NationStates Jolt Archive

For some time now I have been bothered by something, and that is that many Christians seem to worship the Bible more than they worship God. When I bring this up, I hear "The bible is God's word" or I get quoted the verse which says "All scripture is God-breathed" Well, I don't have a problem with the Bible for the most part. I believe that all though it was written and compiled by man, it was inspired by real events and God had some part in that. However, I have a problem with how it was compiled, how people use it to justify things like war or slavery, and so forth.

Here is MY breakdown of the Bible. I want to see what you theologians out there say.

The OT is purely Jewish law and history. It shows us how the monotheistic religion of that time was held together and how it worked. It also gives some nice background on some historical figures and events. I believe that the Book of Genesis is not literal by any means(with regards to the creation, flood, etc), but rather just a way that the writer(thought to be moses) explained how we came to be. There is nothing wrong with enjoying the stories they tell. Its fascinating to see the imagination used in it.

When it comes to the New Testament, the gospels were four accounts of how Jesus lived His life, and how he died. Yes there are some differences, but it is because it was written by four different people, just like a story of a car wreck would be different when told by four different perspectives. As for the letters to the churches, written by Paul and others, I do not believe they should be taken as God's doctrine. The apostles were no more special or godly than any other good Christian, so what would make their words so important? They were just men of God that saw problems with certain churches and wrote to them to give Godly advice on what ever the problem was. For example, I do not think God is some woman hater, than wants them to be quiet in church. I'd think that the church this was spoken to was having problem with the women being kniving during services or something.

I believe that God's word is alive, and in each believer that chooses to open their eyes and heart to it. I'd rather have God tell me how to live, than to have a man written book to do so. No I am not losing my faith, but rather growing stronger in it, because I don't have any creed or doctrine other than Christ.

Now the question comes up, how can I believe in Christ, and all that I do, if the bible is corrupt or what not. Well, I think the bible is 95% the same as it was when it was first penned, so I am fairly sure that Jesus was God in flesh, that taught us how to live in a pleasing way to Him, and then saved us from sin. And I do think it is a good place to look, if you ever do have confusion about something, you know "how did they handle 'x' problem" type of thing.

SO what say you? Anyone else have a similar view point, or am I just a godless heretic? :p

what is your opinion on OT prophecy?

i think using one's own mind and consulting more experienced family, friends and respected aquaintances is a far better way of garnering advice on how to solve one's life problems than a book that was largely written over 2000 years ago.

/not a theologian

what is your opinion on OT prophecy?

Well, some of it can be applied to most anytime, like almost prophecy can. There is some that can be true today, or true back then. For instance, many endtimers say we are in the end because of their being all these signs of immorality, and all this, but it can apply at any time. There is also some prophecy that was meant for the old times, but we interpret it now. Like in the OT there are verses about Israel being restored, and most of it came true after captivity.

Well, some of it can be applied to most anytime, like almost prophecy can. There is some that can be true today, or true back then. For instance, many endtimers say we are in the end because of their being all these signs of immorality, and all this, but it can apply at any time. There is also some prophecy that was meant for the old times, but we interpret it now. Like in the OT there are verses about Israel being restored, and most of it came true after captivity.

I am mostly talking about Messianic prophecies that can be calculated to the day of when Jesus did stuff. (don't ask for examples right now, I don't have my notes)

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a47/DarkSideOfTheSpoon/Bible-mythbusters.jpg

I am mostly talking about Messianic prophecies that can be calculated to the day of when Jesus did stuff. (don't ask for examples right now, I don't have my notes)

It bares note that Jesus was aware off all of those prophecies before he fullfilled them.

For some time now I have been bothered by something, and that is that many Christians seem to worship the Bible more than they worship God. When I bring this up, I hear "The bible is God's word" or I get quoted the verse which says "All scripture is God-breathed" Well, I don't have a problem with the Bible for the most part. I believe that all though it was written and compiled by man, it was inspired by real events and God had some part in that. However, I have a problem with how it was compiled, how people use it to justify things like war or slavery, and so forth.

Here is MY breakdown of the Bible. I want to see what you theologians out there say.

The OT is purely Jewish law and history. It shows us how the monotheistic religion of that time was held together and how it worked. It also gives some nice background on some historical figures and events. I believe that the Book of Genesis is not literal by any means(with regards to the creation, flood, etc), but rather just a way that the writer(thought to be moses) explained how we came to be. There is nothing wrong with enjoying the stories they tell. Its fascinating to see the imagination used in it.

When it comes to the New Testament, the gospels were four accounts of how Jesus lived His life, and how he died. Yes there are some differences, but it is because it was written by four different people, just like a story of a car wreck would be different when told by four different perspectives. As for the letters to the churches, written by Paul and others, I do not believe they should be taken as God's doctrine. The apostles were no more special or godly than any other good Christian, so what would make their words so important? They were just men of God that saw problems with certain churches and wrote to them to give Godly advice on what ever the problem was. For example, I do not think God is some woman hater, than wants them to be quiet in church. I'd think that the church this was spoken to was having problem with the women being kniving during services or something.

I believe that God's word is alive, and in each believer that chooses to open their eyes and heart to it. I'd rather have God tell me how to live, than to have a man written book to do so. No I am not losing my faith, but rather growing stronger in it, because I don't have any creed or doctrine other than Christ.

Now the question comes up, how can I believe in Christ, and all that I do, if the bible is corrupt or what not. Well, I think the bible is 95% the same as it was when it was first penned, so I am fairly sure that Jesus was God in flesh, that taught us how to live in a pleasing way to Him, and then saved us from sin. And I do think it is a good place to look, if you ever do have confusion about something, you know "how did they handle 'x' problem" type of thing.

SO what say you? Anyone else have a similar view point, or am I just a godless heretic? :p

I don't think JC is a bad guy. I respect him. It's some of his followers (but nowhere near all).

For some time now I have been bothered by something, and that is that many Christians seem to worship the Bible more than they worship God. When I bring this up, I hear "The bible is God's word" or I get quoted the verse which says "All scripture is God-breathed" Well, I don't have a problem with the Bible for the most part. I believe that all though it was written and compiled by man, it was inspired by real events and God had some part in that. However, I have a problem with how it was compiled, how people use it to justify things like war or slavery, and so forth.

Here is MY breakdown of the Bible. I want to see what you theologians out there say.

The OT is purely Jewish law and history. It shows us how the monotheistic religion of that time was held together and how it worked. It also gives some nice background on some historical figures and events. I believe that the Book of Genesis is not literal by any means(with regards to the creation, flood, etc), but rather just a way that the writer(thought to be moses) explained how we came to be. There is nothing wrong with enjoying the stories they tell. Its fascinating to see the imagination used in it.

When it comes to the New Testament, the gospels were four accounts of how Jesus lived His life, and how he died. Yes there are some differences, but it is because it was written by four different people, just like a story of a car wreck would be different when told by four different perspectives. As for the letters to the churches, written by Paul and others, I do not believe they should be taken as God's doctrine. The apostles were no more special or godly than any other good Christian, so what would make their words so important? They were just men of God that saw problems with certain churches and wrote to them to give Godly advice on what ever the problem was. For example, I do not think God is some woman hater, than wants them to be quiet in church. I'd think that the church this was spoken to was having problem with the women being kniving during services or something.

I believe that God's word is alive, and in each believer that chooses to open their eyes and heart to it. I'd rather have God tell me how to live, than to have a man written book to do so. No I am not losing my faith, but rather growing stronger in it, because I don't have any creed or doctrine other than Christ.

Now the question comes up, how can I believe in Christ, and all that I do, if the bible is corrupt or what not. Well, I think the bible is 95% the same as it was when it was first penned, so I am fairly sure that Jesus was God in flesh, that taught us how to live in a pleasing way to Him, and then saved us from sin. And I do think it is a good place to look, if you ever do have confusion about something, you know "how did they handle 'x' problem" type of thing.

SO what say you? Anyone else have a similar view point, or am I just a godless heretic? :p

I'm surprised you chose to post anything relating to God or Christianity in the NS forums. The (very) large majority of NS users hate, despise, mock, and/or all around insult God. I applaud you for trying to find answers concerning the Bible and such. Although I am in no place to offer answers, I know far less than you do.

***

There is no other source for the biblical god except the bible, and the biblical god is not real. So who or what else should they look to for help, if they nevertheless choose to adhere to this theology of submission?
And btw the bible only narrates 3 years of Jesus' life, a rather insignificant episode, but 3000 years of human history in a (jewish) religious re-interpretation. The fact that you are fairly sure that Jesus was God in flesh clearly shows that you haven't looked at the matter thoroughly enough.

I agree. I don't think people should believe everything they read (this goes for anything, not just the Bible), they should just take the underlying message from it and learn something from it.

I'm surprised you chose to post anything relating to God or Christianity in the NS forums. The (very) large majority of NS users hate, despise, mock, and/or all around insult God. I applaud you for trying to find answers concerning the Bible and such. Although I am in no place to offer answers, I know far less than you do.

Are you really this much of a moron, or do you just play one on teh intrawebs? Yes, the jackass atheists get a lot of play, mostly because they won't close their mouths and won't change the subject. But most of have no problem with god, or God, or gods.

I agree. I don't think people should believe everything they read (this goes for anything, not just the Bible), they should just take the underlying message from it and learn something from it.what is the underlying message of the bible? submission under god.

It bares note that Jesus was aware off all of those prophecies before he fullfilled them.

sure.

