whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => Biblical Contradictions => Topic started by: Turbo SS on February 21, 2012, 03:57:35 PM

Title: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Turbo SS on February 21, 2012, 03:57:35 PM
On another forum there is a religious debate.  Here is what happened so far

Christian:  think God is more forgiving of which interpretation you choose and more insistent on living a life that is honorable, helpful, and worthwhile. Both religions push the same kind of living. The devil is in the details, but Jesus never pushed detail oriented religion, so I don't push it either.

Atheist:  yeah, details. shit that gets in the place of grand stories. details dont matter to the religious. its the bigger picture!
the end justifies the means = rape, pillage, be immoral, just as long as you repent before you die so that you can make it to heaven. What a crock of shit.

Christian: Nope, actually, that's the opposite of what Jesus meant. All the immoral is precisely what is important to abstain from, the exact beliefs that set up denominations are what is unimportant. That's why churches are so off base sometimes. 

Me jumping in: What about when Jesus said he came to uphold old testament law and not change it. Old Testament law includes, rape, beating slaves, murder, etc.
Matthew 5:17-18
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Christian: You are translating those verses in a completely different manner. Depending on how you interpret those verses, they do not mean what you are implying.
But then another guy who actually is an atheist jumped in and said "I think turbo's reading of it is a little off.While nothing overrules the laws of heaven, it's not really his place to create anarchy by destroying the laws of man. basically, they'll be judged on their worth when dead anything, so all he can do is steer the laws as able. assist, not destroy"

So now I am thinking of what to respond with  I mean the christian I could pull out the magic decoder ring argument but what about the atheist?  I always assumed Jesus meant he came to fulfill the old testament law and not the law of man.  Any input or other ideas are appreciated. also are there any other verses where Jesus says he is upholding the old testament?
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Dante on February 21, 2012, 04:00:49 PM
That's the problem with the immutable word of god, no? Even atheists need the decoder ring.
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: One Above All on February 21, 2012, 04:02:44 PM
Law in that verse is written with a capital L. Judging from christians' usual egocentricity towards their religion, it's talking about the Bible, not the "law of man".
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Turbo SS on February 22, 2012, 11:35:46 AM
Law in that verse is written with a capital L. Judging from christians' usual egocentricity towards their religion, it's talking about the Bible, not the "law of man".

that sounds right to me, but I wonder if there is a source on that?
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: velkyn on February 22, 2012, 11:35:57 AM
oh boy am I bored at work.  this gave me something to do.

On another forum there is a religious debate.  Here is what happened so far

Christian:  think God is more forgiving of which interpretation you choose and more insistent on living a life that is honorable, helpful, and worthwhile. Both religions push the same kind of living. The devil is in the details, but Jesus never pushed detail oriented religion, so I don't push it either.
  The usual Christian attempt to ignore anything that they don’t like.  It all becomes “details”.  I’d have asked the Christian what “worthwhile” means to them.  IF it means just being a decent person, then no religion is needed.
Quote
Atheist:  yeah, details. shit that gets in the place of grand stories. details dont matter to the religious. its the bigger picture!
the end justifies the means = rape, pillage, be immoral, just as long as you repent before you die so that you can make it to heaven. What a crock of shit.
Christian: Nope, actually, that's the opposite of what Jesus meant. All the immoral is precisely what is important to abstain from, the exact beliefs that set up denominations are what is unimportant. That's why churches are so off base sometimes. 
Here I’d ask for a definition of “immoral” and what the exact beliefs of Christians are.  Each sect has a different idea and they all claim to be just as Christian as the next and each has no evidence to claim to be such. 
Quote
Me jumping in: What about when Jesus said he came to uphold old testament law and not change it. Old Testament law includes, rape, beating slaves, murder, etc.
Matthew 5:17-18
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Christian: You are translating those verses in a completely different manner. Depending on how you interpret those verses, they do not mean what you are implying.
  Here we have the Christain insisting that their interpretation is the only “right” one.  However, as one can tell from the bible, JC repeatedly says that his father’s laws are to be upheld.  He *never* says to anyone to not follow them, only that the Pharisees are wrong in how they apply the laws.  The earth and heavens are still here, so what does the Christian think was “really” meant?  It is only after JC supposedly dies, that early Chrsitians have to come up with a way to excuse their new audience from bothering with the laws that the jewish messiah still said were in force.   
Quote
But then another guy who actually is an atheist jumped in and said "I think turbo's reading of it is a little off.While nothing overrules the laws of heaven, it's not really his place to create anarchy by destroying the laws of man. basically, they'll be judged on their worth when dead anything, so all he can do is steer the laws as able. assist, not destroy"
  This is an excuse for why god doesn’t do anything anymore. The Chrsitian God constantly interferes with humanity, if one is to believe it. Those laws that are in play are not man’s at all, they are indeed the laws of heaven, as Lucifer noted.   I would have a hard time believing this person was an atheist with an excuse like that.
Quote
So now I am thinking of what to respond with  I mean the christian I could pull out the magic decoder ring argument but what about the atheist?  I always assumed Jesus meant he came to fulfill the old testament law and not the law of man.  Any input or other ideas are appreciated. also are there any other verses where Jesus says he is upholding the old testament?
 
use the whole bit from Matthew 5
Quote
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Quote
Matthew 7: 9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
  Again, never said that the Law is to be ignored.  Here it is only summed up.
Matthew 12 also discusses the law and has only that the Pharisees were misusing it, that the law still held but obeying God was still allowed.  The priests could still be on duty, which still breaks the law, but they are also considered innocent.  Just like JC could heal and still be doing God’s work.  The divine law takes this into consideration and again, still applies.
Quote
Matthew 13: 52 He said to them, “Therefore every teacher of the law who has become a disciple in the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old.”
  The law is the old treasure to be added to the new.
Quote
Matthew 22: 34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
 37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
IF the law was not in play,why did JC answer this question as he did? Why not say “The Law does not apply anymore.”?

Luke 10 and the parable of the good Samaritan has an expert in the divine law asking JC how he can get eternal life.  JC asks him what he thinksk the law says, and gets a repeat of what JC thinks are the most important laws (the ones all others hang from).  He affirms this to the expert, again confirming that the laws are to be followed.   

there are others.  The only instance that I can think of that seem to have JC directly contradicting a law from God is the story about the adultress, but that set of verses is largely thought to be a much later addition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery   I suppose one could also argue that JC was doing what God wanted and again, has an out from the laws. 
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: One Above All on February 22, 2012, 11:47:39 AM
Law in that verse is written with a capital L. Judging from christians' usual egocentricity towards their religion, it's talking about the Bible, not the "law of man".

that sounds right to me, but I wonder if there is a source on that?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A17-18&version=NIV
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Truth OT on February 22, 2012, 12:44:28 PM
On another forum there is a religious debate.   

Me jumping in: What about when Jesus said he came to uphold old testament law and not change it. Old Testament law includes, rape, beating slaves, murder, etc.
Matthew 5:17-18
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

So now I am thinking of what to respond with  I mean the christian I could pull out the magic decoder ring argument but what about the atheist?  I always assumed Jesus meant he came to fulfill the old testament law and not the law of man.  Any input or other ideas are appreciated. also are there any other verses where Jesus says he is upholding the old testament?

Before you rebuttle, you'd do well to first make sure that you don't do so by arguing that "Jesus said he came to uphold old testament law and not change it" as if that, excuse me, YOUR understanding is in fact correct. Upholding and fulfilling are not one and the same. My advice would be to put your focus into having the Christian show you that Jesus has in fact fulfilled the law, thus nullifying its requirements (which were applicable to Israelites only). If they cannot show you that Jesus did in fact fulfill the law, then you can focus them in on that fact and how because Jesus didn't fulfill the law that it has yet to be terminated. After getting them to see these things, then you should focus in on how Paul in Romans and other letter that made the canon tells readers that the law has in fact been nullified (nailed to the cross) by Jesus. At that point they will likely sya that Jesus fulfilled the law by dying, and when they go there have them prove to you from their Bible's old Testament where it even hints that the law would be fulfilled in that way. At that point, you should keep pointing out the OT messianic prophecies and how Jesus misses the mark as it relates to fulfilling them.
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 22, 2012, 10:46:07 PM
.....
Me jumping in: What about when Jesus said he came to uphold old testament law and not change it. Old Testament law includes, rape, beating slaves, murder, etc.
Matthew 5:17-18
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

So now I am thinking of what to respond with  I mean the christian I could pull out the magic decoder ring argument but what about the atheist?  I always assumed Jesus meant he came to fulfill the old testament law and not the law of man.  Any input or other ideas are appreciated. also are there any other verses where Jesus says he is upholding the old testament?
Hi Turbo:
There was no God given law from Adam to Moses, so no sin was charged.  Why, all of a sudden did God suddenly get into the legislation business?  The answer is simple!  God chose the assembly known as the children of Israel, to become the great everlasting nation of His everlasting, unconditional, good news promise to Abraham.  The 10 commandments God gave to the COI, were basically the 10 unity rules for becoming a great everlasting nation.  How do I know that?  The covenant nation of Israel became divided against it'self, and fell into non-existence.  The only way it could become divided against it'self(dis-united) is to have broken the 10 commandments.  The 10 commandments were the only laws which God gave, and He gave them not to individuals, but to a nation, as a national standard which would lead to great everlasting nationhood.
After the nation had fallen, God's law continued to exist, but the nation it was given to did not exist, so God's law applied to no one.  It is exactly the same for man now, as it was between Adam and Moses...no God given law applies to anyone.
Since God's promise of a great everlasting nation which will bless all nations, is everlasting and unconditional, it means that the fallen kingdom will have to be resurrected from the dead to fulfill the job for which God chose it.  Hence the good news of the coming kingdom.
When the body of believers, which is being built for the Christ, becomes large enough to take and hold the land defined in God's promise, the Christ will appear and lead it to the resurrection of the kingdom of Covenant Israel from the dead, resurrected Covenant Israel will automatically be under the 10 commandments.  However, God knows that even when Covenant Israel is resurrected from the dead, it would break the 10 commandments and fall away again.  In order to prevent that happening, and to give resurrected Covenant Israel everlasting life, God will make a New Covenant.  God's new covenant is that He will, by His grace, write the 10 commandments on all the hearts of resurrected Israel.  Israelites will then do by nature the things contained in the law.  The law will exist forever, but it will be redundant because Israel will be incapable of breaking the law.  The New Covenant will ensure that resurrected Covenant Israel will naturally have everlasting life, because the law will have been fulfilled.
This is a logical conclusion, arrived at by following the continuous, chronological story which flows through the whole bible.
 
