embodiment of God on Earth (i.e. The Trinity), he would have no Free Will. God would just do what he wanted done. The thing that made him TRULY exceptional was that he accomplished all the things he did WHILE having Free Will." This deals with the humiliation of Christ. It's important that Christ really be a man, so that he can save mankind. He still had free will, and was a man just like you and me. Look at John 11:35, a short passage I like which demonstrates him being a man: "Jesus wept."

Here's another passage that shows why Jesus being God and man is important: Hebrews 4:15 "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are–yet was without sin. "

I say he's both God and Man, just like he says.

********

Lastly, another question. What do you think about the Ressurection? If Jesus died and was a man, surely he could not have risen again, could he? This really is the central point of Christianity to me.

"you're misinterpreting the Tinity. They aren't three puppets of some guy called God, they are three separate, distinct, yet connected parts of one person."

No. See, the Trinity is all one person. God is God, the Son, AND the Holy Spirit. The fact that they are three connected parts of one whole makes the concept of JEsus' Free Will to be inherently false.


"A really really good example of this would be in Orson Scott Card's "Xenocide" and/or "Children of the Mind," I forget which. Ender basically creates two beings (representations of his brother and sister, not gonna go into that). They are separate from him, and he doesn't consciously control their actions. They act indepently from Ender. But, his inner self, his "auia" (sp) they call it (i think), basically his soul is within all three bodies."

You're speaking of Children of the Mind.

And I'm not really certain you're reading it correctly. ;) But it was a looong while back that I read that one.

Me.

I couldn't remember if it happened in Xenocide or CotM. I think it's both, like it happens in Xeno and is explained in CotM? IDK...

Yes, they are part of one person. I recently read a series by Gregory Benford. In it there are mechanical entities which were hunting the humans. One of the observations "made" by a higher form of the mechs is that parts of the human brain will work independently of the others. The mech forms could watch themselves think, so they weren't that creative. Humans, on the other hand, surprise themselves with the thoughts that come into their heads.

I guess you could look at it as a controled dissasociation disorder (multiple personality disorder). Only in this case, each personality has its own body...rather, form of existence, in the case of the Spirit. Each acts independently of each other, while acting towards a common goal.

For that matter, you could argue that free will at all is a facade. The decisions we make are based on our environment and those around us, so in reality our decisions are set in stone, eh?


Another way you could look at is this:
Many of us are part of America, but America doesn't control us.
We are part of Society, but it doesn't control us...etc.

Actually, there's a theory (which is also explored in Benford's books) that society is actually a sentient entity. Basically, ideas evolve like living things. Theoretically, a sentient idea could arise. Religion is one example of such a theory. Read "Wyrm"

And the series by benford begins with "In the Oceans of Night", which I haven't read. I read from "Tides of Light" up.

"John 1: 29-34: "The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is the one I meant when I said, 'A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel." Then John gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.' I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God." "

Those are John's words, not Jesus'. :)


"Luke 22:47 "While he was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus to kiss him, but Jesus asked him, 'Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?" "

This one he is referring to himself as "Son of Man", not "Son of God". "Son of Man" is a metaphorical name he gave himself, because of his great love and compassion for all of those around him, he made sure to keep himself as approachable and on the level with them as possible.



"And later in the same chapter, Luke 22:70, a really simple one: "They all asked, 'Are you then the Son of God?' Jesus replied, 'You are right in saying I am.'"

Matthew 26: 63-64 "The high priest said to him, 'I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.' 'Yes, it is as you say,' Jesus replied."" "

These two are harder, but again they fall on the hair-split plausible clerical error in which Greek Term for "Father" is being used. As to where the whole discussion betwixt myself and Rhino was based, really, whether by this he meant "A Son of God" or "The (only) Son of God". It is safe to assume in either direction, the key thing pushing you in one direction or the other being the strength of your own faith. :)

"Lastly, another question. What do you think about the Ressurection? If Jesus died and was a man, surely he could not have risen again, could he? This really is the central point of Christianity to me."

Theoretically, if there is a God, and he/she/it is omnipotent, making something as fragile as a human being come back to life would not be all that difficult a task.

