|
The Protagonist posted:On some things in the old law there is no ambiguity. Don't intentionally misrepresent what you know him to be saying. Yeah there is no ambiguity in the bible so long as you ignore its sources of ambiguity.
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:13 |
|
|
Knifegrab posted:Serious question, is there a single shred of any evidence that can lead us to accept jesus christ and god as da real deal? no
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
The Protagonist posted:On some things in the old law there is no ambiguity. Don't intentionally misrepresent what you know him to be saying. I believe there is always at least a small measure of ambiguity. What is true becomes false in the right context, what is false becomes true likewise. I believe this doesn't mean there is no truth or falsehood, only that in most cases we don't really know it. I believe everything is more complicated than we know or possibly even CAN understand and we simply have to make do as best we can. Oversimplifications are to a degree probably necessary, but that hardly means they're necessarily good. Any one of those quotes can be argued to mean various other things. To refer to one of the linked quotes. 5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. CAN a baby even BE born without water? How about without spirit? Is it saying that babies who die before christening burn or that babies who die can't possibly- as you cannot BE born without these things? That someone used it to justify baptism as being a super-vital ritual is irrelevant to those questions. You can interpret it in whatever dramatic fashion you like, but that doesn't make it incontrovertibly correct.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Hmm, it is true that many of the greatest diseases cause blood to flow from the host, and some of the greatest plagues known to us do spread via the blood, but I am not yet convinced. What does a God need with a skull throne? If Khorne's lust for blood cannot be sated, why does he need a place to sit? Shouldn't he be out letting blood all the time to try and quench his eternal thirst? Nurgle needs a throne because Nurgle is a thinking man's God who spends his days researching and inventing better and better plagues. Thought is merely a pretense for war. Why else would the constructs of thought — race, religion, politics, nationality, rights, even love — so frequently end in rage, hatred, and inevitable bloody war? What are the greatest achievements of Mankind, if not mechanisms of killing (whether that be animals, plants, bacteria, or one another)? All of these are constructs of our thoughts, and they are common amongst all humans because they were seeded into us at the time of our creation. The Skull Throne is a metaphor, for even the Blood of worm and jellyfish and insect pleases Khorne, but may be considered insurance. As a god of Chaos, Khorne, though powerful, is not omnipotent (as the simpering weakling YHWH is supposed to be by its dupes). In the event that all life is extinguished, or slavelike warlessness is imposed unnaturally by some other power upon His prolific and violent creations, the Throne (so-called by His flawed human followers) will reamain, and through it He will revel again in every battle lost, every drop of blood shed, every life extinguished.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
The Snark posted:I believe there is always at least a small measure of ambiguity. What is true becomes false in the right context, what is false becomes true likewise. I believe this doesn't mean there is no truth or falsehood, only that in most cases we don't really know it. I believe everything is more complicated than we know or possibly even CAN understand and we simply have to make do as best we can. Yeah sure bro take a super duper non-old-testament quote that is written in metaphor as the example for how old-testament law is ambiguous 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Knifegrab posted:Yeah sure bro take a super duper non-old-testament quote that is written in metaphor as the example for how old-testament law is ambiguous Fair point, I chose poorly. I still think similar arguments could be made for a more appropriate one. Context changes everything. I also probably meant to reply to a different quote at that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
The Snark posted:Shortened to make this post not so long. To help you out I am going to post every single quote I used. They are very, VERY cut and dried except for the baptism one which I agree is open to interpretation; however, church policy for the last 2 thousand years has been that if you do not baptize a child they will burn in hell forever. Take it up with them. ------------------------------ Deuteronomy 22:28-29New International Version (NIV) 28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. --------------------------------------- Deuteronomy 13:9New International Version (NIV) 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. --------------------------------------- Leviticus 24:14New International Version (NIV) 14 “Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. --------------------------------------- Deuteronomy 13:15 (KJ21) 15 thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. --------------------------------------- Luke 19:27New International Version (NIV) 27 And Jesus said "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’” --------------------------------------- Exodus 31:14–16 14 You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 15 Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death. 16 Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever. --------------------------------------- Too many references to slavery to post here --------------------------------------- John 3:5New International Version (NIV) See above 5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. --------------------------------------- Exodus 22:18 New International Version "Do not allow a sorceress to live. --------------------------------------- Where is the grey area? The point of my post was that there is a lot of horrible stuff in the Bible and a lot of amazing things. Real "Love your neighbor" stuff. But people just pick and choose what they agree with. My favorite example of the phenomenon is this (sorry for the watermark): 
Travic fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