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Devils Advocate on February 22, 2012, 11:19:28 PM
There was no God given law from Adam to Moses, so no sin was charged.  Why, all of a sudden did God suddenly get into the legislation business?  The answer is simple!  God chose the assembly known as the children of Israel, to become the great everlasting nation of His everlasting, unconditional, good news promise to Abraham.  The 10 commandments God gave to the COI, were basically the 10 unity rules for becoming a great everlasting nation.  How do I know that?  The covenant nation of Israel became divided against it'self, and fell into non-existence.  The only way it could become divided against it'self(dis-united) is to have broken the 10 commandments.The 10 commandments were the only laws which God gave, and He gave them not to individuals, but to a nation, as a national standard which would lead to great everlasting nationhood.

I take it you have not read Leviticus?

Quote
After the nation had fallen, God's law continued to exist, but the nation it was given to did not exist, so God's law applied to no one.  It is exactly the same for man now, as it was between Adam and Moses...no God given law applies to anyone.

Does this mean that I can sell my slaves for any price I went?

Quote
Since God's promise of a great everlasting nation which will bless all nations, is everlasting and unconditional, it means that the fallen kingdom will have to be resurrected from the dead to fulfill the job for which God chose it.  Hence the good news of the coming kingdom.

Wait, is it unconditional or is it conditioned upon being resurrected?

Quote
When the body of believers, which is being built for the Christ, becomes large enough to take and hold the land defined in God's promise, the Christ will appear and lead it to the resurrection of the kingdom of Covenant Israel from the dead, resurrected Covenant Israel will automatically be under the 10 commandments. 

Do you have a citation for this, or are you just making it up?

Quote
However, God knows that even when Covenant Israel is resurrected from the dead, it would break the 10 commandments and fall away again.  In order to prevent that happening, and to give resurrected Covenant Israel everlasting life, God will make a New Covenant.  God's new covenant is that He will, by His grace, write the 10 commandments on all the hearts of resurrected Israel.  Israelites will then do by nature the things contained in the law.  The law will exist forever, but it will be redundant because Israel will be incapable of breaking the law.  The New Covenant will ensure that resurrected Covenant Israel will naturally have everlasting life, because the law will have been fulfilled.
This is a logical conclusion, arrived at by following the continuous, chronological story which flows through the whole bible.

I don't see the logic of which you speak. Are you saying that the bible accurately predicts the future?
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: The Gawd on February 23, 2012, 08:34:01 AM
Provoker, if yahweh is a "personal god" why do his believers so strongly believe that he cares about nations (man-made boundries) and groups of people (random bloodlines)? That'd be the opposite of a "personal god" and more inline with the mythological gods of the iron age.

Something that NEVER made any sense to me.
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: monkeymind on February 23, 2012, 08:42:46 AM
There are contradictory passages about upholding the OT law (the arguments tend to avoid that aspect but say Matthew meant man's law).

Here are some words from JC himself on the subject. I posted this yesterday coincidentally.

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished.  Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”  (Matthew 5:18-19)

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid."  (Luke 16:17)

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.  I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.  Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."  (Matthew 5:17)

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..."  (2 Timothy 3:16)

"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21)

"Whoever curses father or mother shall die"  (Mark 7:10)

“He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.”  (Matthew 15:4-7)

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).

“...the scripture cannot be broken.”  John 10:35

Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: monkeymind on February 23, 2012, 08:47:31 AM
The very fact that it is contradictory is a good point. Here is a side by side version at Skeptics Annotated Bible:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/otlaw.html (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/otlaw.html)

Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: velkyn on February 23, 2012, 09:16:59 AM
Hi Turbo:
There was no God given law from Adam to Moses, so no sin was charged.  Why, all of a sudden did God suddenly get into the legislation business?  The answer is simple!  God chose the assembly known as the children of Israel, to become the great everlasting nation of His everlasting, unconditional, good news promise to Abraham. 
  That’s hilarious when looking at the Christian claim of “original sin”. 
Quote
The 10 commandments God gave to the COI, were basically the 10 unity rules for becoming a great everlasting nation.  How do I know that?  The covenant nation of Israel became divided against it'self, and fell into non-existence.  The only way it could become divided against it'self(dis-united) is to have broken the 10 commandments.  The 10 commandments were the only laws which God gave, and He gave them not to individuals, but to a nation, as a national standard which would lead to great everlasting nationhood.
Pity that you don’t realize that the laws of this god don’t stop at the first 10 at all.  It’s just Christians who find the rest inconvenient.  As has been already noted, all of the laws in Exodus and Leviticus are given to the same people, all with the same degree of authority as the first 10.   It seems you are yet one more Chrsitian who is pitifully ignorant of his own holy book. It’s sad, really. 
Quote
After the nation had fallen, God's law continued to exist, but the nation it was given to did not exist, so God's law applied to no one.  It is exactly the same for man now, as it was between Adam and Moses...no God given law applies to anyone.
Since God's promise of a great everlasting nation which will bless all nations, is everlasting and unconditional, it means that the fallen kingdom will have to be resurrected from the dead to fulfill the job for which God chose it.  Hence the good news of the coming kingdom.
  Funny how the Jews disagree with you.  I dolove to watch Christians insist that they know the bible better than the Jews.  Your arrogance is so cute when it comes to imaginary friends!
Quote
When the body of believers, which is being built for the Christ, becomes large enough to take and hold the land defined in God's promise, the Christ will appear and lead it to the resurrection of the kingdom of Covenant Israel from the dead, resurrected Covenant Israel will automatically be under the 10 commandments.
  Oh and we even get vague claims of the good ol’ “end times”.  So how many is “large enough”, Prov?  Sad how Christians are still claiming this nonsense will happen when each generation has claimed the same things and have failed in their sure thing.  How many more years will you have to wait, Prov?  Your supposed messiah has missed so many appointments that some Christians have to claim that he came back invisibly. :D
Quote
However, God knows that even when Covenant Israel is resurrected from the dead, it would break the 10 commandments and fall away again.
Oooh, so you know that your imaginary friend “knows” this.  Just how do you know this?  I do like to watch Christians make up parts for their bible.  How are those boils doing?
Quote
In order to prevent that happening, and to give resurrected Covenant Israel everlasting life, God will make a New Covenant.  God's new covenant is that He will, by His grace, write the 10 commandments on all the hearts of resurrected Israel.  Israelites will then do by nature the things contained in the law.
So, tell me, why didn’t your god just “write” this nonsense on the “hearts” of people several thousand years ago and not bother with supposed nonsense of killing people, sending himself to die for himself, etc.  Could have saved a lot of time.  Your god seems to be either an idiot or a sadist.  Or of course, it doesn’t exist at all, and all of this silliness is just more human myths.   
Quote
The law will exist forever, but it will be redundant because Israel will be incapable of breaking the law.  The New Covenant will ensure that resurrected Covenant Israel will naturally have everlasting life, because the law will have been fulfilled.
This is a logical conclusion, arrived at by following the continuous, chronological story which flows through the whole bible.
  ROFL.  oh the acrobatics that Christians have to invent to claim their bible makes any sense.  There is no logical conclusion to be reached at all.  If so, then there is a similar logical conclusion that can be reached by the Greek myths and poof!  Athena, Zeus and Poseidon exist too!  The bible is a book of myth that has nothing to support it. 
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: monkeymind on February 23, 2012, 09:21:37 AM
The argument will go into a discussion about the law being given to the nation of Israel and  not to Christians. The law was abolished by Jesus. There are differences between ceremonial law and moral law, etc.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-law.html (http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-law.html)

Here is a rebuttal to Sam Harris' (A Letter to A Christian Nation):
http://www.allaboutworldview.org/old-testament-law.htm (http://www.allaboutworldview.org/old-testament-law.htm)

Here is guy that falls on the side of OT still being valid:
http://reformed-theology.org/ice/newslet/be/be.05.79.htm (http://reformed-theology.org/ice/newslet/be/be.05.79.htm)

Quote
We must conclude that anyone whose attitude toward the Old Testament law is informed by the teaching and practice of the New Testament must maintain the law's full and continuing validity today. Those who, in the name of a distinctive "New Testament ethic," downgrade or ignore the Old Testament law are sternly warned by the Apostle John: "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him" (I John 2:4). In genuinely Biblical ethics the Old Testament will not be pitted against the New at any point.

The 7th Day Adventists may be of help regarding the question. Sorry I can't refer you to any place in particular...
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Turbo SS on February 23, 2012, 10:51:56 AM
I love you guys! you always give me the perfect information and help me sort out my thoughts!  ;D
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 23, 2012, 06:33:17 PM
Provoker, if yahweh is a "personal god" why do his believers so strongly believe that he cares about nations (man-made boundries) and groups of people (random bloodlines)? That'd be the opposite of a "personal god" and more inline with the mythological gods of the iron age.