Granted, I don't exactly believe in God ( :D ), so the concept of the Resurection doesn't seem all that plausible to me, but with a "God" in the picture, Jesus need not be any more than a man to be able to come back from the Dead.

In fact, I would consider it more of a miracle if he was simply a Man than if he was God. That's kinda like God saying "Look. I woke him up, and I'm bringing him up, body and spirit, to me."


"For that matter, you could argue that free will at all is a facade. The decisions we make are based on our environment and those around us, so in reality our decisions are set in stone, eh?"

Who was it that had that philosophy... Gah. Tip of my tongue and I can't remember, either way I don't agree with him. ;)

Regardless, the decisions we make are based on how we interpret out envirionment. We have control of how we interpret any piece of information that comes in. Our choices are going to be more steered the more experience we have to back things up, but we got to that point by our own choices, did we not?

Though you could look at Causality and say that it defies the concept, except Causality, as well as Chaos Theory, are two of the very few scientific concepts that generally show that "Free Will" is a very real concept.

:)

I need to go play with my cat now, work is over, and it's time to go home. Been fun talkin' with ya, I'll talk more later. :)

Me.

"John 1: 29-34: "The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is the one I meant when I said, 'A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel." Then John gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.' I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God." "

Those are John's words, not Jesus'. :)

John's words, as inspired by God. Besides, you don't think that the Bible has every last thing that Jesus ever said, do you? I'd think that Jesus told his desciples that several times. Not to mention what it must have been like in school...
"Jesus, who's your daddy?" (teacher)
"My daddy is God..." (Jesus)


"Luke 22:47 "While he was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus to kiss him, but Jesus asked him, 'Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?" "

This one he is referring to himself as "Son of Man", not "Son of God". "Son of Man" is a metaphorical name he gave himself, because of his great love and compassion for all of those around him, he made sure to keep himself as approachable and on the level with them as possible.
Not (entirely) true. Jesus is the Son of Man, because he is the son of Marry, who is of the human race, short-handed as "Man" But it is partially true because the whole reason for him to become the son of man was so that he could be closer and relate to us better, among other reasons (the cross being one).



"And later in the same chapter, Luke 22:70, a really simple one: "They all asked, 'Are you then the Son of God?' Jesus replied, 'You are right in saying I am.'"

Matthew 26: 63-64 "The high priest said to him, 'I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.' 'Yes, it is as you say,' Jesus replied."" "

These two are harder, but again they fall on the hair-split plausible clerical error in which Greek Term for "Father" is being used. As to where the whole discussion betwixt myself and Rhino was based, really, whether by this he meant "A Son of God" or "The (only) Son of God". It is safe to assume in either direction, the key thing pushing you in one direction or the other being the strength of your own faith. :)
True, this one is based on your definition of father. As soon as I can get the Greek, I'll show you.


"Lastly, another question. What do you think about the Ressurection? If Jesus died and was a man, surely he could not have risen again, could he? This really is the central point of Christianity to me."

Theoretically, if there is a God, and he/she/it is omnipotent, making something as fragile as a human being come back to life would not be all that difficult a task.

Granted, I don't exactly believe in God ( :D ), so the concept of the Resurection doesn't seem all that plausible to me, but with a "God" in the picture, Jesus need not be any more than a man to be able to come back from the Dead.
Remember how "life/death" is a metaphore about the afterlife? Well, Jesus not only died physically, he died spiritually as well, decending into hell. And, as the Bible says (i'll find the verse if you want), nothing can pass between heaven and hell. God could not have brought Jesus out of hell, he had to bring himself.

In fact, I would consider it more of a miracle if he was simply a Man than if he was God. That's kinda like God saying "Look. I woke him up, and I'm bringing him up, body and spirit, to me."
Really? Remember, God is the one that created the pleasures and feelings that Satan uses to tempt us. Not only does God know how we feel, but he intvented how we feel. Don't you think he'd be more than a little anxious to see what it was like for us?
And, whether or not it would be more a miracle if he were man is a moot point. That's simply not the way it happened.


"For that matter, you could argue that free will at all is a facade. The decisions we make are based on our environment and those around us, so in reality our decisions are set in stone, eh?"