There is no other source for the biblical god except the bible, and the biblical god is not real. So who or what else should they look to for help, if they nevertheless choose to adhere to this theology of submission?
And btw the bible only narrates 3 years of Jesus' life, a rather insignificant episode, but 3000 years of human history in a (jewish) religious re-interpretation. The fact that you are fairly sure that Jesus was God in flesh clearly shows that you haven't looked at the matter thoroughly enough.

Ah, yes, if you only study, you'll figure out that there's no point in believing in something bigger than yourself. And if you do believe in god, or God, or gods, you're an uneducated moron who's been brainwashed and can't think for yourself. :rolleyes:

what is the underlying message of the bible? submission under god.

Jesus' underlying message was love thy neighbor. Turn the other cheek. Quit praying in public so your piety can be noticed. Don't be a jackass. Treat others the way you want to be treated. What's so bad about that?

Ah, yes, if you only study, you'll figure out that there's no point in believing in something bigger than yourself. And if you do believe in god, or God, or gods, you're an uneducated moron who's been brainwashed and can't think for yourself. :rolleyes:

that's the long and short of it. ;)

I love how he "knows" this though, lovely isn't it?

Ah, yes, if you only study, you'll figure out that there's no point in believing in something bigger than yourself. Not in general.

And if you do believe in god, or God, or gods, you're an uneducated moron who's been brainwashed and can't think for yourself. That applies for the vast majority of believers, yes. But we're not talking about god, or gods, but God, i.e. the biblical deity.

that's the long and short of it. ;)

I love how he "knows" this though, lovely isn't it?

Yep. It's so damn frustrating! I'm reasonably well-educated and intelligent, and I did plenty of research into the religion I have. I believe in my gods while acknowledging that I have no emperical proof that they exist. That's kinda the point of belief, yes?

Not in general.


Yet, this is what you constantly imply.

"The bible is God's word"
I agree with this. but again, the Bible is God's WORD, not God.

thus I use the bible in conjunction with prayer. Never the bible alone.

Jesus' underlying message was love thy neighbor. Turn the other cheek. Quit praying in public so your piety can be noticed. Don't be a jackass. Treat others the way you want to be treated. What's so bad about that?That's not what the bible says about what God wants. The love that God offers through Jesus (as the bible narrates the issue) does not come unconditional, so it is not in fact love at all.
But all that does not matter anyways, because the biblical god does not exist, and subsequently Jesus is not that god's incarnation, or son, or prophet, or whatever.

Yet, this is what you constantly imply.No, I don't. But you seem to automatically equate "something bigger than yourself" with the biblical god. That's not only pointless but also insulting to all followers of non-abrahamic religions and faiths.

Why does every religion thread have to turn into a slamfest where United Bastardians/Mr. Lack-A-Day Man expresses their hatred of all religious types, no matter how nice they are? :mad:

That's not what the bible says about what God wants. The love that God offers through Jesus (as the bible narrates the issue) does not come unconditional, so it is not in fact love at all. so to you, Love is only unconditional?

man, It must suck for you to know you will never then know love. :(

Why does every religion thread have to turn into a slamfest where United Bastardians/Mr. Lack-A-Day Man expresses their hatred of all religious types, no matter how nice they are? :mad:

Because UB is in denial. he's actually a Closet Baptist. :p

Methinks UB doth protest too much. :D

No, I don't. But you seem to automatically equate "something bigger than yourself" with the biblical god. That's not only pointless but also insulting to all followers of non-abrahamic religions and faiths.

WTF? I'm pagan, I acknowledge the existance of all gods. I just don't worship all of them

Why does every religion thread have to turn into a slamfest where United Bastardians/Mr. Lack-A-Day Man expresses their hatred of all religious types, no matter how nice they are? :mad:

Because they can neither close their mouths (or still thier fingers) nor change the subject.

Why does every religion thread have to turn into a slamfest where United Bastardians/Mr. Lack-A-Day Man expresses their hatred of all religious types, no matter how nice they are? :mad:
If they were nice they'd need no abrahamic religion to hide behind. And why can't people not just stop starting threads that require certain preconditions to be true, such the existence of the biblical god and the accuracy of the bible? Unless these preconditions are shown to be fulfilled there is no point really in discussing anything that relies on these preconditions. If you can't demonstrate that the biblical god exists and interacts with humans what intelligence is there in going on about what a certain Jesus-God did or meant or left behind?

That's not what the bible says about what God wants. The love that God offers through Jesus (as the bible narrates the issue) does not come unconditional, so it is not in fact love at all.
But all that does not matter anyways, because the biblical god does not exist, and subsequently Jesus is not that god's incarnation, or son, or prophet, or whatever.

And yet he taught some pretty good things about how to treat others, didn't he?

And yet he taught some pretty good things about how to treat others, didn't he?How does that make him the son or incarnation of the jewish god? There were others throughout history who taught nice things, yet they were not elevated to deity-status.

If they were nice they'd need no abrahamic religion to hide behind. And why can't people not just stop starting threads that require certain preconditions to be true, such the existence of the biblical god and the accuracy of the bible? Unless these preconditions are shown to be fulfilled there is no point really in discussing anything that relies on these preconditions. If you can't demonstrate that the biblical god exists and interacts with humans what intelligence is there in going on about what a certain Jesus-God did or meant or left behind?

It's called theology. Whether or not you approve of people discussing their religions or not really doesn't apply, does it?

How does that make him the son or incarnation of the jewish god? There are others throughout history who taught nice things, yet they were not elevated to deity-status.

Could you not be a jackass for a second? Please? I'm not talking about his divinity or lack thereof. I'm talking about the things he taught, that have nothing to do with him being the Son (or not) of God.

Because UB is in denial. he's actually a Closet Baptist. :p

Methinks UB doth protest too much. :D

Methinks so too. That verse did not have a definition until UB came along.

Because they can neither close their mouths (or still thier fingers) nor change the subject.

Someone should send him back to kindergarten.

Could you not be a jackass for a second? Please? I'm not talking about his divinity or lack thereof. I'm talking about the things he taught, that have nothing to do with him being the Son (or not) of God.We are not talking about the things he taught but of Christ as such and Christians idolization of the bible in lack of anything substantial.
Zilam told about his rather one-dimensional adherence to Christ and his teachings, even as templates for day-to-day living. He does not, however, check the stability of the basis that the entire Christ theology and history relies on.

I gotta agree. I think the only thing we can call God's word is what Jesus said.

What ever happened to Love thy neighbor as thyself?

Someone should send him back to kindergarten.Someone should send the Christians and Jews back to school to give them some proper history lessons. This time without the omission of what people really believed in in ancient times.

We are not talking about the things he taught but of Christ as such and Christians idolization of the bible in lack of anything substantial.
really? I was under the impression that the thread was about people taking the bible so literally that they worship the bible and not God.

Someone should send the Christians and Jews back to school to give them some proper history lessons. This time without the omission of what people really believed in in ancient times.

oh, just the Christians and Jews. not the Islamic, Pastafarians, Wiccans or any other group that believes something/someone that cannot be proven to either exist or not.

I now dub thee troll.

We are not talking about the things he taught but of Christ as such and Christians idolization of the bible in lack of anything substantial.
Zilam told about his rather one-dimensional adherence to Christ and his teachings, even as templates for day-to-day living. He does not, however, check the stability of the basis that the entire Christ theology and history relies on.

You're talking out your ass. I'm talking about the lessons that Jesus taught. Nothing about his divinity (or lack thereof), nothing about Abrahamic faiths in general, I'm talking about the basic things the Jesus taught being relevant and pretty damn cool. As a framework for living, they're about as good as it gets.

There is no other source for the biblical god except the bible, and the biblical god is not real. So who or what else should they look to for help, if they nevertheless choose to adhere to this theology of submission?
And btw the bible only narrates 3 years of Jesus' life, a rather insignificant episode, but 3000 years of human history in a (jewish) religious re-interpretation. The fact that you are fairly sure that Jesus was God in flesh clearly shows that you haven't looked at the matter thoroughly enough.

I never thought I would do this but... QFT.

I could say the same to you

/me is confoozed. You don't know me, are you saying I'm uneducated based on one post? Or am I missing the point?

It bares note that Jesus was aware off all of those prophecies before he fullfilled them.

"So here you have incredible predictions fulfilled in the life of one man, even though he had no control over them. He couldn't arrange his ancestry, the timing of his birth, etc. These prophecies were written hundreds of years in advance. No other book in the world has this." - N.Geisler

"If you were to calculate the probability of any one person fulfilling all the OT Messianic prophecies that Jesus fulfilled, it would be as astronomical as winning the lottery every day for a century!" -P.Kreeft, Ph.D.

"Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death." -- Exodus 22:19

Anastasia (one of my cats) curls up on my bed next to my pillow when she sleeps, so according to the bible I should be assassinated.

"Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death." -- Exodus 22:19

Anastasia (one of my cats) curls up on my bed next to my pillow when she sleeps, so according to the bible I should be assassinated.

If you think that is what it means, I have nothing more to say to you. And if you're just playing stupid, then I still have nothing more to say to you.

This is mainly a question/response to United Beleriand. I would like to make a couple of points. What is Webster Dictionary's definition of faith? Belief in that which can not be proven, that is the definition of faith. No Christian or adherant of any Abrahamic religion can provide such proof, but they have faith, the belief in that which can not be proven. How can you argue against that? You can't deny a belief, can you? Atheists BELIEVE there is no God or Supreme Being, yet...if I can't prove the existance of a God then how can you prove the non-existance of said being? Faith is the over-riding issue here, it's something that always needs to be taken into account. Jesus was the Son of God, because people have faith that He was. God exists merely because people have faith that He does. We have no ability to show you proof of their existance, but I challenge you to prove to me that God and His human incarnation in Jesus don't exist.