Something that NEVER made any sense to me.
Hi link:
God is not a personal god.  Where did you get that idea?  Didn't you know that God is no respector of persons?
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 23, 2012, 06:54:12 PM
There was no God given law from Adam to Moses, so no sin was charged.  Why, all of a sudden did God suddenly get into the legislation business?  The answer is simple!  God chose the assembly known as the children of Israel, to become the great everlasting nation of His everlasting, unconditional, good news promise to Abraham.  The 10 commandments God gave to the COI, were basically the 10 unity rules for becoming a great everlasting nation.  How do I know that?  The covenant nation of Israel became divided against it'self, and fell into non-existence.  The only way it could become divided against it'self(dis-united) is to have broken the 10 commandments.The 10 commandments were the only laws which God gave, and He gave them not to individuals, but to a nation, as a national standard which would lead to great everlasting nationhood.

I take it you have not read Leviticus?
Hi DA:
Yup, I've read it all.  What's your point?
Quote

Quote
After the nation had fallen, God's law continued to exist, but the nation it was given to did not exist, so God's law applied to no one.  It is exactly the same for man now, as it was between Adam and Moses...no God given law applies to anyone.

Does this mean that I can sell my slaves for any price I went?
Sounds good to me:-)
Quote

Quote
Since God's promise of a great everlasting nation which will bless all nations, is everlasting and unconditional, it means that the fallen kingdom will have to be resurrected from the dead to fulfill the job for which God chose it.  Hence the good news of the coming kingdom.

Wait, is it unconditional or is it conditioned upon being resurrected?
God cannot make conditional promises.  An honest person who can see the future, cannot make conditional promises.  It's as simple as that:-)
Quote


Quote
When the body of believers, which is being built for the Christ, becomes large enough to take and hold the land defined in God's promise, the Christ will appear and lead it to the resurrection of the kingdom of Covenant Israel from the dead, resurrected Covenant Israel will automatically be under the 10 commandments. 

Do you have a citation for this, or are you just making it up?
If by "citation" you mean "verse", I could probably find one, but I read the bible for it's story, not for it's verses:-)  What I am offering is a synopsis.
Quote

Quote
However, God knows that even when Covenant Israel is resurrected from the dead, it would break the 10 commandments and fall away again.  In order to prevent that happening, and to give resurrected Covenant Israel everlasting life, God will make a New Covenant.  God's new covenant is that He will, by His grace, write the 10 commandments on all the hearts of resurrected Israel.  Israelites will then do by nature the things contained in the law.  The law will exist forever, but it will be redundant because Israel will be incapable of breaking the law.  The New Covenant will ensure that resurrected Covenant Israel will naturally have everlasting life, because the law will have been fulfilled.
This is a logical conclusion, arrived at by following the continuous, chronological story which flows through the whole bible.

I don't see the logic of which you speak. Are you saying that the bible accurately predicts the future?
No, that is not what I am saying.  What I am saying is that the bible contains a continuous logical story from beginning to end, so I'm simply synopsizing that logical story.
What do you see in my synopsis which is not logical?
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Iamrational on February 23, 2012, 06:58:15 PM
... but I read the bible for it's story, not for it's verses:-)


AKA... Cherry picking.
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 23, 2012, 07:04:05 PM
There are contradictory passages about upholding the OT law (the arguments tend to avoid that aspect but say Matthew meant man's law).
There are contradictory passages about everything in the bible.  That's why I appeal to the story rather than to passages.
Quote

Here are some words from JC himself on the subject. I posted this yesterday coincidentally.

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished.  Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”  (Matthew 5:18-19)

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid."  (Luke 16:17)

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.  I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.  Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."  (Matthew 5:17)

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..."  (2 Timothy 3:16)

"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21)

"Whoever curses father or mother shall die"  (Mark 7:10)

“He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.”  (Matthew 15:4-7)

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).

“...the scripture cannot be broken.”  John 10:35
Since there are an estimated 30,000+ doctrinally disagreeing denominations, and any given verse may have as many different explanations as their are denominations, you will have to explain what you think these verses mean before I can comment:-)
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: One Above All on February 23, 2012, 07:08:24 PM
There are contradictory passages about everything in the bible.  That's why I appeal to the story rather than to passages.

The story IS those passages.
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: monkeymind on February 23, 2012, 07:11:47 PM
There are contradictory passages about upholding the OT law (the arguments tend to avoid that aspect but say Matthew meant man's law).
There are contradictory passages about everything in the bible.  That's why I appeal to the story rather than to passages.
Quote

Here are some words from JC himself on the subject. I posted this yesterday coincidentally.
Since there are an estimated 30,000+ doctrinally disagreeing denominations, and any given verse may have as many different explanations as their are denominations, you will have to explain what you think these verses mean before I can comment:-)

You made my point for me. What's left to comment on?
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 23, 2012, 07:29:01 PM
Since there are an estimated 30,000+ doctrinally disagreeing denominations, and any given verse may have as many different explanations as their are denominations, you will have to explain what you think these verses mean before I can comment:-)

We're atheists. Most of think bible verses are just a bunch of made up crap. So we will be asking you to give us your version of what it means any time you haul one out. It does sound like you are less likely to do this than most christians that show up here. We'll be calling you on what we call "cherry picking"; choosing the stuff you like and ignoring the rest. Even if you use it as a reason to not pay attention to the book as anything but, as you call it, a story.

Welcome, by the way. I suspect we'll be butting heads soon, but that's why we're here, right?
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 23, 2012, 07:31:15 PM
Hi Turbo:
There was no God given law from Adam to Moses, so no sin was charged.  Why, all of a sudden did God suddenly get into the legislation business?  The answer is simple!  God chose the assembly known as the children of Israel, to become the great everlasting nation of His everlasting, unconditional, good news promise to Abraham. 
  That’s hilarious when looking at the Christian claim of “original sin”.
Not as hilarious as the Christian claim of "original sin"...LOL
Quote
 
Quote
The 10 commandments God gave to the COI, were basically the 10 unity rules for becoming a great everlasting nation.  How do I know that?  The covenant nation of Israel became divided against it'self, and fell into non-existence.  The only way it could become divided against it'self(dis-united) is to have broken the 10 commandments.  The 10 commandments were the only laws which God gave, and He gave them not to individuals, but to a nation, as a national standard which would lead to great everlasting nationhood.
Pity that you don’t realize that the laws of this god don’t stop at the first 10 at all.  It’s just Christians who find the rest inconvenient.  As has been already noted, all of the laws in Exodus and Leviticus are given to the same people, all with the same degree of authority as the first 10.   It seems you are yet one more Chrsitian who is pitifully ignorant of his own holy book. It’s sad, really.
Don't be sad Turbo.  God wrote His laws on tablets of stone and Moses carried them down the mountain.  There are 613 Mitzvot laws.  Just how many times do you think Moses climbed that mountain?
Quote
 
Quote
After the nation had fallen, God's law continued to exist, but the nation it was given to did not exist, so God's law applied to no one.  It is exactly the same for man now, as it was between Adam and Moses...no God given law applies to anyone.
Since God's promise of a great everlasting nation which will bless all nations, is everlasting and unconditional, it means that the fallen kingdom will have to be resurrected from the dead to fulfill the job for which God chose it.  Hence the good news of the coming kingdom.
  Funny how the Jews disagree with you.  I dolove to watch Christians insist that they know the bible better than the Jews.  Your arrogance is so cute when it comes to imaginary friends!
I have no idea what you are talking about regarding imaginary friends.  All my friends are real:-)  As far as the Jews are concerned, they don't even believe what they claim to believe, so whether they agree with me or not is not a problem to me...LOL
Quote
Quote
When the body of believers, which is being built for the Christ, becomes large enough to take and hold the land defined in God's promise, the Christ will appear and lead it to the resurrection of the kingdom of Covenant Israel from the dead, resurrected Covenant Israel will automatically be under the 10 commandments.
  Oh and we even get vague claims of the good ol’ “end times”.  So how many is “large enough”, Prov?  Sad how Christians are still claiming this nonsense will happen when each generation has claimed the same things and have failed in their sure thing.  How many more years will you have to wait, Prov?  Your supposed messiah has missed so many appointments that some Christians have to claim that he came back invisibly. :D
I do believe that you are presuming rather than reading...LOL  When you invent the arguement you think I made, and then comment on it, it is either a strawman, or you were just not paying attention to what I said.  Not only that but I dare say that you have never ever ever heard anyone even suggest anything close to what I have said.  You are going to have to pay attention if you want to make comments which make any sense:-)
Quote

Quote
However, God knows that even when Covenant Israel is resurrected from the dead, it would break the 10 commandments and fall away again.
Oooh, so you know that your imaginary friend “knows” this.  Just how do you know this?  I do like to watch Christians make up parts for their bible.  How are those boils doing?
I don't have any imaginary friends.  All my friends are real.  I'm not sure that you are actually reading what I write.  Are you reading someone else's posts and putting the answers under my posts?
By the way, I didn't say that I know this.  All I'm saying is that it is what the story of the bible says.  You can believe it or not, but at least make some comments which make me think you are actually reading my stuff...LOL
Quote
Quote
In order to prevent that happening, and to give resurrected Covenant Israel everlasting life, God will make a New Covenant.  God's new covenant is that He will, by His grace, write the 10 commandments on all the hearts of resurrected Israel.  Israelites will then do by nature the things contained in the law.
So, tell me, why didn’t your god just “write” this nonsense on the “hearts” of people several thousand years ago and not bother with supposed nonsense of killing people, sending himself to die for himself, etc.  Could have saved a lot of time.  Your god seems to be either an idiot or a sadist.  Or of course, it doesn’t exist at all, and all of this silliness is just more human myths.
There you go, talking to yourself.  If you are trying to read my mind you are not doing very well...LOL  God is not involved with man.  When He finished creation He declared it good and sat down.  Anyone who thinks for himself can see that that is a metaphore meaning that God's plan did not extend past creation, and we are on our own.
Quote
   
Quote
The law will exist forever, but it will be redundant because Israel will be incapable of breaking the law.  The New Covenant will ensure that resurrected Covenant Israel will naturally have everlasting life, because the law will have been fulfilled.
This is a logical conclusion, arrived at by following the continuous, chronological story which flows through the whole bible.
  ROFL.  oh the acrobatics that Christians have to invent to claim their bible makes any sense.  There is no logical conclusion to be reached at all.  If so, then there is a similar logical conclusion that can be reached by the Greek myths and poof!  Athena, Zeus and Poseidon exist too!  The bible is a book of myth that has nothing to support it.
What you, I, or anyone else thinks of the bible, is beside the point.  I'm not suggesting that you have to believe it, I'm just telling you what the story of the bible is.
Here is something to think about:  You don't have a clue about what I believe, and what I don't...LOL
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Historicity on February 23, 2012, 07:34:35 PM
Law in that verse is written with a capital L. Judging from christians' usual egocentricity towards their religion, it's talking about the Bible, not the "law of man".
No, it is not.  I thought you were joking but I scanned down and unfortunately you were not.