Who was it that had that philosophy... Gah. Tip of my tongue and I can't remember, either way I don't agree with him. ;)

Regardless, the decisions we make are based on how we interpret out envirionment. We have control of how we interpret any piece of information that comes in. Our choices are going to be more steered the more experience we have to back things up, but we got to that point by our own choices, did we not?

Though you could look at Causality and say that it defies the concept, except Causality, as well as Chaos Theory, are two of the very few scientific concepts that generally show that "Free Will" is a very real concept.

:)

I need to go play with my cat now, work is over, and it's time to go home. Been fun talkin' with ya, I'll talk more later. :)

Me.

No idea who came up with that originally. I thought that up myself, though someone's sure to have thought of it before.

But, while we do control how we interpret the environment, that comes from our experience, which is gained from prior decisions about the environment, guided by the environment, and also from our genetic makeup, which we obviously don't control.

BTW, Later dude...

"And later in the same chapter, Luke 22:70, a really simple one: "They all asked, 'Are you then the Son of God?' Jesus replied, 'You are right in saying I am.'"

Matthew 26: 63-64 "The high priest said to him, 'I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.' 'Yes, it is as you say,' Jesus replied."" "

These two are harder, but again they fall on the hair-split plausible clerical error in which Greek Term for "Father" is being used. As to where the whole discussion betwixt myself and Rhino was based, really, whether by this he meant "A Son of God" or "The (only) Son of God". It is safe to assume in either direction, the key thing pushing you in one direction or the other being the strength of your own faith. :)

Okay, I'm not sure about these hair-splitting semantics. Still, in the passage from Matthew it says "Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." Notice the title of Christ: the Messiah. *THE* Messiah. *THE* Son of God. While we are all children of God in the sense you mean, there is only one Christ.

Here's a new one: Matthew 27:50-54

"And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.
At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people. When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, 'Surely he was the Son of God!'"

Also, Jesus was put to death for blasphemy. So even the Jews persecuting him would say he claimed to be the Son of God.


************
Remember how "life/death" is a metaphore about the afterlife? Well, Jesus not only died physically, he died spiritually as well, decending into hell. And, as the Bible says (i'll find the verse if you want), nothing can pass between heaven and hell. God could not have brought Jesus out of hell, he had to bring himself.

I disagree, here. When we say Jesus "Descended into Hell", this was not part of the humiliation I talked about a few posts ago. By that point, the deed was already done. That's why Jesus said, "It is finished." (John 19:30).

Instead, it was part of the exultation. Peter writes this in 1 Peter 3:18-19: "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison."

"ohn's words, as inspired by God."

Finefine. But it's irrelevant, because John said them, not Jesus. :)

"And, as the Bible says (i'll find the verse if you want), nothing can pass between heaven and hell."

Oo. Well, see, isn't that a problem, then, because in order for God to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent (i.e. All Things) He has to be, not only present in, but capable of, passing between heaven and hell.

Atop that, he also has the ability to change all the rules of everything.

If you don't agree with the last sentance, then everything that you believe is false, because it all banks on one important thing, and that is that God is the Creator. He made everything, he causes everything, directly or indirectly, and because of that, our existance, and all other existance, operates on his rules.

If you make the rules, you get to change them, it's just the way of things.

"Not only does God know how we feel, but he intvented how we feel. Don't you think he'd be more than a little anxious to see what it was like for us?"

No. In order to be omniscient he already has to know, unless you're trying to imply that he's not. . . ;)

"Notice the title of Christ: the Messiah. *THE* Messiah"

Doesn't "Messiah" mean "messenger"? In which case, being God or not, a Prophet of any sort is a messenger. I can carry a message FROM God without BEING God.

"Here's a new one: Matthew 27:50-54

"And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.
At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people. When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, 'Surely he was the Son of God!'" "

The exclamation at the end is Matthew's words, not Jesus'. Matthew is narrating the story that he is writing from his personal experience. The emotion contained within, which is more than understandable for various reasons, is his own. His own emphasis, everything. Again this is not Jesus saying he is God's son.


"Also, Jesus was put to death for blasphemy. So even the Jews persecuting him would say he claimed to be the Son of God."

Of course they would. Otherwise they killed a very selfless, wonderful, exceptional human being without reason. No one wants to admit to that, except for maybe Herr Doktor.