The Snark posted:Fair point, I chose poorly. I still think similar arguments could be made for a more appropriate one. Context changes everything. I also probably meant to reply to a different quote at that. Yeah no. The ones posted above are literally step by steps. Its a code book. There really wasn't any interpretation. No one's emissions were like donkeys here. Its "if you do x, then y should happen." Sure there are lots in the bible up for interpretation, its like any other fictional work, but there are lots that are straight up societal mores.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
Then why do you The Snark posted:Fair point, I chose poorly. I still think similar arguments could be made for a more appropriate one. Context changes everything. I also probably meant to reply to a different quote at that. quote:28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Then why do you Faith e: loving lol at that out of context Jesus quote up there btw
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Faith From where did that faith come from in the first place? Why is faith not an acceptable answer for other religions? That is, why are Mormons wrong, from your perspective?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Then why do you "Rape" is probably used incorrectly in NIV as other versions do not use that word so there is ambiguity already right there. It is ambiguous in any case because the passage immediately proceeding that passage reads.. "literally one verse up from that one" posted:25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her. pretty clearly this one is about rape. The other quoted passage is probably about premarital sex between unbetrothed partners. Miltank fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:The manner in which I utilized was meant to be humorous, but I am quite serious that you are astonishingly insipid and incapable of having a single interesting thought beyond "Oh gosh, I don't think you guys should be so mean all the time." You're like the old trope of a woman standing on a chair after seeing a mouse given human form. My Spirit was moving within you, causing you to write this post. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't carefully consider your motivations as a fallible, human writer in interpreting my holy commission.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
Miltank posted:"Rape" is probably used incorrectly in NIV as other versions do not use that word so there is ambiguity already right there. It is ambiguous in any case because the passage immediately proceeding that passage reads.. Other translations range from "has intercourse with" to "seizes and lies with"; force seems to be implied but either way, there is no mention of the woman's consent anywhere. The real difference between the passages seems to be betrothed vs not, which means as long as you rape a single virgin, you have to marry and never divorce her (oh, and buy her from her dad). e: yeah most of the translations I'm looking through use rape or seize or grab hold...some kind of force used. GAINING WEIGHT... fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Other translations range from "has intercourse with" to "seizes and lies with"; force seems to be implied but either way, there is no mention of the woman's consent anywhere. The real difference between the passages seems to be betrothed vs not, which means as long as you rape a single virgin, you have to marry and never divorce her (oh, and buy her from her dad). Its okay though, if the 'warranty' is void and she lies about it, you can stone her to death in front of her fathers door. So, either way you're in the clear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
Travic posted:Where is the grey area? First off, the possibility of the errata voted in by men could wipe the slate so to speak. As for Church doctrine regarding baptism, you are not going to find me arguing divine infallibility for a mortal authority- which is the Catholic Church and any other. In looking over these extremely short snippets heavily devoid of context in most regards I can't help but note additionally they seem to refer to the people of Israel and of that time. There is no clear indication that they are a guide as to how to deal with people in the here and now. I am an amateur, I am sure a more serious theologian would be horrified. But if grey is what you would like to see on a case by case basis- we can probably do that. In advance, yes it's goddamned theological gymnastics and handwaving, but it could well be correct for all we truly know. "28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." This seems to be the first literally applicable only in the time and society it was written for, first off. After all, who here has 29 silver shekels on them at present? Or ever? In the time and context for which it was intended, it could very well be argued that such a fate was kinder than the alternatives. Perhaps such a fate for the rapist was felt more shameful than any other punishment and thus this was more effective than almost any other punishment viable. By modern standards, it's certainly bloody awful though. We can do better. (I still dislike it's seeming leniency however, among other aspects.) "9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 14 “Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. 15 thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword." You cut a poo poo-ton of relevant context from these. They are not calling for just anyone to be cut down for saying 'goddamnit' and stubbing their tow. They are about how to deal with someone trying to start a new cult in your midst. Specifically there is a reference to... "13 ‘Certain men, the children of Belial, have gone out from among you and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods,” which ye have not known,’ 14 then shalt thou inquire, and make a search and ask diligently; and behold, if it be truth and the thing certain that such abomination is wrought among you, 15 thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword." Who are the children of Belial? Could they have been so pestilent in nature as to warrant this? Mayhap they were the bloody equivalent of Nurgle's followers. In which case burning anything they came in contact with could possibly be prudent. "27 And Jesus said "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”" Now you're just being an rear end in a top hat. Jesus is quoting someone else as part of a parable, he is NOT ACTUALLY SAYING for his people to bring HIS enemies before him and kill them. It does certainly prove however that if you take enough words out of context you can make even Jesus sound like a warmonger. " 14 You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 15 Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death. 