The New Testament was written in Greek.  The Book of Revelations shows signs (14:14) of having been written originally in a Semitic language and badly translated.

None of the ancient languages had either:

   Spaces between the words.
   Punctuation -- not even a period at the end of a sentence.
   Paragraph breaks.
   Lower case letters.

THEYWEREALLCAPITALSANDBECAUSETHEREWERENOSPACESTHEYWEREVERYHARDTOREADYOUSEETHATDONTYOUTH
EYALSOBROKEWORDSATTHEENDOFALINEHOWCANSOMEONEREADAJUMBLELIKETHISWHATTHEREADERHADTODOWAS
READITOUTLOUDORATLEASTSOTTOVOCEANDLISTENTOHISOWNVOICEANOUTSTANDINGTRICKOFJULIUSCAESAREWA
STHATLIKEAMODERNHECOULDREADSILENTLYHEWASONCEREADINGANOTESILENTLYINFRONTOFAPOLITICALOPPONE
NTCATOKNOWNASCATOTHEYOUNGERANDSMILEDCRAFTILYITWASALOVENOTEFROMCATOSSISTERANYONEELSEWOUL
DHAVEHADTOREADITOUTLOUDORMUTTERED

Aristophanes of Byzantium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristophanes_of_byzantium), chief librarian of the Library of Alexandria, had invented punctuation about 200 BC but samples of common writing from the period of the Bible showed it did not catch on quickly. "It wasn’t until the 2nd century AD that the accents and breathings appeared sporadically in the papyruses. The need for the diacritics arose from the gradual divergence between spelling and pronunciation."[1] The biggest boost it had was the death of spoken Latin in the 6th and 7th century CE.  For instance one writer trying to use Latin don't know the difference between "in monte" (=on a mountain) and "in montem" (=onto a mountain).  Still, all the writing was in Latin but very bad Latin.  We have Roman manuscripts from this time where someone has added dots to mark the spaces between the words.

In the dark ages a style of writing was used to save space on parchment and it was called minuscule.  basically it was lower case and a capital was only preserved at the beginning of a chapter or page. even christ was not capitalized.  see the lindesfarne gospels for that.  there were such oddities as spelling his title crist but using a modified chi-ro symbol to start it.

In the Renaissance the majuscule letters got their modern distinction as capitalization.

 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytonic_orthography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytonic_orthography)
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: monkeymind on February 23, 2012, 07:36:22 PM
Provoker:

Quote
You don't have a clue about what I believe, and what I don't...LOL

Well, let's start with the first clue of no clue as to what you believe:

Quote
    When the body of believers, which is being built for the Christ, becomes large enough to take and hold the land defined in God's promise, the Christ will appear and lead it to the resurrection of the kingdom of Covenant Israel from the dead, resurrected Covenant Israel will automatically be under the 10 commandments.

Why do you think the narrative of the bible says this? Or is this from another source?
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: One Above All on February 23, 2012, 07:38:12 PM
No, it is not.  I thought you were joking but I scanned down and unfortunately you were not.
<snip>

The translation is written with a capital L. I know the original had none of the things you mentioned.
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 23, 2012, 07:43:53 PM
There are contradictory passages about everything in the bible.  That's why I appeal to the story rather than to passages.

The story IS those passages.
Those passages are part of the story, but the story is the only context in which the passages can make sense.  That is why we read stories from the beginning to the end, and do not read arbitrarily selected passages and then think we understand the story.
The sign says:  Read the bible through in one year!!!  In the morning we will read some passages from the OT, and in the evening we will read some passages from the NT.  I can just imagine what kind of story anyone gets out of that...LOL
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: One Above All on February 23, 2012, 07:47:02 PM
Those passages are part of the story, but the story is the only context in which the passages can make sense.  That is why we read stories from the beginning to the end, and do not read arbitrarily selected passages and then think we understand the story.

So what you're saying is that just because Genesis says that YHWH created A&E before any other living creature and after every other living creature shouldn't get in the way of "the story"? Note that the story is, in fact, YHWH creating everything in a certain order.
Your brain must be severely damaged for what you just said to make sense to you.
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Historicity on February 23, 2012, 07:51:40 PM
There was no God given law from Adam to Moses, so no sin was charged.
...
This is a logical conclusion, arrived at by following the continuous, chronological story which flows through the whole bible.

Moses is born in Exodus.  Here are some quotes, some of them well known, from Genesis:
Quote
4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, "Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him."

13:13 But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.

18:20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;

20:6 And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.

31:36 And Jacob was wroth, and chode with Laban: and Jacob answered and said to Laban, What is my trespass? what is my sin, that thou hast so hotly pursued after me?

39:9 There is none greater in this house than I; neither hath he kept back any thing from me but thee, because thou art his wife:  how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?

42:22 And Reuben answered them, saying, Spake I not unto you, saying, Do not sin against the child; and ye would not hear?  therefore, behold, also his blood is required.

The Jewish rabbis say 7 Laws were given to Noah. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_Noah)

Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 23, 2012, 07:57:14 PM
Since there are an estimated 30,000+ doctrinally disagreeing denominations, and any given verse may have as many different explanations as their are denominations, you will have to explain what you think these verses mean before I can comment:-)

We're atheists. Most of think bible verses are just a bunch of made up crap. So we will be asking you to give us your version of what it means any time you haul one out. It does sound like you are less likely to do this than most christians that show up here. We'll be calling you on what we call "cherry picking"; choosing the stuff you like and ignoring the rest. Even if you use it as a reason to not pay attention to the book as anything but, as you call it, a story.

Welcome, by the way. I suspect we'll be butting heads soon, but that's why we're here, right?
Hello PP:
Hey, a lot of bible verses are just made up crap, and maybe the whole bible is just made up crap, but what anyone thinks about the truth, accuracy, or believability of the bible, does not change the fact that the bible tells a chronologically continuous story from beginning to end, and that story is the context in which everything in the bible must be understood,...if one is interested in understanding the bible:-) 
My position is that the bible is a story written by religious men, but it is not a story about religion, or God.  It is the story of a political solution to an ideological goal.
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: monkeymind on February 23, 2012, 07:58:39 PM
Well, I got to go. Can't hang around to see his answer... but ...
It looks like Provoker is into covenant theology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_theology)

If I am wrong, it will be interesting to see the unique way Provoker has interpreted the story of the bible. We couldn't possibly have a clue because it is so different from the 30,000+ Christian denominations.
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 23, 2012, 08:09:11 PM
Since there are an estimated 30,000+ doctrinally disagreeing denominations, and any given verse may have as many different explanations as their are denominations, you will have to explain what you think these verses mean before I can comment:-)

We're atheists. Most of think bible verses are just a bunch of made up crap. So we will be asking you to give us your version of what it means any time you haul one out. It does sound like you are less likely to do this than most christians that show up here. We'll be calling you on what we call "cherry picking"; choosing the stuff you like and ignoring the rest. Even if you use it as a reason to not pay attention to the book as anything but, as you call it, a story.

Welcome, by the way. I suspect we'll be butting heads soon, but that's why we're here, right?
Hello PP:
Hey, a lot of bible verses are just made up crap, and maybe the whole bible is just made up crap, but what anyone thinks about the truth, accuracy, or believability of the bible, does not change the fact that the bible tells a chronologically continuous story from beginning to end, and that story is the context in which everything in the bible must be understood,...if one is interested in understanding the bible:-) 
My position is that the bible is a story written by religious men, but it is not a story about religion, or God.  It is the story of a political solution to an ideological goal.

That's fine. Just keep in mind that your take on the religion thing is new to us (or at least to me and I think to most of the others) and we will be wanting to know where you're coming from when you make clalms. In the case of this discussion, I'll be mostly sitting back and watching because I know as much about the bible as I do about women, hence I'm unqualified. But if you are confusing me by obfuscation or just being incomprehensible, I'll mention it.