I need to go to bed, I'm WAY too drunk for this, but I read it and felt the need to comment. :D

Me.

Rhyno D: just because something's not a good idea, it does not mean that it should be punished by stoning to death. Is planting crops together something that deserves death?
And what do you mean, if a woman has a period, there's no point in being near her? Chauvinist, women aren't just tools for you.
A few more points - forbidding the Israelites to enslave other Israelites but permitting them to enslave people from neighborouring countries is surely fascist!

Others: don't be paranoid, I am not working for an EVIL GAY LOBBY GR00P OMG!!!!!111. Oh, and that "bask" was meant to say "bash". Basking in and backing are very different from bashing but some typos are just unfortunate. Also, yes, those references were provided to me in the magazine I stated ("Commie pinko liberal Bible-hater Weeky"). I have checked (most of :)) them, added my own examples and the reference to Corinthians was from my own patchy knowledge. Does Jesus himself condemn homosexuality?
Anyway, if God is always right and the Bible is God's word, then why would the Old Testament traditions need to be reformed by Jesus? My answer: it's not God's word. The Old Testament and New Testament differ becuase they were written at different times, with different attitudes. I mean, how different can you get: Old Testament, only people in perfect physique are even allowed near an altar; New Testament, Jesus helps the marginalised of society and heals the sick?

More brilliant ideas from Leviticus 19:
Don't wear clothes made from two or more materials.
If you plant a tree, you're not allowed to eat its fruit for 3 years.

More brilliant ideas from Leviticus 19:
Don't wear clothes made from two or more materials.
If you plant a tree, you're not allowed to eat its fruit for 3 years.

and nobody has yet explained to me why they can use Levitical laws against homosexuality to justify their homophobia, yet they don't have to obey all these other rules. i just don't get it.

How many people quit their job for a year every seven years? At the end of Leviticus, their are recommended prices for people selling slaves in the name of God! Read Deuteronomy 21-23 for many more barbaric rules.

and nobody has yet explained to me why they can use Levitical laws against homosexuality to justify their homophobia, yet they don't have to obey all these other rules. i just don't get it.

I don't get it either. But for all the "Christians" pushing for things like constitutional ammendments against Gay Marriages but aren't nearly as outspoken about divorce. Sure, some may say it is bad, etc, but where is the huge outcry to make divorce illegal. Afterall, it was Paul who condemned homosexuality but Jesus himself who condemned divorce!

Why are "Christian" morals so outraged by same sex love but not by the disolution and breaking of vows of Holy Matrimony.

Why is the charging of interest (also spoken out against in the New Testament - usary anyone? anyone?) not a target for the Christian Right?

Personally, I don't think religion should determine law. But I think all of the people who want to outlaw homosexuality for religious reasons need to own up to their own fear and hatred. Using the bible as an excuse to bash homosexuality while ignoring or even condoning other "sins" is gross and disgusting hypocrasy.

"and nobody has yet explained to me why they can use Levitical laws against homosexuality to justify their homophobia, yet they don't have to obey all these other rules. i just don't get it."

That's because most of them are mindless sheep.

The more intellectually-oriented (i.e. NOT mindless sheep) Christians who use the Bible's references towards Homosexuality to say why it's bad will, first off, not say that Homosexuals are burning in hellfire, secondly, love the people, hate the act, viewing homosexuality as immoral, but a homosexual as another human deserving of God's love, and thirdly, point to Corinthians I, and not Leviticus, because Leviticus doesn't matter anymore.

Paul stressed in Corinthians I about the immorality of Homosexuality, and John and Mark, I believe, also had a few comments about it in their letters, and unlike Leviticus, which is OT, they are NT and actually still valid. The OT is only supposed to be viewed, by Christians, as the basis for the religion, they are bound to the morality of it, but not the tenets or laws. :)

Me.

not say that Homosexuals are burning in hellfire

"Neither...male prostitutes or homosexual offenders...will inherit the kingdom of God."

Wait, aren't I contradicting my own argument? Anyway, this thread is closely linked to the "Why the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality" thread; perhaps the mods should merge it?

"Notice the title of Christ: the Messiah. *THE* Messiah"

Doesn't "Messiah" mean "messenger"? In which case, being God or not, a Prophet of any sort is a messenger. I can carry a message FROM God without BEING God.