The OT is purely Jewish law and history. It shows us how the monotheistic religion of that time was held together and how it worked. It also gives some nice background on some historical figures and events. I believe that the Book of Genesis is not literal by any means(with regards to the creation, flood, etc), but rather just a way that the writer(thought to be moses) explained how we came to be. There is nothing wrong with enjoying the stories they tell. Its fascinating to see the imagination used in it.


okay... just this past year i studied the Hebrew scriptures at seminary, and i've gotta tell ya', you're so wrong. most people are, actually.

there are some really interesting things in there that people don't realize. for instance, Israel and the other peoples back then weren't really monotheistic. they were more henotheistic. in fact, YHWH (the God of Israel) takes on the characteristics of the Canaanite god El as YHWH gains followers from those cultures. Also, there were times in ancient Israelite religion when the goddess Ashera was worshipped alongside YHWH as his consort.

The end product we read today as the pentateuch is an amalgamation of several different source materials. These scriptures were first an oral tradition, so it stands to reason that there would be some differences in the stories. That's why you find two creation stories and a couple of different explanations as to why YHWH flooded the world and why YHWH saved just Noah and his family.

But do not just discount the Hebrew scriptures as something that's nice for Judaism but unnecessary for Christians! Remember, the psalms were Jesus' prayerbook, so to speak. Jesus' words from the cross (My God, my God, why have you forgotten me?) are a quote from Psalm 22.

And let's talk about the psalms. and song of songs, proverbs, etc. what of the wisdom literature of the Hebrew scriptures? it is neither law nor history but something altogether different. it is the people crying out to God in praise, in petition, in lamentation.

okay. i just kinda went off there... sorry 'bout that. for a long time i thought the Hebrew scriptures weren't worth much, too. but i was wrong. they are part of our history as God's people and they are part of our worship.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a47/DarkSideOfTheSpoon/Bible-mythbusters.jpg

You win the internets.

I agree with this. but again, the Bible is God's WORD, not God.

thus I use the bible in conjunction with prayer. Never the bible alone.

If they were nice they'd need no abrahamic religion to hide behind. And why can't people not just stop starting threads that require certain preconditions to be true, such the existence of the biblical god and the accuracy of the bible? Unless these preconditions are shown to be fulfilled there is no point really in discussing anything that relies on these preconditions. If you can't demonstrate that the biblical god exists and interacts with humans what intelligence is there in going on about what a certain Jesus-God did or meant or left behind?

okay, sorry, i'm new to this fight -- er, discussion. but what you just said here leads me to wonder why one such as yourself, who seems opposed to conditional or limiting conversations, would bother to post at all? i say this without malice. it's just that, for me, i am driven to share my faith and theology out of the joy of knowing that i am saved by grace through faith and have been given the ultimate gift and am not required to pay any price at all for it. so, what's motivating you to fight?

okay, sorry, i'm new to this fight -- er, discussion. but what you just said here leads me to wonder why one such as yourself, who seems opposed to conditional or limiting conversations, would bother to post at all? i say this without malice. it's just that, for me, i am driven to share my faith and theology out of the joy of knowing that i am saved by grace through faith and have been given the ultimate gift and am not required to pay any price at all for it. so, what's motivating you to fight?

teh debil! (bold added by me.)

I do like the point you made about the OT up page, I think a Christian who ignores the OT just because it's not Jesus in red print, is probably on a shaky foundation. There is all sorts of OT stuff on the basic nature of God if nothing else.

There are some who worship the Bible. There are some who worship their priest/minister. There are some who worship their denomination. There are some who worship their own thoughts.

The Bible to me is an outline and history. It is valuable as an understanding of how knowledge of God has developed and evolved. It is like a study of the history and changes of any of man's knowledge. An engineer doesn't build a bridge without an understanding of the first log thrown over a stream. How the failure of that log led to better understanding of physics and stress distribution.

In the same way, reading any of the religious texts of the world leads to an understanding of the evolution of understanding of natural forces and the things that help people and the things that have harmed people. There are failures and inaccuracies in the writings because knowledge doesn't come complete the first time a subject is considered. (Just like how to cross a river and stay dry) After a study there are some basic truths that are in all of the major religions of the world. Those truths are an insight into the greater truths of all men. (We still don't have but a small insight to the truth, just as our bridges still fail.)

There is nothing that is 100% truth. Anyone looking for that before they will consider partial truth is a fool. Anyone that thinks they have 100% truth in any book, or belief is also a fool. That type of truth is not going to happen. Every time a question is answered, ten more are revealed.

If they were nice they'd need no abrahamic religion to hide behind. And why can't people not just stop starting threads that require certain preconditions to be true, such the existence of the biblical god and the accuracy of the bible? Unless these preconditions are shown to be fulfilled there is no point really in discussing anything that relies on these preconditions. If you can't demonstrate that the biblical god exists and interacts with humans what intelligence is there in going on about what a certain Jesus-God did or meant or left behind?

You don't have to post in this thread, so if you are so offended and the only way you can discuss something is if you have proved that everything leading up to it is and has always been entirely true; then don't discuss it.

"If you can't demonstrate that the biblical god exists and interacts with humans what intelligence is there in going on about what a certain Jesus-God did or meant or left behind?"

If you can't demonstrate why there is such a force as gravity, what intelligence is there in finding out how it functions?

Your move.

No, I don't. But you seem to automatically equate "something bigger than yourself" with the biblical god. That's not only pointless but also insulting to all followers of non-abrahamic religions and faiths.

You do realize she's not Christian and none of her gods are found in the Bible right?

There is no other source for the biblical god except the bible, and the biblical god is not real. So who or what else should they look to for help, if they nevertheless choose to adhere to this theology of submission?
And btw the bible only narrates 3 years of Jesus' life, a rather insignificant episode, but 3000 years of human history in a (jewish) religious re-interpretation. The fact that you are fairly sure that Jesus was God in flesh clearly shows that you haven't looked at the matter thoroughly enough.

No, YOU haven't looked at the matter thoroughly enough; Jesus Christ CLAIMED TO BE God; the religious people of his day understood this perfectly, and eventually killed Him for it.

John 10:30-36:
30 I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that THOU, BEING A MAN, MAKEST THYSELF GOD.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken,
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I SAID, I AM THE SON OF GOD?
[emphases mine]

Ah, yes, if you only study, you'll figure out that there's no point in believing in something bigger than yourself. And if you do believe in god, or God, or gods, you're an uneducated moron who's been brainwashed and can't think for yourself. :rolleyes:

No, believing in God does NOT mean one is "an uneducated moron who's been brainwashed and can't think for oneself"; believing in God, the Bible, and the deity of Jesus Christ is every man's, woman's, and child's constitutionally protected right. At least it's supposed to be constitutionally protected.

You do realize she's not Christian and none of her gods are found in the Bible right?

Yeah, but that would confound UB's basic beliefs, so it's easier to ignore my religious persuasion. Either that, or UB is offline. One or t'other!

I don't think JC is a bad guy. I respect him. It's some of his followers (but nowhere near all).
http://www.fstdt.com/funnyimages/uploads/131.jpg
:D
"So here you have incredible predictions fulfilled in the life of one man, even though he had no control over them. He couldn't arrange his ancestry, the timing of his birth, etc. These prophecies were written hundreds of years in advance. No other book in the world has this." - N.Geisler

"If you were to calculate the probability of any one person fulfilling all the OT Messianic prophecies that Jesus fulfilled, it would be as astronomical as winning the lottery every day for a century!" -P.Kreeft, Ph.D.
You do realize that many of the verses quoted by people who make this argument turn out to be, if you read them in context, not prophecies at all? Furthermore, the authors of the various gospels show obvious attempts to make the details of Christ's life and birth "fit" the prophecy. For example, the census that brought Joseph and Mary back to the right place for Jesus to be born did in fact happen-- but several years too late, and not empire-wide, as the story says. (Note, this is just my understanding from various articles I have read that have, I must admit, usually been from atheist/nonreligious websites. So I fully admit I may be mistaken on this, and, if so, correct me.)

This is mainly a question/response to United Beleriand. I would like to make a couple of points. What is Webster Dictionary's definition of faith? Belief in that which can not be proven, that is the definition of faith. No Christian or adherant of any Abrahamic religion can provide such proof, but they have faith, the belief in that which can not be proven. How can you argue against that? You can't deny a belief, can you? Atheists BELIEVE there is no God or Supreme Being, yet...if I can't prove the existance of a God then how can you prove the non-existance of said being? Faith is the over-riding issue here, it's something that always needs to be taken into account. Jesus was the Son of God, because people have faith that He was. God exists merely because people have faith that He does. We have no ability to show you proof of their existance, but I challenge you to prove to me that God and His human incarnation in Jesus don't exist.

An atheist does not BELIEVE or have FAITH that God does not exist. An atheist, generally, is convinced that God does not exist. (paraphrased from something that Douglas Adams once said interview with, I think, American Atheists. Not sure on this.) Furthermore, the argument that people believing it makes it true is silly. If I truly believe that the lottery numbers from my fortune cookie will win, does that mean I am guaranteed to gain several million dollars?