16 Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever. " You win on this one, barring of course the possibility of a questionable translation. Specifically I wonder why there is a mention of them being cut off from among his people AND execution. The latter would seem to do both anyway. This pact with the people of Israel seems nevertheless pretty hardcore. No wonder the Jewish people still take it fairly seriously among those of faith. Sometimes, especially when the Bible talks about God saying something and then relenting when implored- such as Moses did in a later passage (http://biblia.com/books/esv/Ex32.11-14)- I suspect what we actually have is an example of God messing with people in unclear jest or in an effort to encourage polite argument. Otherwise why would an Omnipotent or Omniscient entity be swayed by a little tiny-brained meat bag? If there are too many references to slavery to post then there are too many for me to quibble about here. Instead, I have to suggest (as the site you linked itself did) that maybe the Bible highlights an incident where Paul done hosed up. Which should not be surprising, he was human too. Not even the Son of God. "Paul's violation of the Mosaic Code on slavery: While in prison, Paul met a runaway slave, Onesimus, the property of a Christian -- presumably Pheliemon. He sent the slave back to his owner. This action is forbidden in Deuteronomy 23:15-16: "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee." "He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him." Rather than give the slave sanctuary, Paul returned him to his owner. Paul seems to hint that he would like Pheliemon to give Onesimus his freedom, but does not actually request it. See the Letter to Philemon in the Christian Scriptures." If the Bible does not specifically condemn slavery, it does not endorse it either and would seem to have stated clearly that you are to give shelter to the escaped. The quote on Baptism has already been nicely grayed I'd say, can refer to the previous post if you like. So finally we have "Do not allow a sorceress to live." Show me a woman successfully casting magic missile and I might have to worry about this overmuch. Otherwise I remember some argument that this was a mistranslation of a word that actually meant 'poisoner' which seems more practical. At any rate, going back to your earlier quotes- the Bible did not tell you to kill your awesome Muslim roommate and I believe your church was pretty awful to argue against tolerance. Doesn't sound very Jesus-y at all. Rather thought the best way to demonstrate the superiority of one's faith was to live better myself. That is to say, be a wiser and kinder person. Apologies for the size of this, but the necessary quotes warranted it. The Snark fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Not to be picky, but could you quote the quotations so it doesn't look like a wall of text?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Not to be picky, but could you quote the quotations so it doesn't look like a wall of text? Edited to be somewhat clearer, though short of replacing it all with an infographic I don't see how it wouldn't still be a wall of text.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Miltank posted:KE is SUPER good at riling up retard atheists. He is honestly one of my favorite posters for this reason: he just says what he believes and people fall over themselves to make snarky comments like they aren't the ones getting trolled. I don't mean that he is a fake poster or anything, he is just a catholic anime goon innocently making posts while the forums burn around him. KE is trolling in much the same way that a circus clown making people laugh at him is trolling. Except that instead of a clown it's a guy screaming about how Catholicism is the only true religion despite having an extremely shaky understanding of Catholicism, religion, and truth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
The Snark posted:In looking over these extremely short snippets heavily devoid of context in most regards I can't help but note additionally they seem to refer to the people of Israel and of that time. There is no clear indication that they are a guide as to how to deal with people in the here and now. 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Why is God a guy?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Philip Rivers posted:Why is God a guy? Because gods have gender, male or female, how else would their reproductive system work? Budding Buddhas?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
The Snark posted:In looking over these extremely short snippets heavily devoid of context in most regards I can't help but note additionally they seem to refer to the people of Israel and of that time. There is no clear indication that they are a guide as to how to deal with people in the here and now. Then why are Christians trying to apply them to today? How many soldiers go over seas because they 'Get to shoot Muslims'? How many people today are all for going overseas and killing/converting anyone who's not a Christian? How many people in this country are trying to outlaw other religions (all those people outlawing Sharia Law). And don't tell me they do it to protect women. They're outlawing the entire thing, not just the parts about oppressing women. Why are people trying to make Christianity the state? Why are congressmen creating laws based on Christian views? Basically  Why do you people always scream that quoting the Bible takes it out of context? I've read the context of those quotes and they do not make them better. And anyway "Murder people," "Slavery is ok," "Marry your rapist" do not become ok under any sort of context. Just for kicks here is all of Deuteronomy 22 from another version of the Bible (King James) that used "and the man force her" instead of rape. And yes you can find versions that do not say "force" or "rape" but again that's just cherry picking