A good point, but Messiah doesn't mean messenger. The Messiah was the expected king and deliverer of the Jews promised since Genesis. Like I said before, there's only ONE Messiah. Elijah, Daniel, Isaiah, etc. were all prophets. None could be considered the Messiah, or Messiahs.

Next, here are a couple more passages.

Here's one from Jesus' baptism.

Matthew 3:16-17
"As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, 'This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.'"

And a similar one from the Transfiguration. It's in the other gospels too, but I'll just quote Matthew here.

Matthew 17:5-9
"While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, 'This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!' When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified. But Jesus came and touched them. 'Get up,' he said. 'Don't be afraid.' When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus. As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, 'Don't tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.'"

Here's a different one, from where Jesus drives out demons into the Gadarene pigs.

Matthew 8:28-29
"When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so violent that no one could pass that way. 'What do you want with us, Son of God?' they shouted. 'Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?'"

I know you'll say this wasn't Jesus saying this, but even demons admitted he was the Son of God.

John 10:33-36
"'We are not stoning you for any of these,' replied the Jews, 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.' Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came--and the Scripture cannot be broken--what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?'"

Again, tell me what you think.
*******

and nobody has yet explained to me why they can use Levitical laws against homosexuality to justify their homophobia, yet they don't have to obey all these other rules. i just don't get it.

Like I said before, some of the laws in Leviticus are civil laws meant only for the ancient nation of Israel. Some of them, like laws prohibiting murder, blasphemy, and homosexuality, do still apply to everyone.

I know it seems like I'm picking and choosing which laws I like to follow, but it's wise to let scripture interpret itself. To avoid this appearance, I usually just quote St. Paul in the New Testament.
*******

And while we're on the subject...

The more intellectually-oriented (i.e. NOT mindless sheep) Christians who use the Bible's references towards Homosexuality to say why it's bad will, first off, not say that Homosexuals are burning in hellfire, secondly, love the people, hate the act, viewing homosexuality as immoral, but a homosexual as another human deserving of God's love, and thirdly, point to Corinthians I, and not Leviticus, because Leviticus doesn't matter anymore.

In my discussion with you, I've quoted quite a few titles for Jesus: Son of God, Son of Man, Christ, Messiah, etc. One I think of in this situation is "Friend of Sinners"

Luke 7:44-48
"Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, 'Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven--for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little.' Then Jesus said to her, 'Your sins are forgiven.'"

Friend of sinners is a bit earlier in the chapter, but I wanted to include the gist of it. Everyone's a sinner, including me and homosexuals. If we weren't, we wouldn't need a savior.

As for whether or not we should use Christian law to get a constitutional amendment, I give a resounding "No!" I don't think I'm the only Christian who thinks that the 1st Amendment was a REALLY, REALLY good idea. Besides, there's only been one Amendment to the Constitution that took away rights rather than securing them: Prohibition. We all know how well that worked out, and we also know that the Constitution shouldn't be messed with for cheap points. I'm a Democrat, BTW.

It keeps going and going and going. . . ;)

First two I'm not going to quote, 'cause that's a big block of text and comes to the same thing. Those were God's words, not Jesus'. We are ALL God's Children, so it doesn't exactly form to say that he is THE Son of God, but A Son of God. One that God happens to be really damn proud of.

Third one is Son of Man, which is, again, more stressed upon the fact that he is one of us, and should be looked upon as one of us, and is Son to us all.

Fourth one, well, you beat me to the punch. ;)


"John 10:33-36
"'We are not stoning you for any of these,' replied the Jews, 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.' Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came--and the Scripture cannot be broken--what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?'""

This one here, well, this is Jesus making the same point that I am trying to make in response to all of these comments. "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'?"

Then he asks why they accuse him of being a blasphemer for simply stating what is already written, we are all God's Children.


"Friend of sinners is a bit earlier in the chapter, but I wanted to include the gist of it. Everyone's a sinner, including me and homosexuals. If we weren't, we wouldn't need a savior."

The problem that I, and many other people, Christian and non-Christian alike, have with many Christians is that they forget that part. They neglect that, and, my personal favorite biblical quote, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

Me.