Lucky for me, one doesn't have to read the bible to be an atheist. I'm told it helps though.
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 23, 2012, 08:09:47 PM
... but I read the bible for it's story, not for it's verses:-)


AKA... Cherry picking.
Then be rational:
Quoting verses is cherry picking, and that has spawned thousands of doctrinally disagreeing denominations.  Reading a story to understand it, is not cherry picking:-)
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: One Above All on February 23, 2012, 08:12:06 PM
Then be rational:
Quoting verses is cherry picking, and that has spawned thousands of doctrinally disagreeing denominations.  Reading a story to understand it, is not cherry picking

Wrong. Saying that certain verses are true while others are not is cherry picking. Saying that none are true yet the "story" (composed of said verses) is true is stupid. Saying that all the verses are true is idiotic.
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 23, 2012, 08:20:36 PM
Since there are an estimated 30,000+ doctrinally disagreeing denominations, and any given verse may have as many different explanations as their are denominations, you will have to explain what you think these verses mean before I can comment:-)

We're atheists. Most of think bible verses are just a bunch of made up crap. So we will be asking you to give us your version of what it means any time you haul one out. It does sound like you are less likely to do this than most christians that show up here. We'll be calling you on what we call "cherry picking"; choosing the stuff you like and ignoring the rest. Even if you use it as a reason to not pay attention to the book as anything but, as you call it, a story.

Welcome, by the way. I suspect we'll be butting heads soon, but that's why we're here, right?
Hello PP:
Hey, a lot of bible verses are just made up crap, and maybe the whole bible is just made up crap, but what anyone thinks about the truth, accuracy, or believability of the bible, does not change the fact that the bible tells a chronologically continuous story from beginning to end, and that story is the context in which everything in the bible must be understood,...if one is interested in understanding the bible:-) 
My position is that the bible is a story written by religious men, but it is not a story about religion, or God.  It is the story of a political solution to an ideological goal.

That's fine. Just keep in mind that your take on the religion thing is new to us (or at least to me and I think to most of the others) and we will be wanting to know where you're coming from when you make clalms. In the case of this discussion, I'll be mostly sitting back and watching because I know as much about the bible as I do about women, hence I'm unqualified. But if you are confusing me by obfuscation or just being incomprehensible, I'll mention it.

Lucky for me, one doesn't have to read the bible to be an atheist. I'm told it helps though.
Hey PP:
Before you make any kneejerk "mentions" of obfuscation, be sure you applied the common rules of English composition when you read my stuff.  I have already had to put up with someone who writes a lot faster than he thinks, or reads...LOL
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: HAL on February 23, 2012, 08:23:55 PM
Provoker -

Please cut down on the amount of re-quoted material. It wastes thread space. Quote only the minimal amount of materiel you need to directly respond to.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Tero on February 23, 2012, 08:32:11 PM
The 10 commandments are directly followed by other rules. Eye for an eye etc.

Are these the amendments?
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: screwtape on February 24, 2012, 09:24:33 AM
My position is that the bible is a story written by religious men, but it is not a story about religion, or God.  It is the story of a political solution to an ideological goal.

To try to understand you, you are saying the conflicting details don't matter, just the over arching story.  Correct? 

What, if any, of the bible do you take literally? 
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: velkyn on February 24, 2012, 09:37:54 AM
well, Provoker, it seems that you are quite confused in what you want to claim.  all of this Christain nonsense and then you seem to be trying to portray yourself as not a Christain at all. 

Unfortunately, this is a written medium and one can see your claims and how they are wrong.  All of this insistence about the “10 Commandments” and when called on how idiotic your claims are, you try to ignore that with attempts at being funny.   Yes, I know that the myths in the bible claim that there were stone tablets.  Again, that does nothing to support your claims that they are the only commandments.  There is nothing to separate them from the “mitzvot laws”.  You’d know this if you actually read the bible or weren't so desperate to avoid having to acknowledge them as laws that Jews and Christians have to obey. 

It’s so cute to watch a Christain, because I’m quite sure that’s what you are, making claims and then declaring that you don’t care what the Jews think since you unilaterally and baselessly claim that
Quote
As far as the Jews are concerned, they don't even believe what they claim to believe, so whether they agree with me or not is not a problem to me...LOL
Such a lovely cliam by one more Christian who evidently thinks he’s psychic. 
Quote
I do believe that you are presuming rather than reading...LOL  When you invent the arguement you think I made, and then comment on it, it is either a strawman, or you were just not paying attention to what I said.  Not only that but I dare say that you have never ever ever heard anyone even suggest anything close to what I have said.  You are going to have to pay attention if you want to make comments which make any sense:-)
Oh this is fun.  I do love how you now try to claim I invent something.  Sorry, again, you seem to miss that this is a written medium and I am addressing just what you wrote.  You’ve made claims in that lovely quote from you all about the Covenant Israel and I am asking you to clarify them by telling me how large is large enough for your claim of the “end times” to come true?  I’m guessing you don’t want to answer since this would actually pin your nonsense down and make you just as stupid looking as Harold Camping. How many more years do we have to wait for yoru god to return?
Quote
I don't have any imaginary friends.  All my friends are real.  I'm not sure that you are actually reading what I write.  Are you reading someone else's posts and putting the answers under my posts?
By the way, I didn't say that I know this.  All I'm saying is that it is what the story of the bible says.  You can believe it or not, but at least make some comments which make me think you are actually reading my stuff...LOL
Yes, you did say you know this, you poor thing.
Quote
However, God knows that even when Covenant Israel is resurrected from the dead, it would break the 10 commandments and fall away again.
You made the claim that this is true by posting it as a fact.  pity that now you have to deal with people who actually question the shit you’ve thrown at the wall to see if it would stick.  You did not say that you were “just” quoting from the bible.  But since you want to do this now, please do show where the bible says such things as you’ve claimed.  You see, I know that you are just one more Christian who thinks his interpretation is the only right one.   
Quote
There you go, talking to yourself.  If you are trying to read my mind you are not doing very well...LOL  God is not involved with man.  When He finished creation He declared it good and sat down.  Anyone who thinks for himself can see that that is a metaphore meaning that God's plan did not extend past creation, and we are on our own.
  It’s so sweet to see you desperately try to disavow what you’ve posted do you don’t have to answer my questions but in doing so give more evidence that you do believe this nonsense that you’re claiming.  Keep going.  And oh, you’ve gotten your magic decoder ring out and are trying to declare that your interpretation is the only “right” one.  So, Prov, why didn’t your god do something so simple rather than screwing around for thousands of years like your myths say?   
Quote
What you, I, or anyone else thinks of the bible, is beside the point.  I'm not suggesting that you have to believe it, I'm just telling you what the story of the bible is.
Here is something to think about:  You don't have a clue about what I believe, and what I don't...LOL
  No, it’s not “beside the point”.  You have come on to this forum making claims as if they were facts.  Now, when you are shown your are wrong, suddenly you claim that you aren’t suggesting that we believe it.  Dear, you tried to make it that we did.  You are telling us what *you* think the story of the bible is and I do love that since I can see just how theists disagree in their supposed “truth”.  And I can make an educated guess what you believe just from what you’ve written.  Alas for you, that does contain plenty of clues.  You’ve made claims that you have used “logic” and of course can’t show that you have.  You claim that the bible is “continuous and chronological” and one complete story when it can be demonstrated that it is not.

Now, I have read the bible through from front to back at least twice, onces as a Christain once as not. So again, your claims that one gets some magical insight from doing this is nonsense too. So many Chrsitians, so many lies about how their versions are the only “right” ones.  Too bad for all of you that we have the internet and sources like Wikipedia to see just how ridiculous you are with your self-projection as your god so you get one that agrees with your own very human desires and hatreds.  You decide what is literal and what is metaphor; you decide what your god “really” meant.  No god needed at all, just one more Christian who wants to declare all of those “other” Christians wrong.   


EDIT: I wonder if Prov is a Mormon, They seem fascinated by "Convenant Israel"
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: changeling on February 24, 2012, 11:02:52 AM
Do Mormons laugh out loud after every sentence like prov does?
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 24, 2012, 02:25:11 PM
There are contradictory passages about upholding the OT law (the arguments tend to avoid that aspect but say Matthew meant man's law).
There are contradictory passages about everything in the bible.  That's why I appeal to the story rather than to passages.
Quote

Here are some words from JC himself on the subject. I posted this yesterday coincidentally.
Since there are an estimated 30,000+ doctrinally disagreeing denominations, and any given verse may have as many different explanations as their are denominations, you will have to explain what you think these verses mean before I can comment:-)

You made my point for me. What's left to comment on?
Hi Monkeymind:
Now that I have made your point for you,,,tell me what your point is...LOL
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 24, 2012, 02:38:46 PM
The 10 commandments are directly followed by other rules. Eye for an eye etc.

Are these the amendments?
Hello Tero:
Every national/civil assembly which ever existed had rules made up by the leaders.  One must assume that the Children of Israel also had rules before they got to Mt. Sinai.  The decalogue is the only law ever given by God.
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: monkeymind on February 24, 2012, 03:07:19 PM
Quote
Hi Monkeymind:
Now that I have made your point for you,,,tell me what your point is...LOL

There are contradictory passages about everything in the bible. 
Quote
Since there are an estimated 30,000+ doctrinally disagreeing denominations, and any given verse may have as many different explanations as their are denominations

Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 24, 2012, 03:30:09 PM
My position is that the bible is a story written by religious men, but it is not a story about religion, or God.  It is the story of a political solution to an ideological goal.

To try to understand you, you are saying the conflicting details don't matter, just the over arching story.  Correct? 