No, believing in God does NOT mean one is "an uneducated moron who's been brainwashed and can't think for oneself"; believing in God, the Bible, and the deity of Jesus Christ is every man's, woman's, and child's constitutionally protected right. At least it's supposed to be constitutionally protected.

It's SARCASM! Note the :rolleyes:. Lord and flippin Lady, I've got people accusing me of being a Christian AND an atheist! FOR THE RECORD: I am PAGAN! I believe in and acknowledge the existence of ALL GODS! I choose to worship only a few. I may be wrong. I may be worshiping a delusion. But guess what? It's my bloody right to worship any fucking delusion I feel like on any given day! I know bloody well I'm neither uneducated, nor brainwashed, nor a moron!

Now that I've cleared that up, back to your regularly scheduled program.

You do realize she's not Christian and none of her gods are found in the Bible right?

but, surely anyone who can respect Christians as people and even be *gasp* tolerant of their faith must be a brainwashed/brain dead fundie. ;)

(of course she isn't, but you know, when in Rome....)

but, surely anyone who can respect Christians as people and even be *gasp* tolerant of their faith must be a brainwashed/brain dead fundie. ;)

(of course she isn't, but you know, when in Rome....)

When in Rome....Slaughter the Savior?

Crucify the Christ?

Mutilate the Messiah?

Rhymes ftw.

"Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death." -- Exodus 22:19

Anastasia (one of my cats) curls up on my bed next to my pillow when she sleeps, so according to the bible I should be assassinated.

ah, but it's Lieth, not Layth. thus it's not you sleeping with a cat, but it's when you and the cat TELL FALSEHOODS together. see, you're safe. :p

Well, i am going to throw my two-cents in. First off, I have to agree with some others that this is not the best place to ask a question of definitions on "Christianity." Many on NS are antagonistic to Christianity (or religion in General). With that said, I will try to answer to the best of my knowledge.

First off, people are capable of worshiping anything. Whether it is a book, themselves, or some ideology. Everyone Worships/Reveres something. The idea of a Christian "Worshiping" the bible would lead me to believe that they are not a "Christian" as a Christian by definition would be one who follows/worships Jesus Christ as God.

Secondly, there are Absolutes. The idea of someone using the Bible to justify slavery, I believe is ludicrous. I know it has been done, but the whole idea is against the grain of Christ's "Love your Neighbor as yourself," and the idea that we are all equal before God (no regard of male, female, Jew, Greek, slave, free, etc.). Just for information, most of the logic and arguments for slave trading in the last several hundred years have stemmed from the evolutionary guess.

Now, on to the rest of the post. I personally see far more evidence that the Old Testament is literal, and that the idea of creation and the flood are true, than information otherwise. Besides the physical and historical evidence (geographical, anthropological, analysis of other literature from the same time period, etc.), you have to admit that the entire New Testament is built on the Old. If Genesis was not true (i.e. man did not "sin" by doing what he was told not to), then the idea of Christ coming (as the son of God and redemption for man's sin) is illogical. If man did not sin he did not need a savior. Without the Old the New is invalid. Besides that you cannot say that Christ was a good teacher, but not God. First if Christ claimed to be God (which he did several times in the Gospels) then he must be either telling the truth, or lying. If he was lying he would cease to be a "good" teacher, but if he wasn't lying, and he was not God, then he would cease to be a good teacher and would be instead, a raving lunatic with delusions of grandeur. (see the Author C.S. Lewis's book "God in the Dock." Also "Mere Christianity")

There are portions of the New testament that seem to contradict, or seem to be against the grain of the rest. It is important to realize that the Bible functions as a whole. You will find, if you study carefully that though it is written by multiple writers, each with different styles, it carries the same meaning all the way through. From the Ten Commandments to the Beattitudes of Christ.

Also, be careful of running from Creeds or Doctrines, but be careful on putting everything on them. God is not in a box, but the creeds and doctrines are not boxes. They are a means of discerning and summarizing the truth's of who God is. I agree, God's Word is alive. It touches different areas in each person, it affects people differently because people are different!

Are you a "Godless heretic?" I would say far from it! God welcomes Questions, but as God he also reserves the right to say "not now." There are some things I still don't quite understand, but I can rest my faith, knowing that God does. I have had many questions that are as yet unanswered, but Christianity still makes far more sense, and is complete within its worldview. Other Philosophies of life may often have answers for different worldview questions but never everything together.

To sum it up:
I believe the bible to be without error in the original, and authoritative as God's written word to man. But what is the point of actually "worshipping" something made of ground up trees. I worship the one who not only said what was written on the pages, but who created the trees ex nihilo

ah, but it's Lieth, not Layth. thus it's not you sleeping with a cat, but it's when you and the cat TELL FALSEHOODS together. see, you're safe. :p

That was a knee-slapper.
I jest not.

When in Rome....Slaughter the Savior?

Crucify the Christ?

Mutilate the Messiah?

Rhymes ftw.

30 pieces shall we pay, if we kill your friend today.

When in Rome....Slaughter the Savior?

Crucify the Christ?

Mutilate the Messiah?

Rhymes ftw.

Vacate the Vomitorium?

Oggle the Orgies?

Cheer the Centruions?

Vacate the Vomitorium?

Oggle the Orgies?

Cheer the Centruions?

Nice, but I was trying to stick with the Jesus theme, being as it dealt with the topic of the thread..in a way.

Though, if I was in Rome, those would be on my list.

Nice, but I was trying to stick with the Jesus theme, being as it dealt with the topic of the thread..in a way.

Though, if I was in Rome, those would be on my list.

You failed though, because Jesus was never in rome, let alone killed there. Silly poster. ;)

You failed though, because Jesus was never in rome, let alone killed there. Silly poster. ;)

How do you know he didn't go there for a family holiday with Jo and Mary when he was younger?

See the sights, catch a show at the Coliseum, eat some of the disgusting Roman fish paste they smothered on everything.

I'm sure it was a popular holiday destination for the family back in the day :)

An atheist does not BELIEVE or have FAITH that God does not exist. An atheist, generally, is convinced that God does not exist.
True, but what do they mean by God? What, supposing every world religion to be in some way mistaken on the nature of God (an almost certain prospect), is this thing that Atheists opposed to? Is it some hybrid amalgamation of the idols of all of the world's religions? Is it just the use of the name God to describe any kind of dictatorial concept?

There is nothing that is 100% truth. Anyone looking for that before they will consider partial truth is a fool. Anyone that thinks they have 100% truth in any book, or belief is also a fool. That type of truth is not going to happen. Every time a question is answered, ten more are revealed.
QFT! It is always worth remembering that the Bible, as with any other sort of scripture, is fundamentally the work of Man, regardless of how inspired by divinity it might be, and as such can never perfectly reflect the truth behind it. Whatever that truth might be.


I think, going back to the OP, that perhaps, Zilam, you need to understand that it is the Bible, not God, that completely defines Christianity's distinction as an earthly body from other spiritual or religious movements. If the Christian Church wants to spread, it cannot merely appeal to God; it must use that which it and it alone can claim to be its own value. Christianity, as an identity, is totally dependent on its own scripture, and to consider the God that lies behind it is to move away from that which makes one explicitly Christian.

This is, of course, no bad thing. But many Christians don't see it that way. To many, it is their identity as one of "Christ's followers" that means the most to them for two reasons:

1) The cultural power of the Christian Church in society today for those who are of a spiritual inclination does not extend to those who are unwilling to toe the party line. Christianity is a cultural opponent to other channels to find God, and frowns upon those who would explore God in distinction to its own specific series of paths. In order to fit in, one must stay within biblical understanding and stick to the Church's set guidelines.

2) Fear of the Afterlife governs so much of how many people view God. There is an unfortunate tendency within the Church to pull in those who stick to God entirely because of the carrot-and-stick threats and promises of Heaven and Hell, and the method of deciding between them as taught by the Church is the supposedly binary decision of "Are you with us or against us?". Stray and you will burn, so they say, and it is this that paralyses many into a tamed and desperate obedience of the Cult rather than the unchained and passionate search for God himself.

The reason much of Christianity idolises the Bible is because the Bible is the Church, and, more worryingly, the Church is God.

No, YOU haven't looked at the matter thoroughly enough; Jesus Christ CLAIMED TO BE God; the religious people of his day understood this perfectly, and eventually killed Him for it.

John 10:30-36:
30 I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that THOU, BEING A MAN, MAKEST THYSELF GOD.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken,
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I SAID, I AM THE SON OF GOD?
[emphases mine]
Are you using the bible as evidence for something that the bible claims? That's a pointless method.
And with looking into the matter more thoroughly I mean taking a closer look at ancient history and the beliefs of people in the times prior to the Persian era. You will find no trace of any practiced belief focusing on Yhvh that is as the bible claims it. And without Yhvh there is no Yeshua Messiah (=christos) either, at least not in the Christian way.

No, believing in God does NOT mean one is "an uneducated moron who's been brainwashed and can't think for oneself"; believing in God, the Bible, and the deity of Jesus Christ is every man's, woman's, and child's constitutionally protected right. At least it's supposed to be constitutionally protected.That only means that your constitution protects your right to being uneducated and a moron. Unfortunately your constitution says nothing about the quality of the issues it protects.

What ever happened to Love thy neighbor as thyself?

If the bastard returned my lawnmower I might consider it. :p

I'm surprised you chose to post anything relating to God or Christianity in the NS forums. The (very) large majority of NS users hate, despise, mock, and/or all around insult God. I applaud you for trying to find answers concerning the Bible and such. Although I am in no place to offer answers, I know far less than you do.