I'm going to do a Google search for Karen Armstrong's A History of God, the source of the "Jesus did not claim to be God's son" poimt.

and nobody has yet explained to me why they can use Levitical laws against homosexuality to justify their homophobia, yet they don't have to obey all these other rules. i just don't get it.

Their not trying to say that it's against the law, just that God thinks it's wrong.

It keeps going and going and going. . . ;)

First two I'm not going to quote, 'cause that's a big block of text and comes to the same thing. Those were God's words, not Jesus'. We are ALL God's Children, so it doesn't exactly form to say that he is THE Son of God, but A Son of God. One that God happens to be really damn proud of.

Third one is Son of Man, which is, again, more stressed upon the fact that he is one of us, and should be looked upon as one of us, and is Son to us all.

Fourth one, well, you beat me to the punch. ;)


"John 10:33-36
"'We are not stoning you for any of these,' replied the Jews, 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.' Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came--and the Scripture cannot be broken--what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?'""

This one here, well, this is Jesus making the same point that I am trying to make in response to all of these comments. "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'?"

Then he asks why they accuse him of being a blasphemer for simply stating what is already written, we are all God's Children.

He is pointing out the hypocricy in in the pharisees. And look in that same passage: "set apart as his very own." Jesus isn't just a son of God, but THE son of God, whether or not we are sons as well.


"Friend of sinners is a bit earlier in the chapter, but I wanted to include the gist of it. Everyone's a sinner, including me and homosexuals. If we weren't, we wouldn't need a savior."

The problem that I, and many other people, Christian and non-Christian alike, have with many Christians is that they forget that part. They neglect that, and, my personal favorite biblical quote, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

Me.

That, unfortunately, is very true. It gives Christians a bad name. In there defense, and this is the only defense they get, there are people like that everywhere, not just in Christians...

Okay, perhaps I'll address this from a new angle.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with Gnosticism (sp?). I'm not that familiar with it myself, but it was the most dangerous Christian heresy in the first two centuries. It basically came down to the idea that all matter is evil, all spirits are good, so either Jesus just "seemed" to be a man, or else the "Spirit" of Christ entered the body of the man named Jesus at his baptism.

I know you seem to be arguing the opposite: that he was just a man, made of matter like you or me. Still, the point is that he's the Son of God.

1 John 2:22-23
"Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist--he denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also."

Really it's hard to get a pinpoint quote here. The entire point of the letter is to encourage Christian love and fight against false teaching.

*****

Here's a self-referential parable Jesus told. In it, he advances the idea that he's the actual son of God, not just one.

Mark 12:1-9
"He then began to speak to them in parables: 'A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants to collect from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. But they seized him, beat him and sent him away empty-handed. Then he sent another servant to them; they struck this man on the head and treated him shamefully. He sent still another, and that one they killed. He sent many others; some of them they beat, others they killed. He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved. He sent him last of all, saying, 'They will respect my son.' But the tenants said to one another, 'This is the heir. Come, let's kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.' So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard. What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others."

"and nobody has yet explained to me why they can use Levitical laws against homosexuality to justify their homophobia, yet they don't have to obey all these other rules. i just don't get it."

That's because most of them are mindless sheep.

The more intellectually-oriented (i.e. NOT mindless sheep) Christians who use the Bible's references towards Homosexuality to say why it's bad will, first off, not say that Homosexuals are burning in hellfire, secondly, love the people, hate the act, viewing homosexuality as immoral, but a homosexual as another human deserving of God's love, and thirdly, point to Corinthians I, and not Leviticus, because Leviticus doesn't matter anymore.

Paul stressed in Corinthians I about the immorality of Homosexuality, and John and Mark, I believe, also had a few comments about it in their letters, and unlike Leviticus, which is OT, they are NT and actually still valid. The OT is only supposed to be viewed, by Christians, as the basis for the religion, they are bound to the morality of it, but not the tenets or laws. :)

Me.

The problem is, it's never specifically recognized as wrong, ie, they never say "Homosexuality is wrong" they just make vague references to it.

And yeah, it would be great if the world was like that, but like I said, there's people like that everywhere. It really does give Christians a bad name (not that I haven't done something like that before...[not about gays, though])