Can you put those quotes in context then? What exactly is god saying there?
Atheists
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
Can you put those quotes in context then? What exactly is god saying there?
oldngray
nowhere special
First who was that written to? Old Testament Hebrews so do not apply to the Christian Church. It was written for us ( for edification) but not to us, so cannot be used as the basis of doctrine. Refer to my post #533 for a more complete explanation and read the link.
He does. And as a Christian, I can peruse your questions, ponder them, theorize about them and come up quite honestly with a shrug of the shoulders and say, "I have no idea.". Still it would not change my faith because the two can obviously exist together.
Why would god want "Old Testament Hebrews" to kill adulterers and homosexuals but not want Christians to do the same? Where does the bible make that distinction?
Upsmule
Well-Known Member
The Levitical laws in the Books of Moses ( the Pentitude or first 5 books of the Torah ). These laws were written for a new nation of people that lived in a Theocracy. A people God was setting apart from the nations around them at the time. As well as the pegan practices around them. They weren't pushed upon those nations not are they expected of anyone today.
Upsmule
Well-Known Member
Christianity believes that Jesus was God Almighty Himself in human flesh. The original law of God is merely the 10 commandment. Those ten are merely proof that none of us can keep them. All have lied. All have stolen something. All have coveted something our neighbor has but we don't because all are born selfish in nature period.
The only one that has ever lived and was perfect in keeping the law was God Himself in human flesh. Who's own blood satisfied His own wrath. The Old Testament sacrifices of lambs and goats are nothing more than a picture pointing to the ultimate sacrifice that was to come. The virgin born sinless without blemish Lamb of God.
Yeah, quite a stretch I know. How could anyone believe such a cockamamy story? Talk about faith huh? To me it's hardly blind faith. Blind faith to me is completely assuming that life had no origin. That micro organisms just appeared billions and billions of years after a sun just magically appeared billions and billions of light years before that...all by itself. By accident. In perfect order amongst a chaotic universe. 0+0= everything? No ...even I don't have that kind of radical faith. Nothing from nothing still makes nothing.
You didn't address what I said at all.
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.
Put the above statement in context. Why would god say this?
Once again you're not addressing what I asked. How is the above an answer to to this:
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Appeal to majority/Bandwagon
If true, then coming from your POV, god created us imperfect. If we are created imperfect we would be incapable of fully following god's will in the first place. Adam if you will never had a chance. God all along wanted sin and death introduced into the world. If the game was already rigged to begin with, how does god therefore find any fault with any human being and thus stand in judgement of? And god being all knowing, he knew at some point I would actually read his bible and study it so why did he not grant me to understand it the way he wanted me too? Or am I understanding it exactly the way he wants me to?
One can only conclude "god never knew me" and his plan was "never to know me" so how am I right now at this moment not fulfilling god's divine plan or his will if you prefer? If I'm acting according to his will, how am I going against god or committing a sin when I'm doing exactly what god wants me to do? If god hardened my heart, how am I not coming to the conclusion god wanted me to come too? If god loves me, then why did he not grant me understanding and instead harden my heart? If god never loved me then god is not love and how then is he just?
If god is love, why did god have Abraham lie to Pharaoh that Sarah was his sister and then when Pharaoh acted upon what Abraham told him, god punished Pharaoh. But it was Abraham who was the false witness and yet it was Pharaoh who suffered. God rewarded the liar and punished the one who believed the lie as truth. How is that just or love?
If god is love then why would he harden pharaoh's heart wen Moses told Pharaoh to let the Israelites go? BTW: Who sent the Israelites to Egypt in the first place? Why? Who caused the famine? Who had the power to end the famine?
Why not open pharaoh's heart and convert the entire Egyptian empire which would stand as an even greater testament to god's might and power? But is the point of these early stories was to make a grand nationalist story as a means of giving foundation to support self serving nationalists means, a Pharaoh accepting god and releasing the Israelites upon Moses first request serves no purpose to that end. But a defeated and supposed destroyed Egypt feeds a nationalist cause and making the tribal masses to think they are the greatest nation man has ever known by the divine hand of god. Hmmm, now where have I heard that one before?
Never said otherwise but then that also goes in both directions so think about it.
So we agree that god practices occult when it comes to people knowing and understanding his will.
And so does a jug of milk. Pray to a jug of milk and the answers will always be yes, no or wait.
Then why did god give us a mind capable of questioning and seeking for answers in the first place?
That's the most honest, true statement I think I've ever seen you make in this entire forum and you would be 100% right. But take the bible totally off the table, it's not there nor has it ever existed,
Yet, you continuously quote the bible all over this forum so using the above statement as fact, you believe everyone else here in this forum is a kook or crook? Please explain how you've determined all the rest of us are kooks or crooks?
You are also contradicting yourself in on the one hand you say you don't need the bible for truth and then you claim the bible as a source for truth. So which is it because it can't be both at the same time.
And for the record, not that I've not said this before, there is "some" truth in the bible. I'm not against the bible and the value it can bring, I'd just like to see full disclosure as to what it is and how we got it in the first place and then for people to have the courage to read and tackle it's contents straight on.