Nice puppet.

No, YOU haven't looked at the matter thoroughly enough; Jesus Christ CLAIMED TO BE God; the religious people of his day understood this perfectly, and eventually killed Him for it.

John 10:30-36:
-snip-

It's interesting that you quote John, which is generally agreed to be the latest of the four gospels, and was probably written sixty or more years after the death of Jesus. Have you got anything earlier?

When in Rome....Slaughter the Savior?

Crucify the Christ?

Mutilate the Messiah?

Rhymes ftw.

Any of these would make an awesome name for a Punk/Death Metal band. :D

Methinks UB IS a closet believer. Otherwise why go through the effort?

At any rate...

A lot of Christians do focus excessively on the Bible and not enough on the message. You only need to observe some of the arguments between scientists and biblical scholars to see that. The Bible is what it is- a collection of documents compiled by the early church and bound together as a sort of analog to a 3 book edition of the complete works of Shakespeare.

Is it perfect? No. It's incomplete, it has translation errors. is it useful? Absolutely. It's the most reliable single historical document we have for several periods of history, it's the foundation of belief for a major world religion and for all its faults is still the most remarkable single work in all of human literary history.

The Old Testament is mainly a collection of history, census data, lawbooks and parables. (I believe the story of Sampson and of Jonah are parables, in exactly the same approach Jesus Himself used later.)

The New Testament is mainly a collection of historical records and letters. All highly useful in giving us insight into the religion and beliefs of the Church founded by Jesus Christ. Is it complete? No, but it's pretty good.

Is there other scripture out there? yep. Of course, you'd expect me, a Mormon, to say so, but think about all the as yet undiscovered letters, records and so on that may lie out there under the earth, waiting to be discovered and added to the canon of Scripture. More info is never a bad thing.

UB: Chill.

Is it perfect? No. It's incomplete, it has translation errors. is it useful? Absolutely. It's the most reliable single historical document we have for several periods of history, it's the foundation of belief for a major world religion and for all its faults is still the most remarkable single work in all of human literary history.

Bull.

For example, the census that brought Joseph and Mary back to the right place for Jesus to be born did in fact happen-- but several years too late, and not empire-wide, as the story says. (Note, this is just my understanding from various articles I have read that have, I must admit, usually been from atheist/nonreligious websites. So I fully admit I may be mistaken on this, and, if so, correct me.)

If you're saying what I think you're saying then you're entirely right.

The Gospel of Matthew claims that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod.

The Gospel of Luke claims that he was born during the governership of Quirinius, when a census was held.

The problem is that Herod died in 4BC, wheras Quirinius became governer in 6AD and held his only census in the same year. All efforts to reconcile the two have failed.

Bull.

Yeah? What compares?

For some time now I have been bothered by something, and that is that many Christians seem to worship the Bible more than they worship God. When I bring this up, I hear "The bible is God's word" or I get quoted the verse which says "All scripture is God-breathed" Well, I don't have a problem with the Bible for the most part. I believe that all though it was written and compiled by man, it was inspired by real events and God had some part in that. However, I have a problem with how it was compiled, how people use it to justify things like war or slavery, and so forth.


It's easier to read the Bible than it is to speak directly with God. I'm not sure Christians worship the Bible, but if you need a quote in a pinch, it's simpler to look in the book than to pray and meditate.

It's the most reliable single historical document we have for several periods of history

Only for a few very short patches of history, and usually only because there's no other documentation. The first five books, for example, have been shown to be completely unhistorical.

Yeah? What compares?

If you collected the works of all the great playwrights and philosophers of Ancient Greece into one compilation then it'd win hands down.

It'd also contain exactly 67.32 times more lols than the Bible. FACT.

"If you were to calculate the probability of any one person fulfilling all the OT Messianic prophecies that Jesus fulfilled, it would be as astronomical as winning the lottery every day for a century!" -P.Kreeft, Ph.D.

I wonder what his PhD thesis was on. Dubious statistics? Blatant appeals to authority? Silly and unjustified comparisons?

(I believe the story of Sampson and of Jonah are parables, in exactly the same approach Jesus Himself used later.)

And hopefully Job, too.

The New Testament is mainly a collection of historical records and letters. All highly useful in giving us insight into the religion and beliefs of the Church founded by Jesus Christ. Is it complete? No, but it's pretty good.

I think this is a major point - one which people don't get. Most people don't give much thought to how the Bible was compiled. They just assume that the early (well, somewhat early, anyways) must have gotten it right and included everything which is important. There are other Gospels left out. There are plenty of writings which could be equally, or even more, useful to a modern Christian. But too many people draw the line at the Bible - their Bible (whatever version it happens to be) and say, "This is it! I don't need anything else!")

You and I may disagree on what further writings are/are not useful, but the point is to make one's own spiritual journey, I think. We all should try and seek truth, rather than expecting it to be handed to us in a gilded book.

And hopefully Job, too.
and Adam and Eve.

It bares note that Jesus was aware off all of those prophecies before he fullfilled them.

Yes, tricky guy fufilling 30 prophecies alone the day he was born.

If you collected the works of all the great playwrights and philosophers of Ancient Greece into one compilation then it'd win hands down.

That, like my original statement, is entirely a matter of opinion.


It'd also contain exactly 67.32 times more lols than the Bible. FACT.

Conceded ;)

And hopefully Job, too.


Yeah totally... You know your life is in a bad way when you say to yourself :"Well, Job had it worse than I do..."


I think this is a major point - one which people don't get. Most people don't give much thought to how the Bible was compiled. They just assume that the early (well, somewhat early, anyways) must have gotten it right and included everything which is important. There are other Gospels left out. There are plenty of writings which could be equally, or even more, useful to a modern Christian. But too many people draw the line at the Bible - their Bible (whatever version it happens to be) and say, "This is it! I don't need anything else!")

You and I may disagree on what further writings are/are not useful, but the point is to make one's own spiritual journey, I think. We all should try and seek truth, rather than expecting it to be handed to us in a gilded book.

Agreed.

Yes, tricky guy fufilling 30 prophecies alone the day he was born.

It would have been better if Dan had said "the people writing the Gospels knew the prophecies". There are clear signs of the Gospel writers deliberately trying to fulfil their interpretation of OT 'prophecies', the most obvious example being Matthew's claim that Jesus entered Jerusalem riding a horse and a donkey at the same time, circus style. This peculiar tale can be traced back to "Matthew's" mangled understanding of the Septuagint.

Disclaimer: this post was written based on memory and without a Bible to hand. Any factual errors contained in this post are entirely the fault of the reader for disturbing the quantum fluctuations at an inopportune moment.

Is there other scripture out there? yep. Of courselike this (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/)?


a Mormon= more fake religion

That, like my original statement, is entirely a matter of opinion.

Certainly, although in my opinion all of the really interesting characters in Christianity turned up after the Bible was written. My personal favourite is St Simeon, who spent twenty years livnig on the top of a fifty-foot pole in the desert; apparently people came from miles around to see him and to ask him for spiritual guidance and relationship advice (what kind of advice they got from a guy who'd lived on a fifty-foot pole for twenty years is beyond me :p).

like this (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/)?

= more fake religion

Who are you to determine what is and is not "fake religion"? Do you have a direct line to some deity to ask?

like this (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/)?


= more fake religion

Did that make you feel any better about yourself?

Like I said:Chill. You're not impressing anybody.

Certainly, although in my opinion all of the really interesting characters in Christianity turned up after the Bible was written. My personal favourite is St Simeon, who spent twenty years livnig on the top of a fifty-foot pole in the desert; apparently people came from miles around to see him and to ask him for spiritual guidance and relationship advice (what kind of advice they got from a guy who'd lived on a fifty-foot pole for twenty years is beyond me :p).

Hehe.

I can't really choose a favorite, since I'm sure no matter who I pick there'll be another out there whose story is even better. ATM I'm partial to Jacques deMolay.

I agree with this. but again, the Bible is God's WORD, not God.

thus I use the bible in conjunction with prayer. Never the bible alone.

A person cannot know God from the neck up. You could spend your entire life, just as the pharises did, trying to do so. In the end, your belief is in vain, for it never really existed. Scripture shows that the key lays in men's hearts, not in grey-matter.

These conversations are all very George Bushian, IMO.

"No, I don't have to take the Bible as factual, I can take the parts I find useful to me, and call them holy. The parts that I don't like, well, those are outdated, or parables, or mistranslated, or not *really* what the original author intended."

Further proof that "modernized" religion isn't all it's cracked up to be. If you can pick and choose what you want to respect/reverence/obey/believe in the Bible, why not do it to the Constitution?

I figure if you're going to live by something, live by it. Half assing it isn't the way to go.

I respect religion and the void it fills in people's lives, but I don't follow the Bible (or any other Holy Writ, for that matter), or at least any part of it that is specific to the Bible. Example: while murder and incest are forbidden in the Bible, they're taboo almost everywhere else in the world.

I can't get behind any god that says anyone deserves to die for how they were born. I can't get behind any religion that says a woman doesn't have the right to her own body. I can't get behind any religion that implies mankind should be in fear of anything other than failing to reach their potential. I can't get behind a religion (though the debate of the Biblical veracity of this is still heated) that says a "loving" god would allow anyone to burn forever in agonized pain and terror.

If those parts aren't valid any more for modern Christians, exactly which parts do we decide to keep?