from the Bible. The Snark posted:But if grey is what you would like to see on a case by case basis- we can probably do that. In advance, yes it's goddamned theological gymnastics and handwaving, but it could well be correct for all we truly know. I'm pointing out how there is no grey area in those rules. The Snark posted:In advance, yes it's goddamned theological gymnastics and handwaving, but it could well be correct for all we truly know. No, no, no, no. There is no "It could be correct" We are talking about murder and rape. There is no playing around with rules to make them say different things. The Snark posted:You cut a poo poo-ton of relevant context from these. They are not calling for just anyone to be cut down for saying 'goddamnit' and stubbing their tow. They are about how to deal with someone trying to start a new cult in your midst. Specifically there is a reference to... Ok here is the context. That is all of Deuteronomy 13, and while it does mention prophets of other religions being killed, 2 Chronicles 13 VERY explicitly states even with the full context that "That whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman." Also Deuteronomy 17 Also Leviticus 24 10-16 Actually does require you to stone anyone "Who stubs their toe and says 'Goddamnit' So yes. The Bible requires me to get the rest of my house mates together and stone my friend as well as burn the entire city as I'm sure there is a Islamic missionary somewhere in the city. The Snark posted:"Paul's violation of the Mosaic Code on slavery: I agree. As I said there is a lot of good stuff and a lot of bad stuff in the Bible. All you have proved is that the Bible is inconsistent and therefore why I don't follow it. You can pick any rule to follow or throw out. Again if I'm picking and choosing rules to follow to believe why am I reading it all? Were do you draw the line? How do you decide what rules are "Israelite tribe left-overs" and "burn in hell for not following"? That changes every year. We're mostly done with the murdering and torturing (Gay children are still beaten and brainwashed/forced to commit suicide from shame on a daily basis) though. The Snark posted:Show me a woman successfully casting magic missile and I might have to worry about this overmuch. Otherwise I remember some argument that this was a mistranslation of a word that actually meant 'poisoner' which seems more practical. That is very true. It is actually a mistranslation. It means either 'poisoner' or 'harmful magic user' But a lot of innocent people sure were killed because of it. And that's the point. The Bible has horrible stuff in it. I can't in good conscience throw out parts of the Bible because I disagree with them and still say I follow the Bible. Another rule that got thrown out as society advanced and realized the Bible is full of poo poo. The Snark posted:At any rate, going back to your earlier quotes- the Bible did not tell you to kill your awesome Muslim roommate See above The Snark posted:...I believe your church was pretty awful to argue against tolerance. Doesn't sound very Jesus-y at all. Rather thought the best way to demonstrate the superiority of one's faith was to live better myself. That is to say, be a wiser and kinder person. Yes! Yes, yes, yes! I agree. If you go back to my first post I'm not trying to be superior. I'm pointing out why we don't like the Bible. Why we don't respond well to people preaching it to us. You can have your religion. That's totally fine. But this is America so you have it over there and we can be over here and not bother each other. We've researched it, we've read and we don't like it. Please leave us alone. The same goes for people like Dawkins. Just leave each other alone. This thread is proof positive that Christians simply cannot stand the idea that someone in the world somewhere is not a Christian. Travic fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Dec 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. I've heard this one before, in which case the question then is what precisely was meant by 'fulfill'. There is perhaps an argument to be made that Jesus' death on the cross was- in dying for our sins- him taking those various death sentences on himself. Meaning that violating those laws is a death sentence but can be forgiven through Jesus who paid that price collectively for us. So, you know, if we come across any children of Belial, maybe it's a good idea to have flamethrowers handy and if you don't observe the Sabbath you can add that to your longer-than-you-know list of sins for which you quite likely need Jesus' forgiveness. For which, truly, he is legendary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Well, saw this thread in a lazy day of browsing, and I thought it'd be neat to see how it's changed from page 1 to page 77. We got discussions about Khorne, bible quotes, and debates over the 'literal/allegory' problems with biblical interpretation. Truly, a blessed work of  , I am proud of you guys.Also, if Jesus matters do much, then what about the Sumerians? They were cool, and all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
J.A.B.C. posted:Well, saw this thread in a lazy day of browsing, and I thought it'd be neat to see how it's changed from page 1 to page 77. Hey now! We talked about Grandpa Nurgle as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
J.A.B.C. posted:Well, saw this thread in a lazy day of browsing, and I thought it'd be neat to see how it's changed from page 1 to page 77. That was then, this is now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
The Snark posted:I've heard this one before, in which case the question then is what precisely was meant by 'fulfill'. There is perhaps an argument to be made that Jesus' death on the cross was- in dying for our sins- him taking those various death sentences on himself. quote:if you don't observe the Sabbath you can add that to your longer-than-you-know list of sins for which you quite likely need Jesus' forgiveness. For which, truly, he is legendary. What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin go on living in it? Paul is pretty clear if you know something is a sin and keep doing it, you're not really a Christian and you're hosed. Unless you want to throw out everything Paul wrote, it's pretty clear you can't just say "Even though working on the Sabbath is a sin, I can do it anyway and God will forgive me later."