What, if any, of the bible do you take literally?
Hi screwtape:
Post-Nicean Christians interpret scripture in the context of the Nicean Creed, and that creed is so unscriptural, that to believe it, one has to believe that nothing in scripture can be interpreted logically.  This worked out well for the lying priesthood, because they could put any spin on scripture they wanted.  The sad thing is that Atheists assume that the bible actually teaches the guff that gullible post-Nicean Christians believe...LOL
It is well known that NT scripture has been doctrinally edited, so when scripture is interpreted "one verse at a time", in the context of the Nicean Creed, any continuous, consistent story which might exist, is certainly not taken into consideration. 
So I read the bible as narrative, since that is the way it was written.  I assume that any illogical event is either a misunderstood metaphore, an attempt by religious writers to give God the credit(glory), or is simply a spurious addition.  I always attempt to understand the scripture being read, in the context of the scripture which came earlier in the story. 
So, to answer your question; I take the logical continuous story literally:-)
 
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 24, 2012, 03:33:58 PM
Quote
Hi Monkeymind:
Now that I have made your point for you,,,tell me what your point is...LOL

There are contradictory passages about everything in the bible. 
Quote
Since there are an estimated 30,000+ doctrinally disagreeing denominations, and any given verse may have as many different explanations as their are denominations
monkeymind:
I still do not know what your point is.  There is an infinite number of points which could be assumed from my two statements.
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: monkeymind on February 24, 2012, 03:37:52 PM
Bible contradictory.
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: velkyn on February 24, 2012, 04:02:48 PM
Hello Tero:
Every national/civil assembly which ever existed had rules made up by the leaders.  One must assume that the Children of Israel also had rules before they got to Mt. Sinai.  The decalogue is the only law ever given by God.

for someoen who ha claimed ot read his bible so closely, you certainly miss a lot of things:

Exodus 19: 3 Then Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain and said, “This is what you are to say to the descendants of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: 4 ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. 5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you[a] will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.”
Exodus 20:22 22 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Tell the Israelites this: ‘You have seen for yourselves that I have spoken to you from heaven: 23 Do not make any gods to be alongside me; do not make for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold....

Then the Lord said to Moses...
Exodus 21:11 “These are the laws you are to set before them:  2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his……

Exodus 22 goes on

Exodus 23 goes on

Then we get into temple and ritual laws in the rest of Exodus.  You’d think God was an interior and fashion designer with his precise fussing about what needs to be where. All talking to the Israelites, all talking about the law.  No distinction made.

Suddenly there is a Book of the Covenant, not just tablets.

Exodus 24: Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half he splashed against the altar. 7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, “We will do everything the LORD has said; we will obey.”
 8 Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.”
 9 Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up 10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. 11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.
 12 The LORD said to Moses, “Come up to me on the mountain and stay here, and I will give you the tablets of stone with the law and commandments I have written for their instruction.”

Then in Exodus 31, finally we get the tablets that have no indication on what was actually on them other than it couldn’t be all of the “covenant” since that took a “book”, unless Gods’ finger writes pretty damn small.  Exodus 32: 15 Moses turned and went down the mountain with the two tablets of the covenant law in his hands. They were inscribed on both sides, front and back. 16 The tablets were the work of God; the writing was the writing of God, engraved on the tablets.  They get broken, remade and the broke bits put in the ark of the covenant, which the Israelites somehow lose.  The second set may or may not have such goodies as ““Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.”  This is the only “Decalogue” in the bible and it has nothing about lying or honoring one’s father and mother, etc.

the more I reread this thing the sillier it gets.

Leviticus has the same formula “Say to the Israelites” and it goes on and on. Leviticus 18 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD.
 6 “‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD……

and Leviticus ends 34 These are the commands the LORD gave Moses at Mount Sinai for the Israelites.
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: monkeymind on February 24, 2012, 04:14:09 PM
Provoker:
Quote
My position is that the bible is a story written by religious men, but it is not a story about religion, or God.  It is the story of a political solution to an ideological goal.

Care to back this up with, I don't Know, scripture?
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 24, 2012, 05:34:07 PM
well, Provoker, it seems that you are quite confused in what you want to claim.  all of this Christain nonsense and then you seem to be trying to portray yourself as not a Christain at all.
Hello velkyn:
If you are confused about what I am saying, then your ask questions, not make statements...LOL

Quote
 

Unfortunately, this is a written medium and one can see your claims and how they are wrong.  All of this insistence about the “10 Commandments” and when called on how idiotic your claims are, you try to ignore that with attempts at being funny.   Yes, I know that the myths in the bible claim that there were stone tablets.  Again, that does nothing to support your claims that they are the only commandments.  There is nothing to separate them from the “mitzvot laws”.  You’d know this if you actually read the bible or weren't so desperate to avoid having to acknowledge them as laws that Jews and Christians have to obey.

You can assume whatever you want about me, and you can assume that you know everything about scripture, but if you would drop the negative innuendo, and the ignorant accusations, you might find out why I write what I write.  Don't be so anxious to deliver the coup de grace, when you haven't even figured out what we disagree on...LOL  If you assume that I am hedging on any issue, don't start making knee jerk accusations, ask the logical question.  I will be happy to answer any question(on issue) to your satisfaction.

Quote
 

It’s so cute to watch a Christain, because I’m quite sure that’s what you are, making claims and then declaring that you don’t care what the Jews think since you unilaterally and baselessly claim that
Quote
As far as the Jews are concerned, they don't even believe what they claim to believe, so whether they agree with me or not is not a problem to me...LOL
Such a lovely cliam by one more Christian who evidently thinks he’s psychic.
Wow!!!  You are more serious about your atheism than anyone I know who is serious about being a Christian.  In fact, you protestation is so serious that you give the impressiion that you are a Christian in denial...LOL  However, the Jews of Jesus day were backslidden from the faith which Jesus was preaching.  You see, Jesus came specificially to heal the backsliding of the Jews.  The reason the Jews were backslidden is because they had transferred the zeal they once had for the faith, to the ritual practice of Jewish religious laws and traditions.  Except for the Jews who returned to the faith during the apostolic era, the Jews are still backslidden from the faith, and for the very same reason.
Quote

Quote
I do believe that you are presuming rather than reading...LOL  When you invent the arguement you think I made, and then comment on it, it is either a strawman, or you were just not paying attention to what I said.  Not only that but I dare say that you have never ever ever heard anyone even suggest anything close to what I have said.  You are going to have to pay attention if you want to make comments which make any sense:-)
Oh this is fun.  I do love how you now try to claim I invent something.  Sorry, again, you seem to miss that this is a written medium and I am addressing just what you wrote.
Yes, this is a written medium, and theoretically will exist forever.  So You be careful what you say:-)
Quote
  You’ve made claims in that lovely quote from you all about the Covenant Israel and I am asking you to clarify them by telling me how large is large enough for your claim of the “end times” to come true?  I’m guessing you don’t want to answer since this would actually pin your nonsense down and make you just as stupid looking as Harold Camping. How many more years do we have to wait for yoru god to return?
Exactly as I figured.  You are guessing...LOL
Your "you all" is completely wasted, as is your guessing.  In fact, you are more like Harold Camping than anyone I know...LOL
First, I have said nothing about God returning.  Is that something you read from my mind?  I think you should just sit back in the peanut gallery and let someone else depose me.  You are trying to get way ahead of what you think you know...LOL
(Do you still beat your wife? Answer yes or no!)  Even though you asked your question in such a presumptuous way that I cannot logically answer it, I will answer the question that I think you meant to, or should have, asked:  "Large enough" means enough people to conquer and occupy all the land between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt, which is the land defined in God's everlasting, unconditional, good news promise to Abraham.
Quote

Quote
I don't have any imaginary friends.  All my friends are real.  I'm not sure that you are actually reading what I write.  Are you reading someone else's posts and putting the answers under my posts?
By the way, I didn't say that I know this.  All I'm saying is that it is what the story of the bible says.  You can believe it or not, but at least make some comments which make me think you are actually reading my stuff...LOL
Yes, you did say you know this, you poor thing.
Quote
However, God knows that even when Covenant Israel is resurrected from the dead, it would break the 10 commandments and fall away again.
You made the claim that this is true by posting it as a fact.
What a dreamer:-(  Do you really think that everything I write is something that I think I know?  I know that what I write is part of the story of the bible.  I also know that whether or not you believe that it is part of the story, does not change the fact that it is part of the story.  Try to keep in mind that I have made no claims of having any knowledge of biblical truth, but my claim is that I know that there is a continuous, logical, story running through scripture, which has been covered up and ignored by all who take it upon themselves to make claims about bible truth.
Quote
pity that now you have to deal with people who actually question the shit you’ve thrown at the wall to see if it would stick.
You haven't actually asked a question about what I have written.  You have simply accused me of saying things which you presumed that I might say, but actually did not.  I certainly am to be pittied if everyone here makes up arguements that they think I might make, and then accuse me of making them...LOL
Quote
  You did not say that you were “just” quoting from the bible.  But since you want to do this now, please do show where the bible says such things as you’ve claimed.  You see, I know that you are just one more Christian who thinks his interpretation is the only right one.
How could you know that?  What is your definition of a Christian?  You think you know way too much, for one who doesn't have a clue about what she is talking about.
Do you not see how ridiculous your questions are?  If you want me to show where the bible says all the things I have claimed, which you actually only think I claimed:-), I would simply say; read the bible for the chronologically continuous story which flows through it.  It's a story, and a story is only defined by the story.  I don't have a bunch of standard verses which have been doctrinally selected to support my position.  If that is what you expect, then I am becoming more convinced that you are a Christian in denial.
Quote
 
Quote
There you go, talking to yourself.  If you are trying to read my mind you are not doing very well...LOL  God is not involved with man.  When He finished creation He declared it good and sat down.  Anyone who thinks for himself can see that that is a metaphore meaning that God's plan did not extend past creation, and we are on our own.
  It’s so sweet to see you desperately try to disavow what you’ve posted do you don’t have to answer my questions but in doing so give more evidence that you do believe this nonsense that you’re claiming.  Keep going.  And oh, you’ve gotten your magic decoder ring out and are trying to declare that your interpretation is the only “right” one.  So, Prov, why didn’t your god do something so simple rather than screwing around for thousands of years like your myths say?
Can't you keep your mind on anything long enough to type a sentence?  I just stated that God is not involved with man, and I gave you the reason why I say that, and immediately you ask me why God does not do the things that are in the myths about Him.  There is little point in you asking me questions, if you are going to ignore my answers, and just rant about whatever you imagine...LOL  I think you should settle down and become rational, before you respond to this post.  Apply the common rules of English composition to what I write, and be completely sure that you understand what I said.
Quote
   