If the OT is symbolic, a parable, incorrect, fable, etc, then Jesus was just some cool cat that had good ideas but was out of his mind. If not, you have to believe it all. In any case, like it or not, the Bible is either a whole, or completely invalid as a means for religious growth. Whether it has any relevance as a look at the mythology of the most prevalent faith systems in the world, as a set of odd yet ideal philosophical ideals, or a Macchiavellian manual for "What Not To Do" when trying to create a peaceable world, remains to be seen.

These conversations are all very George Bushian, IMO.

"No, I don't have to take the Bible as factual, I can take the parts I find useful to me, and call them holy. The parts that I don't like, well, those are outdated, or parables, or mistranslated, or not *really* what the original author intended."

Further proof that "modernized" religion isn't all it's cracked up to be. If you can pick and choose what you want to respect/reverence/obey/believe in the Bible, why not do it to the Constitution?

I figure if you're going to live by something, live by it. Half assing it isn't the way to go.

I respect religion and the void it fills in people's lives, but I don't follow the Bible (or any other Holy Writ, for that matter), or at least any part of it that is specific to the Bible. Example: while murder and incest are forbidden in the Bible, they're taboo almost everywhere else in the world.

I can't get behind any god that says anyone deserves to die for how they were born. I can't get behind any religion that says a woman doesn't have the right to her own body. I can't get behind any religion that implies mankind should be in fear of anything other than failing to reach their potential. I can't get behind a religion (though the debate of the Biblical veracity of this is still heated) that says a "loving" god would allow anyone to burn forever in agonized pain and terror.

If those parts aren't valid any more for modern Christians, exactly which parts do we decide to keep?

If the OT is symbolic, a parable, incorrect, fable, etc, then Jesus was just some cool cat that had good ideas but was out of his mind. If not, you have to believe it all. In any case, like it or not, the Bible is either a whole, or completely invalid as a means for religious growth. Whether it has any relevance as a look at the mythology of the most prevalent faith systems in the world, as a set of odd yet ideal philosophical ideals, or a Macchiavellian manual for "What Not To Do" when trying to create a peaceable world, remains to be seen.

Wow in that tirade you only missed a couple of the usual anti-Christian talking points. You must really be up on your pamphlets.

Wow in that tirade you only missed a couple of the usual anti-Christian talking points. You must really be up on your pamphlets.

:D

You failed though, because Jesus was never in rome, let alone killed there. Silly poster. ;)

Yes, but the cliche *shudders*.. phrase is "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." Since the Romans did all that, according to the 'Idolized Bible', it made..sense.. maybe?

meh to that

I was raised Christian. If I were ever to choose a Judeo-Christian spirituality, I would go back to Christianity, I even know more about the Bible than most people I know. I know the arguments that state that Christ's new covenant nullified most of the Mosaic Law, that according to the Post-Gospel NT, the only dietary stipulation that Christians were bound by was to keep abstaining from blood, that the "harshness" of the OT was replaced by Christ saying, "I am giving you a new law, that you love one another." I know that a lot of the reasoning behind allowing things like premarital sex, homosexuality, etc are because the Mosaic OT Law was designed to keep the Israelites seperate and clean from the nations, and that when Christ came, he was opening it up to be a nation of spirit, not a physical one, so strictures designed to promote being fruitful and mulitplying weren't needed. But the NT says that those men laying down with men would not inherit the kingdom of heaven; neither were the references to the OT judicial smitery of the heathens with extreme prejudice looked at as archaic and distasteful, now were they?

I love the beautiful things about Christianity. But I also love the beautiful things about Islam, about Buddhism, Wicca, Judaism, etc. I love the beautiful things about faith and the things that it can inspire. I love that the void in the souls of some is filled by trust and faith in a higher power.

Is it for me?

No.

Does my love of religion's potential excuse the hypocrisy so rife in it?

No.

So, anti-Christian?

No, but being a good human doesn't make one a good Christian, sorry. It was required to be more by Christ, so don't give me the line that all he wanted was for us to be good people. Read the whole NT, in conjunction with and referencing the OT, and THAT'S Christianity, whether it's convenient or not.

Who are you to determine what is and is not "fake religion"? Do you have a direct line to some deity to ask?You don't have to ask any deity to know that Mormonism is completely insubstantial. :p

all I say is
http://www.mormonthink.com/fac2.gif
:D

but, surely anyone who can respect Christians as people and even be *gasp* tolerant of their faith must be a brainwashed/brain dead fundie. ;)

(of course she isn't, but you know, when in Rome....)

Tolerance has become such a novel concept to some people, hasn't it?

Tolerance has become such a novel concept to some people, hasn't it?If certain concepts had any worth to them then they wouldn't need tolerance to artificially protect them.

If certain concepts had any worth to them then they wouldn't need tolerance to artificially protect them.

What if I said it was only by tolerance that I can stand people who arrogantly seem to think we evolved and came about on our own accord?

Where does your theory go then, eh?

not saying I feel that way of course..

If certain concepts had any worth to them then they wouldn't need tolerance to artificially protect them.

Can you at least make an effort not to be a jackass?

"If you were to calculate the probability of any one person fulfilling all the OT Messianic prophecies that Jesus fulfilled, it would be as astronomical as winning the lottery every day for a century!" -P.Kreeft, Ph.D.

Nonsense, he didn't even fulfill all of the prophecies.

If certain concepts had any worth to them then they wouldn't need tolerance to artificially protect them.

As much as i detest your atheist arrogance, I am willing to accord you the right to believe in whatever the hell you want to believe in. I think you're wrong. And yet, I don't harass you about it, at least until you harass me. Why the hell is it so hard for you to give me the same respect?

If certain concepts had any worth to them then they wouldn't need tolerance to artificially protect them.

How can you objectively measure worth?

What if I said it was only by tolerance that I can stand people who arrogantly seem to think we evolved and came about on our own accord?

Where does your theory go then, eh?

not saying I feel that way of course..

Well, if somebody says that, they don't understand evolution. Because evolution doesn't require a free pass from logical examination to be accepted-- indeed, it relies on it! His point was that if society deems it rude to apply rationality to an idea, it's probably because rationality would damage the idea too much.

That said, I respect the right of everybody to hold any idea, no matter how silly I think it is, but I don't agree with the premise that it's inherently wrong to attempt to apply reason to religious beliefs. I respect religious beliefs, but only to the extent that I respect non-religious beliefs. (Now, I might hold more or less respect for a particular idea after examining it, but in my examination, I won't put on the kiddie gloves just because it's religious)

How can you objectively measure worth?

Well, you could argue that an idea is worthy in the sense that it matches up with reality. For example, the idea that the Bible is literally true has little worth, because the Bible does not match up with history or science.

How can you objectively measure worth?of doctrine based on golden plates dug up from Cumorah hill in Manchester, New York? public display of those plates.

If certain concepts had any worth to them then they wouldn't need tolerance to artificially protect them.


You are lucky, being in the atheist minority that there is so much tolerance for atheists by those who don't hold the same views as yourself. It was tolerance that allowed freedom of or from religion to come about. It's tolerance that makes it so that you can say such things without getting killed. Tolerance is more than an artificial protection. It truely saves lives.

People like you make atheists look bad, in the same way that people like Phelps make Christians look bad.

Well, you could argue that an idea is worthy in the sense that it matches up with reality. For example, the idea that the Bible is literally true has little worth, because the Bible does not match up with history or science.

Possibly, but it's the idea and the people behind a religion and not its history that should measure its worth IMO.

of doctrine based on golden plates? public display of those plates.

We are talking about Mormonism? I assumed you were just talking about Christianity in general.

You are lucky, being in the atheist minority that there is so much tolerance for atheists by those who don't hold the same views as yourself. It was tolerance that allowed freedom of or from religion to come about. It's tolerance that makes it so that you can say such things without getting killed. Tolerance is more than an artificial protection. It truely saves lives.

People like you make atheists look bad, in the same way that people like Phelps make Christians look bad.

He isn't an atheist.

He isn't an atheist.

Really? What do you believe UB?

Possibly, but it's the idea and the people behind a religion and not its history that should measure its worth IMO.

Well, that's where I disagree. I think an idea-- any idea-- should be judged on whether or not it is true. Now, if we find it's untrue, that doesn't mean we can't learn a lesson from it or be inspired by it.

I mean, when I was younger and had first read The Lord of the Rings, I was inspired by the fact that in a story with kings of great kingdoms, with an elven prince and a dwarf lord, great captains and mighty warriors, it is a small, apparently unextraordinary, hobbit, with no apparent skill or valor, who ultimately is the most important hero of them all-- indeed, especially in the Return of the King, when it's mostly about his gardener! A lot of the ideas behind it-- the message of courage and friendship triumphing even over physical might-- are great.

But I still realize that it's not true. It's just a story. And if somebody tries to insist that The Lord of the Rings is true, then I think that that idea has little merit.

Well, that's where I disagree. I think an idea-- any idea-- should be judged on whether or not it is true. Now, if we find it's untrue, that doesn't mean we can't learn a lesson from it or be inspired by it.

I mean, when I was younger and had first read The Lord of the Rings, I was inspired by the fact that in a story with kings of great kingdoms, with an elven prince and a dwarf lord, great captains and mighty warriors, it is a small, apparently unextraordinary, hobbit, with no apparent skill or valor, who ultimately is the most important hero of them all-- indeed, especially in the Return of the King, when it's mostly about his gardener! A lot of the ideas behind it-- the message of courage and friendship triumphing even over physical might-- are great.

But I still realize that it's not true. It's just a story. And if somebody tries to insist that The Lord of the Rings is true, then I think that that idea has little merit.