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
Travic posted:Then why are Christians trying to apply them to today? How many soldiers go over seas because they 'Get to shoot Muslims'? How many people today are all for going overseas and killing/converting anyone who's not a Christian? How many people in this country are trying to outlaw other religions (all those people outlawing Sharia Law). And don't tell me they do it to protect women. They're outlawing the entire thing, not just the parts about oppressing women. Why are people trying to make Christianity the state? Why are congressmen creating laws based on Christian views? Your pessimistic interpretations of biblical scripture are not any more valid than those who interpret them positively. In fact all you are doing is arguing that the people who use it to endorse their own horribleness are right. People who interpret it negatively as an excuse to do horrible things are being horrible people. I think it highly likely they are wrong and I think at the end of all things may be in for a nasty surprise. Or maybe we will be, because IF God is that bloody minded- what you believe is still just as irrelevant as what I believe and we're all going to get roasted. Meanwhile Christian scripture has a pedigree unmatched by any other faith. It has, in whatever form, survived centuries upon centuries. This doesn't PROVE jack poo poo, but it's one of the reasons I am compelled to believe there is something in it of divine nature.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
The Snark posted:I've heard this one before, in which case the question then is what precisely was meant by 'fulfill'. There is perhaps an argument to be made that Jesus' death on the cross was- in dying for our sins- him taking those various death sentences on himself. Meaning that violating those laws is a death sentence but can be forgiven through Jesus who paid that price collectively for us. Are you kidding? Yes, sure, the first line says "I have come to fulfill" which one could argue is ambiguous. Luckily, Jesus goes on to explain exactly what he means by that, saying "Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven". In other words, it doesn't mean we can stop following them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:I have heard the idea that Jesus dying "fulfilled" the Law by allowing us into Heaven, sure, but Jesus still says if you violate the commandments and tell others "Oh don't worry about it, it doesn't matter if you follow that" then you're hosed. You probably shouldn't be telling people not to worry about the commandments if you're of sincere faith. In fact you should probably be encouraging people to follow them to the best of their ability. However, everyone is going to fail on one point or another eventually. If all of those rules are in effect with no forgiveness, there will be precious few people in heaven anyway. If any, actually. As for knowing something is a sin and keeping at it, maybe you aren't a particularly good Christian. Or maybe forgiveness continues to be a possibility for you. Perhaps there is some credit in sincerely striving to improve. Finally, anyone who is thinking that they can do X anyway because God will forgive it later definitely isn't being sincere. I have my doubts forgiveness will be given so easily for as long as that continues.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
The Snark posted:Meanwhile Christian scripture has a pedigree unmatched by any other faith. It has, in whatever form, survived centuries upon centuries. This doesn't PROVE jack poo poo, but it's one of the reasons I am compelled to believe there is something in it of divine nature. Hahahahahha. Hahahahah! I get the feeling that when Christians make claims like this...the Bible is so much DIFFERENT from other books, the Christian God is so much more LOVING than those other Gods...it just goes to further prove that they don't really know what they are talking about. They've found comfort in their faith, have believed the caricatured and distorted views of other faiths presented by others in their faith, and have not seriously explored anything else in their lives. Also, if oldest is best - as your centuries upon centuries comment implies - then I guess we need to all convert to Zoroastrianism. Or at the very least, Judaism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
On that last one, you're getting closer to it with Christianity. Disregard the New Testament and you're pretty much there. Also if there was nothing to the Bible I would have thought fewer other religions would have written their own sequels. The Snark fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Dec 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