Quote
What you, I, or anyone else thinks of the bible, is beside the point.  I'm not suggesting that you have to believe it, I'm just telling you what the story of the bible is.
Here is something to think about:  You don't have a clue about what I believe, and what I don't...LOL
  No, it’s not “beside the point”.
OK, give me one logical reason why what you, I, or anyone else believes about the bible, has to do with the fact that there is a continuous, logical, story running through the bible.  That story will still be there regardless of what anyone thinks.  Use a little common sense eh?
Quote
You have come on to this forum making claims as if they were facts.
If we were discussing Shakespeare, would you accuse me of stating that Romeo was an actual person?  Get real!!!:-)
Quote
  Now, when you are shown your are wrong, suddenly you claim that you aren’t suggesting that we believe it.
Do you know the symptoms of raging paranoia?  Look at what you are writing.
Quote
  Dear, you tried to make it that we did.  You are telling us what *you* think the story of the bible is and I do love that since I can see just how theists disagree in their supposed “truth”.  And I can make an educated guess what you believe just from what you’ve written.
You have already made a bunch of uneducated guesses, and you have missed the mark every time.  Virtually nothing you have accused me of, or assumed that I said, did, or believe, is even close to fact.
Quote
  Alas for you, that does contain plenty of clues.  You’ve made claims that you have used “logic” and of course can’t show that you have.  You claim that the bible is “continuous and chronological” and one complete story when it can be demonstrated that it is not.
Please, by all means, demonstrate that scripture is not a chronologically continuous story.  Simply making a statement is not evidence.  I am perfectly happy to demonstrate how scripture is a chronologically continuous story, and explain why that has been covered up, but I think you should settle down and become rational before I do that:-)
Quote

Now, I have read the bible through from front to back at least twice, onces as a Christain once as not. So again, your claims that one gets some magical insight from doing this is nonsense too. So many Chrsitians, so many lies about how their versions are the only “right” ones.  Too bad for all of you that we have the internet and sources like Wikipedia to see just how ridiculous you are with your self-projection as your god so you get one that agrees with your own very human desires and hatreds.  You decide what is literal and what is metaphor; you decide what your god “really” meant.  No god needed at all, just one more Christian who wants to declare all of those “other” Christians wrong.
OK, now I understand:-(  You feel a whole lot of guilt for leaving the church, and I am supposed to be your substitute, and take the punishment for you.  Your rant at me is obviously a Freudian attempt to punish yourself, because nothing you have said here applies to me, or anything I have written here.
Quote
EDIT: I wonder if Prov is a Mormon, They seem fascinated by "Convenant Israel"
If you think I am a mormon, I'm sure you are the only one here who does.  The whole story of scripture is about Covenant Israel, because God chose Covenant Israel to fulfill His everlasting, unconditional, gospel promise.  Anyone who has read the bible through twice, should know that.
I will happily answer any question regarding my opinion of what the bible teaches, and I'm sure you will be happy to know that it is nothing like you believed when your were a Christian.


edit - quote fixed
~Screwtape
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: monkeymind on February 24, 2012, 05:36:08 PM
What's with the wall of words?

You really suck at quoting. Are you trying to Provoke me? :)
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Brakeman on February 24, 2012, 05:53:49 PM
Provoker,
Despite what you may think, this is not a Monty Python Style argument clinic. We strive to exchange meaningful ideas and seek developed paths of thought.

Please try to exchange ideas and not just comments to muddy up flows of conversation.

Additional care with your quoting would be most appreciated as well.

Now that all of that has been said. Can you give us a clear summery of your position on the topic?
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 25, 2012, 12:37:32 AM
Provoker:
Quote
My position is that the bible is a story written by religious men, but it is not a story about religion, or God.  It is the story of a political solution to an ideological goal.

Care to back this up with, I don't Know, scripture?
Hi monkeymind:
I would be happy to back it up:-)
I'm not going to offer you some doctrinally selected verses, because that method has spawned thousands of doctrinally disagreeing denominations.  All those denominations want to stick with the devil they know, because a better interpretation method would tend to thin the heard, and no one wants to be cut out.
If you have read the bible, then stick with me as I cover the main turning points in the story of scripture:
God finished creation, declared it good and sat down. 
Man presumed to judge good and evil, and caused the loss of peace and good will. God, sees the end from the beginning, graciously reveals to Abraham, the good news that a great nation of Abraham's seed, will inherit all the land between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt, for an everlasting possession, and will bless all the families of all nations.  Abraham believes God's promise, and whatever he does to bring about the great nation of God's promise, he justifies by the faith he has in the outcome.  If it is an unrighteous thing which needs to be done, he counts righteousness to himself because of his faith in the outcome.  It is commonly known as "justification by faith", but it is more accurate to say; "the end justifies the means".
A national assembly is chosen to become the great everlasting nation, and it is given 10 rules of great everlasting nationhood.  The are designed to create and maintain the national unity required for the nations to become great and everlasting.
The nation becomes a kingdom on the land defined in God's promise, but it becomes divided against itself and falls into non-existence.  It could have repented by simply returning to it's former unity, but it fell before that could take place.
The two kingdoms resulting from the fall of the Covenant nation, are warring enemies, and even though prophets try to get them to reunite, the are both destroyed by their enemies without ever reuniting, and resurrecting the great covenant nation from the dead.
God's promise however, remains everlasting and unconditional, so the small remnant of people who still have faith in God's promise, begin again to watch, wait, and prepare for the annointed one who will resurrect the great nation/kingdom from the dead.  The faithful remnant among the Jews held captive in Babylon, begins to grow.  When the captivity ends, the faithful remnant returns to Judea, where it is given so much freedom by the Persian rulers, that the Jews eventually lose interest in kingdom resurrection.  They have turned their interest to the ritual practice of the old redundant laws, and traditions of the long dead covenant nation, and become the backslidden lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Jesus comes strictly to the backslidden Jews, and not to the gentiles.  His purpose is to heal the backsliding of the Jews by preaching the gospel of the coming kingdom.  Of course this is simply the same good news promise which God revealed to Abraham.  In Abraham's day it was the gospel of the coming great nation, but since the great nation became a kingdom before it fell, now it is the gospel of the coming kingdom.
After Jesus apparently raises Lasarus from the dead, his following starts growing quite rapidly.  The chief priests and Pharisees get together to discuss what should be done.  They fear that Jesus might do something with his quickly growing following, which might so enrage the Romans, that they would kill all the Jews in the world.  It should be noted at this point, that the land which is so specifically defined in God's promise, just happens to be part of the Roman Empire at the time.  2+2=4.  The chief priests and Pharisees, aided by the temple guard, capture Jesus and turn him over to Rome for execution...for sedition!  If, as scripture claims, Pilate declared that he found no fault in Jesus, and he had him executed anyway, it would have made Pilate a murderer and he would have been dealt with accordingly by Roman Law.
After Jesus' death, the apostles continued to preach the gospel of the coming kingdom, and eventually Rome killed them all.  The sect of those zealous for the kingdom continued to grow as the apostles continued to preach the gospel of the coming kingdom/great nation.  Rome marched on Jerusalem which was destroyed, and the followers of Jesus were driven underground in the third quarter of the first century. 
In the early 4th century, while the land defined in God's promise was still part of the Roman Empire, Emperor Constantine decided to establish a new universal religion for the Roman Empire, which all the churches of the empire would be obliged to preach.
He convened a council of representatives of all the churches, told them to bring all their sacred writings, and made them vote on one universal set of doctrines.  The voting is said to have taken anywhere for a year and a half, to four and one half years.  The doctrines which won the vote were written up as a creed. and the rest is church history.  It should be noted that Rome was a pagan empire, and the vast majority of churches in the empire would have been Pagan.  After all, the "Christian" church had been underground for 300 years. 
Two gods were combined to form the new universal god:  "Hesus" of the British Celts, and "Krishna", the eastern god.  When the letter "J" found it's way into the Phoenician alphabet some centuries later, the universal god became known as Jesus Christ.  A first century Jewish teacher who had been cruicified for sedition, was promoted to the common pagan doctrine of god sired, dying rising, god man saviour, and given the name of the new God.
The most important thing to come out of the first ecumenical council of Nicea, was the covering up of the gospel on which the complete Hebrew bible(the OT) was based.  Constantine effectively nipped in the bud, the plotting against Rome by whatever was left of Jesus' followers.  The rest if church history.  The universal church was not declared "Christian" until a church council in the 1500s.
To sum up, leaving God out of the picture:  Abraham predicted that eventually peace and good will would be brought to the earth by a great everlasting nation, and the whole of scripture is a record of men's failed attempt to fulfill that prediction, and men's hope that it will be fulfilled in the future.  You see, when the Miss America contestants wish for world peace, they are actually stating the faith of Abraham.


Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 25, 2012, 12:59:28 AM
Interesting post, Provoker. A few quick questions.

Is it fair to extrapolate an area described as "all the land between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt" as the whole world?

"Nations" at that time were groups of people, not geographic entities. Does that make any difference today? In your opinion, of course.

Given the Israelis inability to make even token peace with just the Palestinians, are they really likely to be the source of that claim that "peace and good will would be brought to the earth by a great everlasting nation"? If Iran nukes them, will that slow down the process?