But you can't objectively show that any religion, or even philosophy is true. Should they be given no tolerance?

We are talking about Mormonism? I assumed you were just talking about Christianity in general.Just the same. If there is any evidence supporting the claim that Yeshua is Yhvh's son or incarnation or the Messiah (Christ) of Jewish scripture, then why is it not on public display somewhere? Maybe an eyewitness account? Why has Peter/Keipha not written a gospel?

But you can't objectively show that any religion, or even philosophy is true. Should they be given no tolerance?However, you might be able to show that a particular religion, or even philosophy is not true or highly dubious. Should they not be denied tolerance?

But you can't objectively show that any religion, or even philosophy is true. Should they be given no tolerance?

You can objectively show that the form of Christianity in which the Bible is true is untrue. Even if they don't believe that the Bible is literally true, there is no objective evidence supporting their claim, and the burden of proof is upon the affirmative claim. Now, I don't claim that tolerance should be awarded based on the merit of an idea. I'm not UB. I tolerate Christians just fine, if they don't try to impose their beliefs on me. (And no matter what Christians say, it's not a rare fringe group that does this. I live in the South, and here, it's very common) Indeed, most of my friends are Christian --it's inevitable, again, living in the South.

However, I won't treat their beliefs with kiddie gloves when thinking about it/debating it/ whatever. I won't say "Oh, that idea is religious, so it's immune the the usual standards I apply to ideas." I'll think that their religion has little objective merit, but I'll still be their friend just the same! It's the same way I have Republican friends, who I think have the silliest political beliefs. Many of them even know I find their political beliefs stupid. But that doesn't mean I don't tolerate them!

However, you might be able to show that a particular religion, or even philosophy is not true or highly dubious. Should they not be denied tolerance?

I'm not so sure. This is based on the fact that science is infallible, which it isn't. The only certainty is that there are no certainties.

You can objectively show that the form of Christianity in which the Bible is true is untrue. Even if they don't believe that the Bible is literally true, there is no objective evidence supporting their claim, and the burden of proof is upon the affirmative claim. Now, I don't claim that tolerance should be awarded based on the merit of an idea. I'm not UB. I tolerate Christians just fine, if they don't try to impose their beliefs on me. (And no matter what Christians say, it's not a rare fringe group that does this. I live in the South, and here, it's very common) Indeed, most of my friends are Christian --it's inevitable, again, living in the South.

However, I won't treat their beliefs with kiddie gloves when thinking about it/debating it/ whatever. I won't say "Oh, that idea is religious, so it's immune the the usual standards I apply to ideas." I'll think that their religion has little objective merit, but I'll still be their friend just the same! It's the same way I have Republican friends, who I think have the silliest political beliefs. Many of them even know I find their political beliefs stupid. But that doesn't mean I don't tolerate them!

Fair enough.

Regarding th OP:

Gods words (as written in the Bible): "Thou shalt have no other God before me." So, those who worship the bible instead of god are guilty of Idoltry, and are no doubt going to Hell in the first place.

End of debate.

Fair enough.

:)

It's funny. In the thread I started earlier, I think a lot of people got the idea that I was trying to say that "religion is inherently stupid. Let's all hate religious people." But all I was really trying to say is "why do so many people in society shun people who apply the same thought processes and logical standards to religion as to other ideas?" I don't hate religious people at all, even if I think a lot of their ideas are silly.

Probably my own fault for titling it "Religion and Undeserved Respect," but I wanted a short, attention grabbing title. :D

I'm not so sure. This is based on the fact that science is infallible, which it isn't. The only certainty is that there are no certainties.You don't necessarily need science to see that some ideas don't hold water, sometimes all it takes is common sense.
E.g. in the case of Mormonism, do you really need science to know that this is the work of an overzealous attention whore?

You don't necessarily need science to see that some ideas don't hold water, sometimes all it takes is common sense.
E.g. in the case of Mormonism, do you really need science to know that this is the work of an overzealous attention whore?

Well in this case, historical sources which are also fallible.

You don't necessarily need science to see that some ideas don't hold water, sometimes all it takes is common sense.
E.g. in the case of Mormonism, do you really need science to know that this is the work of an overzealous attention whore?

So I take it you have had bad experiences with mormons.

So I take it you have had bad experiences with mormons.No, why? What would experience have to do with the credibility of the foundation of their doctrine?

No, why? What would experience have to do with the credibility of the foundation of their doctrine?


You seem to have singled them out in this thread.

Well in this case, historical sources which are also fallible.??

No, why? What would experience have to do with the credibility of the foundation of their doctrine?

Everything.

He may just be basing that assumption off the fact that you swear there is no point in discussing this entire subject, yet avidly/violently/rabidly/somewhat effectively defend the fallibilty/pointlessness/fragrance of religion/religious followers. As if you were traumatized as a young man.

No, why? What would experience have to do with the credibility of the foundation of their doctrine?

They tend to be a bunch of assfucks? ;)

??

What? They are fallible.

Everything.

He may just be basing that assumption off the fact that you swear there is no point in discussing this entire subject, yet avidly/violently/rabidly/somewhat effectively defend the fallibilty/pointlessness/fragrance of religion/religious followers. As if you were traumatized as a young man.What a bullshit. The fact that certain religious groups base their beliefs on made-up crap has nothing to do with me personally at all. If I told you the earth ain't flat, does that depend on me? It doesn't, just like Joseph Smith fabricating a neat story to start his own little sect doesn't depend on me.

They tend to be a bunch of assfucks? ;)what are you talking about?

What? They are fallible.The sources that claim that there are golden plates in a hill in New York?

What a bullshit. The fact that certain religious groups base their beliefs on made-up crap has nothing to do with me personally at all. If I told you the earth ain't flat, does that depend on me? It doesn't, just like Joseph Smith fabricating a neat story to start his own little sect doesn't depend on me.

That was less coherant than usual.

"If I told you the earth ain't flat, does that depend on me?"
The earth being un-flat doesn't depend on you, unless you are God. However, you telling me the earth is flat, does depend on you, because if you hadn't told me, you wouldn't have told me.

No it doesn't.
"Joseph Smith fabricating a neat story to start his own little sect doesn't depend on me"

But your opinion on the matter does have to do with you. Greatly. As it is your opinion.

what are you talking about?


Havn't you ever seen a mormon?


The sources that claim that there are golden plates in a hill in New York?

I thought that it was taught that those plates were dug up by Joseph Smith, but in any case the only way you can show a religion is false without science is with historical sources that contradict it. You also need historical sources to show that he was an attention whore. Historical sources are fallible.

That was less coherant than usual.

"If I told you the earth ain't flat, does that depend on me?"
The earth being un-flat doesn't depend on you, unless you are God. However, you telling me the earth is flat, does depend on you, because if you hadn't told me, you wouldn't have told me.

No it doesn't.
"Joseph Smith fabricating a neat story to start his own little sect doesn't depend on me"

But your opinion on the matter does have to do with you. Greatly. As it is your opinion.Oh yeah. That the earth isn't flat is only my personal opinion. Very funny.

Oh, and let me see the golden plates, please.

Havn't you ever seen a mormon?I have. They always walk around like pretty anal gay couples. (nothing against gay couples)

I thought that it was taught that those plates were dug up by Joseph Smith, but in any case the only way you can show a religion is false without science is with historical sources that contradict it. You also need historical sources to show that he was an attention whore. Historical sources are fallible.But the point is that the historical sources (the plates) are absent in this case. So why would I need something to contradict them?

But the point is that the historical sources (the plates) are absent in this case. So why would I need something to contradict them?

Just because they are absent, doesn't mean they are non existent. It just means that you can't find them.

Oh yeah. That the earth isn't flat is only my personal opinion. Very funny.

Oh, and let me see the golden plates, please.

It is your personal opinion, but it is also a fact.
Religious beliefs are opinions that have not been proven as fact yet.

And....ookay.. golden plates...
Just look up "golden plate" on a google image search and you will seek what you find.

On a more serious note, finding the golden plates wouldn't mean much of anything.. with enough gold, I could inscribe some golden tablets of holy scripture a well.

I have. They always walk around like pretty anal gay couples. (nothing against gay couples)



Read that a few times.
Was that supposed to be a joke, or was it an unfortunate multiple pairing of words?

Just because they are absent, doesn't mean they are non existent. It just means that you can't find them.Very funny. Show me the plates and we can easily turn belief into knowledge, can't we? I am ready to dig up that Cumorah hill in Manchester, New York. What about you? Do you hold out the hope to find the plates and find something divine about them? I would love to try to translate them myself anytime.

Did that make you feel any better about yourself?

Like I said:Chill. You're not impressing anybody.

He's not here to impress, he's here to distress and make a mess. I must confess I would expect no less, as his rudeness he is willing to frequently express with great success.

God Bless

He's not here to impress, he's here to distress and make a mess. I must confess I would expect no less, as his rudeness he is willing to frequently express with great success.

God Bless

Amen.

what is the underlying message of the bible? submission under god.

The message does not have to necessarily be religious. More like a life lesson.

The message does not have to necessarily be religious. More like a life lesson.


Right, its not about being submissive, mindless robots, granted most people are like that. Its about being close and personal to God, the creator. He tells us to do or avoid things, based on what will keep us safe. I mean, I think not being promiscuous has its ups, as in a decreased chance in not getting pregnant, diseases, or simply getting into a bad situation with a person.