The Snark posted:On that last one, you're getting closer to it with Christianity. Disregard the New Testament and you're pretty much there. The Bible.....is a sequel!!! Like....what the hell are you talking about? You are bringing up flowery and meaningless suppositions to distract us from the fact that the Jesus is clear that no part of the Law can be dismissed just because he showed up, so using that as an explanation for why those verses about killing unbelievers or raping virgins no longer apply is nonsensical! And even if it were, THAT STUFF WAS APPROVED BY GOD AT ONE TIME, EVEN IF IT'S NO LONGER CONDONED TODAY. THAT poo poo IS STILL NOT OKAY. GAINING WEIGHT... fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Dec 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
The Snark posted:You probably shouldn't be telling people not to worry about the commandments if you're of sincere faith. In fact you should probably be encouraging people to follow them to the best of their ability. quote:As for knowing something is a sin and keeping at it, maybe you aren't a particularly good Christian. Or maybe forgiveness continues to be a possibility for you. Perhaps there is some credit in sincerely striving to improve. Trying to life a sinless life and failing because we're human is vastly different than "Hey I'm gonna sin sooner or later anyway might as well commit this sin." Paul's point is if you follow Christ then you died to sin and thus you can't live in it anymore. This is why the doctrine of certain churches that think being gay is a sin is that if you're gay and become Christian, you have to stop doing gay things, because if you say you're a Christian but keep sinning then you're not actually a Christian. You obviously didn't die to sin, you still revel in it. This is, again, completely different from "I screwed up and sinned despite my best efforts." quote:Finally, anyone who is thinking that they can do X anyway because God will forgive it later definitely isn't being sincere. I have my doubts forgiveness will be given so easily for as long as that continues. Then why the gently caress did you post The Snark posted:if you don't observe the Sabbath you can add that to your longer-than-you-know list of sins for which you quite likely need Jesus' forgiveness. You right there advocated "You can do X anyway because God will forgive it later."
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:The Bible.....is a sequel!!! New Testament is, arguably. I'm sorry, was this where you were expecting me to explode with incoherent rage or fall to my knees wailing something about being such a fool? I assure you, you're more emotional about this than I, chuckles. A thank you to Twelve by Pies for a reminder to not get too flippant about my faith though and strive for greater sincerity, by the way. Twelve by Pies posted:You right there advocated "You can do X anyway because God will forgive it later." I see why you think that, but no- I am NOT advocating that. Just that you would in that case quite likely need forgiveness. The Snark fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Dec 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
The Snark posted:New Testament is, arguably. Literally, "You poked a hole in my argument but I don't care because faith."
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
The Snark posted:New Testament is, arguably. Uh, no? Maybe address some issues, I guess? But way to be literally holier-than-thou. And yeah, taking the Jewish book and renaming it as the first HALF of your book does not make Christianity magically the original faith. You're already a sequel, you're already not the oldest and most enduring tradition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
J.A.B.C. posted:Literally, "You poked a hole in my argument but I don't care because faith." If literally as a word wasn't officially meaningless at this point, I'd probably be a bit more annoyed by that. GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Uh, no? Maybe address some issues, I guess? But way to be literally holier-than-thou. Holier-than-thou? Listen, I'm not claiming to be inherently better than anyone. Hell, if I am wrong I sincerely hope it's the Buddhists, Mormons or Atheists who ARE right. Generic boring ceasing to exist sounds much better than perpetually burning or something. As for going with Judaism, it doesn't appeal because by their own rules not burning seems negligibly possible without forgiveness and may in fact mean I'd be screwed anyway by virtue of not being born such. The New Testament is good news indeed. Meanwhile you and a lot of other people seem to be just... INCREDIBLY smug about how you're all going to just turn into a bunch of rotting meat at the end of your days.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:13 |
|
|
The Snark posted:Meanwhile you and a lot of other people seem to be just... INCREDIBLY smug about how you're all going to just turn into a bunch of rotting meat at the end of your days. You haven't experienced life without the burden of theistic faith, it really is more incredible, wondrous and most of all precious than you're currently able to know. I'm sorry. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 01:18
|
|