If the bible is not needed and you rightly stating that fact is not the first time you've said that either, then why the need to offer the above quote? So be honest enough to tell me, which am I, a kook, a crook or both? If I'm either or both, do you make a habit of responding too and engaging in conversations with kooks and/or crooks? For what reason? Of what value does it bring? Since you've already opened the door to quoting scripture, does the good book say not to cast your pearls before swine? Why are you doing just that and going against what the good book sez?
If we have freewill and we are not programmed robots, then why are we whose choose not to follow a programmed path judged and condemned? How is this choice no different than the typical thief who sticks a gun to your head with the demand, "your money or your life!" Or in other words, "your compliance or your life!" That's a false choice and not a true action in which free will can take place.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy sez of Free Will:
Various alternatives would seem to me to imply giving of all facts and both you and gray have already admitted we can't know all the facts of god as some things, maybe a lot of things to some christians are by their own admission a mystery and unknowable. There is even a need for an apologist to explain the contradictions or the mysteries so this actually proves that people do want to know and understand and not be kept in the dark. Yes, humans do have a curious nature and when given all the facts they can get of the various alternatives, they do try and apply some form of rational thought in choosing and making the choices that they make. Now if this is our nature and god being the designer and creator of this nature, then when we follow this nature and it's not exactly according to his plan, why are we judged and condemned. Our choice is to be a robot or die so how is that really free will instead of some form of a false choice?
Christians do it in making many a case on their behalf and yet when non-christians do it, now it's wrong?
Are you picking a verse also out of context? To give full context to the story, you'll also need to quote the books of Acts chapter 1 and how it tells the Judas story.
In Matthew, Judas is remorseful, throws back the money and goes and kills himself. In Acts, Judas is prideful and it's God who punishes Judas. So which is it? Which story is true because they both can't be. In one Judas is sorry and in the other he's not. Or did neither ever happen and both stories are pure allegory or metaphor to teach a greater lesson? If this is true, then why is the rest not also allegory or metaphor? But if literal it's a clear contradiction. So how can that be?
If true, then why did Peter stand up saying the scriptures had to be fulfilled in Acts Chapter 1 partly quoted above? And what Scriptures was he quoting? The New Testament didn't exist so what was Peter talking about? If the Old Testament is not for us, then why do we think the messiah it speaks of is for us too? Remove the Old Testament from the scene and now try and make heads or tails from the New Testament. What are the prophesies Jesus is to fulfill? At best the NT becomes the rants of a lunatic because it doesn't source itself. Why did the writers of the NT feel it so necessary to quote the Old if the Old means nothing to us?
Why did the book of Matthew start it's Jesus story using typology to connect Jesus as being pre-figured in Moses? Jesus was a born a saviour, threatened by a mass killing of children. Moses born a saviour also threatened by mass killing of children. Both found salvation in Egypt, Jesus in being taken there from Israel and Moses from Goshen and into the royal house. Jesus of royal heritage and Mose of royal heritage. Jesus faces wilderness experience and Moses faced a wilderness experience. Moses brings the perfect law of god and Jesus bring the perfect law of god. Why did any NT writer feel a need to pre-figure anything to the OT is the OT means nothing to us.
If the Old Testament is so meaningless as you seem to assert, seems to me the memo to the NT writers never arrived.
When Christ gives his commandments. Love the Lord your God withall your heart, all your soul and all your mind. Love your neighbor as yourself.
You didn't answer the question:
Why would god want "Old Testament Hebrews" to kill adulterers and homosexuals but not want Christians to do the same? What's the difference?
Upsmule
Well-Known Member
ah, I'm tired of having theological and philosophical discussions using my thumbs! So for now, all I can tell you is I once was blind but now I see. I have a hope - be it false hope or not - that He will be there when this life is over. You just keep right on hoping He's not bro. To each his own.
I have a hope - be it false hope or not - that He will be there when this life is over. You just keep right on hoping He's not bro. To each his own.
I think there's all the difference in the world. It's like giving a room full of 10 year olds a list of 30 rules to follow while you step out for 10 minutes. Invariably they will find the "gray area". Now if you tell them, "I'm leaving for a little bit. You know what kind of behavior I expect. See you in a little bit." Whole different mind set. This is a major part of why I don't understand "Judeo-Christian".
You're dancing pretty hard here so I'll simplify it a little bit: Why would god want anyone to kill adulterers and homosexuals? How is that ever OK?
I don't believe it is, but then I'm not a Hebrew and I have no idea how to square much of the Old Testament with Christ's commandments. How does anyone kill an adulterer or homosexual and claim he or she is "Loving the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind. And Love your neighbor as yourself."? I don't believe that's possible.
That's a good start, now just keep going
I think you are pigeon holing Christians a bit. There are quite a few of us who are pretty moderate. You know, not all Christians are Jerry Falwell the same way not all Muslims are Al-Quaida.That's a good start, now just keep going
wkmac
Well-Known Member
That's Jesus summarizing the 10 commandments in Exodus 20. Love god, commandments 1 through 4 and love you neighbor, commandments 5 through 10. So Jesus is using the OT just as he also said in Matthew 5 when he said "think not that I have come to destroy the law."
Jones question I can see for any christian is uncomfortable but it's a legit question. If the law still exists, if we still quote it and assert it even in the new testament then again, Jones question is valid.
Also add that there's a difference between temple law and the custom/moral law and it's the temple law from the christian perspective that has ended. Now is the prohibition on gays a temple law and if so, it's gone so..........