Right, its not about being submissive, mindless robots, granted most people are like that. Its about being close and personal to God, the creator. He tells us to do or avoid things, based on what will keep us safe. I mean, I think not being promiscuous has its ups, as in a decreased chance in not getting pregnant, diseases, or simply getting into a bad situation with a person.

Yeah, but if you wait till marriage and then you have no clue how to please him/her, according to your gender and preference.:p (Though, to be honest, if your religion demands waiting till marriage, you can probably cross preference out, cause it probably also demands that you prefer the opposite sex)

Yeah, but if you wait till marriage and then you have no clue how to please him/her, according to your gender and preference.:p (Though, to be honest, if your religion demands waiting till marriage, you can probably cross preference out, cause it probably also demands that you prefer the opposite sex)

Well, if you have my view on the bible, you can a bit more wiggle room.

Besides, awkward virgin sex on a wedding night can make for hilarious memories :p

Well, if you have my view on the bible, you can a bit more wiggle room.

Besides, awkward virgin sex on a wedding night can make for hilarious memories :p

A little more wiggle room on the waiting part, or the preference part? Or both?
If so, why exactly are the parts condemning those things in there? (And don't take that sarcastically or whatever. I'm genuinely curious.)

A little more wiggle room on the waiting part, or the preference part? Or both?
If so, why exactly are the parts condemning those things in there? (And don't take that sarcastically or whatever. I'm genuinely curious.)


Well, here is what I am thinking, and I don't proclaim to be right. Just simply a thought. On the idea of homosexuality and sinfulness, in the jewish law, I thought that perhaps it was a safe guard sent by God to ensure the survival of the Jewish people, and his word along with them. I mean, if all your people are running around having sex with the same sex, then you aren't making babies most likely, and you soon die off. Since they didn't have invitro or anything like that back then, I would think that is a probable conclusion.

"So here you have incredible predictions fulfilled in the life of one man, even though he had no control over them. He couldn't arrange his ancestry, the timing of his birth, etc. These prophecies were written hundreds of years in advance. No other book in the world has this." - N.Geisler

Really? Like the Curse of Jeconiah?

Perhaps you'll look it up?

Just because they are absent, doesn't mean they are non existent. It just means that you can't find them.

That sounds kinda familiar ...

Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know.
...and more to the point...
There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something does exist does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist. :eek:

Well, if you have my view on the bible, you can a bit more wiggle room.

Besides, awkward virgin sex on a wedding night can make for hilarious memories :p

Ah, Zi, you always come through in a pinch for me. I got what i came for. :D

Really? Like the Curse of Jeconiah?

Perhaps you'll look it up?

Oddly enough I was just reading about this when I saw you posted this.

http://jewsforjesus.org/answers/prophecy/jeconiah

Pretty decent read.

Ah, Zi, you always come through in a pinch for me. I got what i came for. :D

Well, I am glad I am of some use! :D

I remember reading an apocryphal text somewhere — believe it was attributed to the so-called St. Thomas Gospel — where Yeshuah (Jesus) said, "God's word is not in books, dead words upon a dead page; God's Word is written in the hearts of everyone." Toggled to reflect gender-neutrality...

The St. Thomas gospel has since been discredited by the Church fathers but it's not a bad premise to base your thinking around. Organized religion attempts to make sense out of what would otherwise be the disconnected, semi-coherent ramblings of mystics with no basis in reality or guarantees of veracity. We see the flip side of the fundamentalist coin in 300, with the Ephors who listen to a "drunken adolescent girl" babble nonsense and proclaim it means [insert personal agenda here], and mortal men like Xerxes who go stomping around saying, "I'm God, bow to me and me alone" with impunity. Inasmuch as that, organized religion has a place.

Conversely, literal interpretation of dead words on a dead page causes things like the Taliban and Jerry Falwell to happen. Hundreds of millions fated to suffer and die, needlessly, in misery and pain on account of theocrats proclaiming it against God's Will. Remember in the Middle Ages, when priests forbade their flocks to practice even basic hygiene because to bathe and brush your teeth constituted the deadly sin of Vanity? Mediaeval Europe staggered and crumpled under a panoply of diseases, causing wholesale suffering, because of that. Wonder what Yeshuah had to say to the theocrats who got that ball rolling when they died?

Well, I am glad I am of some use! :D

Argh!
Don't say that!
People'll start saying you're "the Kleenex" of NS. :p

Oddly enough I was just reading about this when I saw you posted this.

http://jewsforjesus.org/answers/prophecy/jeconiah

Pretty decent read.

Not bad, indeed (if i may reference the infamous poster).

I remember reading an apocryphal text somewhere — believe it was attributed to the so-called St. Thomas Gospel — where Yeshuah (Jesus) said, "God's word is not in books, dead words upon a dead page; God's Word is written in the hearts of everyone." Toggled to reflect gender-neutrality...

The St. Thomas gospel has since been discredited by the Church fathers but it's not a bad premise to base your thinking around. Organized religion attempts to make sense out of what would otherwise be the disconnected, semi-coherent ramblings of mystics with no basis in reality or guarantees of veracity. We see the flip side of the fundamentalist coin in 300, with the Ephors who listen to a "drunken adolescent girl" babble nonsense and proclaim it means [insert personal agenda here], and mortal men like Xerxes who go stomping around saying, "I'm God, bow to me and me alone" with impunity. Inasmuch as that, organized religion has a place.

Conversely, literal interpretation of dead words on a dead page causes things like the Taliban and Jerry Falwell to happen. Hundreds of millions fated to suffer and die, needlessly, in misery and pain on account of theocrats proclaiming it against God's Will. Remember in the Middle Ages, when priests forbade their flocks to practice even basic hygiene because to bathe and brush your teeth constituted the deadly sin of Vanity? Mediaeval Europe staggered and crumpled under a panoply of diseases, causing wholesale suffering, because of that. Wonder what Yeshuah had to say to the theocrats who got that ball rolling when they died?

Oddly enough, my name is Thomas :eek: Anyways, good post :)

Argh!
Don't say that!
People'll start saying you're "the Kleenex" of NS. :p

Kleenex? No telling what'd they'd blow on me! :eek:

The message does not have to necessarily be religious. More like a life lesson.Submit to God, and you'll be fine? How is that a life lesson?

Its about being close and personal to God, the creator.To Enki? Or Atum?

Oddly enough I was just reading about this when I saw you posted this.

http://jewsforjesus.org/answers/prophecy/jeconiah

Pretty decent read.

Basically summarised as:

'Yeah, well, when it says "Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule any more in Judah" what it really means is "Record this man as if not childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for it is not the case that none of his offspring will prosper, or that none will sit on the throne of David or rule any more in Judah".'

Basically they're saying that the OT is incoherent and contradictory, isn't that supposed to be our line? :p

Well, here is what I am thinking, and I don't proclaim to be right. Just simply a thought. On the idea of homosexuality and sinfulness, in the jewish law, I thought that perhaps it was a safe guard sent by God to ensure the survival of the Jewish people, and his word along with them. I mean, if all your people are running around having sex with the same sex, then you aren't making babies most likely, and you soon die off. Since they didn't have invitro or anything like that back then, I would think that is a probable conclusion.

But doesn't that only make sense if one can choose to be homosexual or heterosexual? I mean, straight people won't suddenly turn gay of God doesn't forbid it, right?

However, you might be able to show that a particular religion, or even philosophy is not true or highly dubious. Should they not be denied tolerance?

No, not at all. We all have the right to believe in whatever we believe in, providing we aren't harming others. (And no, I don't include 'belief in an untruth' to be harming myself or others) There are people out there who believe that children raised by gays are somehow harmed by their parent's gayness. They can believe that, up until they try to change laws to force their belief upon others. Some people believe that we never landed on the moon. They have my sympathy, but they can go right on believing that, because it doesn't harm others.

Basically summarised as:

'Yeah, well, when it says "Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule any more in Judah" what it really means is "Record this man as if not childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for it is not the case that none of his offspring will prosper, or that none will sit on the throne of David or rule any more in Judah".'

Basically they're saying that the OT is incoherent and contradictory, isn't that supposed to be our line? :p


No no silly. There was a curse on Jeconiah, and then God took it away because he repented. Like, you know, mankind is cursed to the second death(hell) unless there is repentance.

But doesn't that only make sense if one can choose to be homosexual or heterosexual? I mean, straight people won't suddenly turn gay of God doesn't forbid it, right?

Well, if there are rules saying no homosexuality, chances are if you live under a strict system, even if you are homosexual, you won't practice openly. I guess with what I am saying is that you can be open with it? Actually I really don't know what I am saying. :confused::p

No no silly. There was a curse on Jeconiah, and then God took it away because he repented. Like, you know, mankind is cursed to the second death(hell) unless there is repentance.according to whom?

Kleenex? No telling what'd they'd blow on me! :eek:

FTW.
*bows*

No no silly. There was a curse on Jeconiah, and then God took it away because he repented. Like, you know, mankind is cursed to the second death(hell) unless there is repentance.

I have a question for you about this ... there's a few sources that qualify "Satan" as God's strongest advocate for conscience - which is funny if you think of God supposedly being omniscient ... and i wonder just how much of Satan was actually being God's conscience to allow this little perturbation in the text so that Jesus' lineage has some kind of authority to it?

You know ... a choir of angels being a chorus ...

And btw - what, no capitalising "He"? The guy who basically qualifies lineage of Jesus? :p

http://www.fstdt.com/funnyimages/uploads/131.jpg
:D

Indeed.

What, no takers?
:(