If there is a god, he should known that if people are involved, it will never work out. He would have had better luck making Adam and Eve into dolphins. Of course that would have mucked up his plans to flood the place later on, which of course he knew about before he started playing in the dirt and making Adam. Were I omnipotent I think I would actually use the information I already know.

A god who knows the shit is going to hit the fan and responds by making more shit available doesn't impress me much.

I do appreciate the overview you provided. I don't believe any of it, but at least it clarified a few christians points of view. And it wasn't preaching.

Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: monkeymind on February 25, 2012, 08:59:38 AM
Interesting...

So what about the lost tribes? Anything in your narrative about them? Do the missing 10 tribes have to unite in or over Israel for world peace?
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 25, 2012, 09:52:03 AM
Then be rational:
Quoting verses is cherry picking, and that has spawned thousands of doctrinally disagreeing denominations.  Reading a story to understand it, is not cherry picking

Wrong. Saying that certain verses are true while others are not is cherry picking. Saying that none are true yet the "story" (composed of said verses) is true is stupid. Saying that all the verses are true is idiotic.
Hi Luci:
What you say may very well be true, but it does not apply to anything I have written here.
Scripture was not written in verses.  It was written in flowing narrative.  It was later divided into verses for ease of making references.  Unfortunately, the good idea of verses created the bad situation of fragmenting scripture.  Scripture has to be defragged in order to get back to the flowing narrative.  A sentence which is lifted from narrative and quoted as if it was written to stand alone, is always quoted outside of it's context.  The accuracy of what a quoted verse appears to say, can only be determined according to it's agreement with the overall narrative.  IOW, quoting a single verse from a story, means absolutely nothing unless the quoter and the hearer both understand the story.
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 25, 2012, 09:58:58 AM
Do Mormons laugh out loud after every sentence like prov does?
Hi changeling:
Are you telling me to wipe the grin off my face?  It's pretty difficult not to grin under the circumstances...LOL
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: One Above All on February 25, 2012, 10:18:33 AM
What you say may very well be true, but it does not apply to anything I have written here.

...Yeah, it does. Read the part I quoted. It applies to that.

Scripture was not written in verses.  It was written in flowing narrative.  It was later divided into verses for ease of making references.

Source?

Unfortunately, the good idea of verses created the bad situation of fragmenting scripture.  Scripture has to be defragged in order to get back to the flowing narrative.  A sentence which is lifted from narrative and quoted as if it was written to stand alone, is always quoted outside of it's context.  The accuracy of what a quoted verse appears to say, can only be determined according to it's agreement with the overall narrative.  IOW, quoting a single verse from a story, means absolutely nothing unless the quoter and the hearer both understand the story.

Irrelevant. The inconsistencies are not explained away by yelling "CONTEXT". Just in Genesis you have light before light sources, the moon being one of said light sources, A&E being created before and after all living things, et cetera.
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 25, 2012, 10:48:57 AM
Hello Tero:
Every national/civil assembly which ever existed had rules made up by the leaders.  One must assume that the Children of Israel also had rules before they got to Mt. Sinai.  The decalogue is the only law ever given by God.

for someoen who ha claimed ot read his bible so closely, you certainly miss a lot of things:
Hi velkyn:
There you go again...putting false claims into my mouth:-)
I don't miss the trees, I simply look at the forest first.
Quote


Exodus 19: 3 Then Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain and said, “This is what you are to say to the descendants of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: 4 ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. 5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you[a] will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.”
Exodus 20:22 22 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Tell the Israelites this: ‘You have seen for yourselves that I have spoken to you from heaven: 23 Do not make any gods to be alongside me; do not make for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold....

Then the Lord said to Moses...
Exodus 21:11 “These are the laws you are to set before them:  2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his……

Exodus 22 goes on

Exodus 23 goes on

Then we get into temple and ritual laws in the rest of Exodus.  You’d think God was an interior and fashion designer with his precise fussing about what needs to be where. All talking to the Israelites, all talking about the law.  No distinction made.

Suddenly there is a Book of the Covenant, not just tablets.

Exodus 24: Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half he splashed against the altar. 7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, “We will do everything the LORD has said; we will obey.”
 8 Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.”
 9 Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up 10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. 11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.
 12 The LORD said to Moses, “Come up to me on the mountain and stay here, and I will give you the tablets of stone with the law and commandments I have written for their instruction.”

Then in Exodus 31, finally we get the tablets that have no indication on what was actually on them other than it couldn’t be all of the “covenant” since that took a “book”, unless Gods’ finger writes pretty damn small.  Exodus 32: 15 Moses turned and went down the mountain with the two tablets of the covenant law in his hands. They were inscribed on both sides, front and back. 16 The tablets were the work of God; the writing was the writing of God, engraved on the tablets.  They get broken, remade and the broke bits put in the ark of the covenant, which the Israelites somehow lose.  The second set may or may not have such goodies as ““Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.”  This is the only “Decalogue” in the bible and it has nothing about lying or honoring one’s father and mother, etc.

the more I reread this thing the sillier it gets.

Leviticus has the same formula “Say to the Israelites” and it goes on and on. Leviticus 18 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD.
 6 “‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD……

and Leviticus ends 34 These are the commands the LORD gave Moses at Mount Sinai for the Israelites.
If your point is that the details are silly, I agree.  Interestingly, one of the important points that one finds in the story, is that concentrating on the silly religious details keeps one from seeing the point of the story.  If anything, the story goes out of it's way to dismiss silly religious details.
The story is about how a body of believers, known as the Children of Israel, attempted to fulfill God's gospel promise, but failed.  Then the story is about how prophets tried to get the former Israelites to re-establish the fallen nation of Israel.  When the former Israelites become scattered to the nations, the story then tells of the attempt rebuild the original body of believers to a size which makes it viable for a second attempt at fulfilling God's gospel promise. 
The land on which the great nation/kingdom is prophesied to exist forever, happens to be part of the Roman Empire in the first century, so Rome kills all the people spreading the gospel, and introduces it's own gospel which is based on the common pagan doctrine of the god sired, dying rising, god man saviour. 
The faith of scripture was never religion, but was always God's promise that a great everlasting nation would bless all the families of all nations with everlasting peace on earth, good will toward men.  All religion ever did was distract from the goal of the faith.
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 25, 2012, 11:04:34 AM
What's with the wall of words?

You really suck at quoting. Are you trying to Provoke me? :)
Right on both counts monkeymind:-)
If you are expecting me to quote verses, forget it.  That is what has the church so doctrinally confused and doctrinally divided.  Reasonable scriptural points can only be made by relating the pertinent parts of the whole story.
You have to be able to see the logical flow of the well known bible events, to see where they obviously lead. 
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: monkeymind on February 25, 2012, 12:02:28 PM
What's with the wall of words?

You really suck at quoting. Are you trying to Provoke me? :)
Right on both counts monkeymind:-)
If you are expecting me to quote verses, forget it.  That is what has the church so doctrinally confused and doctrinally divided.  Reasonable scriptural points can only be made by relating the pertinent parts of the whole story.
You have to be able to see the logical flow of the well known bible events, to see where they obviously lead.

LoL, That's what I thot. LoL
Quote
someone who deliberately foments trouble; "she was the instigator of their quarrel"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/provoker (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/provoker)

However, you didn't provoke me. You'll have to do better than that!  I see you as an amateur provoker (an amvoker).

From Monkeypedia:
Quote
amvoker 1. Noun. someone who deliberately tries to foment trouble, but really can't because they are an amateur; "she was unsuccessful in instigating a quarrel because she sucked at it."
http://www.monkeypedia.com/provoker (http://www.monkeypedia.com/provoker)

OK, on not quoting versus, however, I don't know how you will back up your assertions without them. I'm all for reading between the lines.

Here, you give it a try first:
/What/a/maroon/!/

Lol, Lol, Lol
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: rickymooston on February 25, 2012, 12:06:51 PM
Christian:  think God is more forgiving of which interpretation you choose and more insistent on living a life that is honorable, helpful, and worthwhile. Both religions push the same kind of living. The devil is in the details, but Jesus never pushed detail oriented religion, so I don't push it either.


Hi, scanning over the debate, in my view, the Christian is closer to the mark than the atheist but both have made valid points.

Note that they are debating reasonable interpretations of the bible and NOT the existence of God. Being a smite worthy. Oosy bastard I will comment on all.

There are several passages, verses and parables that in my mind support the Christians point of view

First of all, There exists a verse where Jesus summarizes the command thus
1 Love god with all your heart soul and mind
2 Love other people as you love your self.

Next Jesus is described as witnessing a stoning of a woman for adultery. The Jewish Law condemned her and yet Jesus said that he who never sinned can cast the first stone.

Only Jesus saw left and he told her to not seen again.

He didn't say adultery was OK. However he overturned the traditional punishment for it and focused on the inner person.

Another example has Jesus telling people to remove planks from there eyes rather than focusing on the sins of others

Several passages discuss an obligation in paying of one's taxes and submit to other obligations imposed on you by society including unjust ones like slavery. Not that in those days taxation amounted to stealing. The Romans were stealing for their subject people's.

Oddly christian slavemasters are nit condemned but onesimous was freed by Christian brothers. In any case the status quo isn't,the opposed

What is opposed isva total lack of compassion for the poor hungry and shelterless. Jesus goes so far as to suggest damnation for those who ignore the plight of the suffering.

Quote
[(http://)color=green]Atheist: [/color] yeah, details. shit that gets in the place of grand stories. details dont matter to the religious. its the bigger picture!
the end justifies the means = rape, pillage, be immoral, just as long as you repent before you die so that you can make it to heaven. What a crock of shit.

Stupid strawman arguments are a crock of shit. The passages on forgiveness speak of true sincere
Repentance.

What you describe is somebody who plans out his wickedness with the intent of getting away with it later.

Consider that Jesus was even passed off at the pharosees for the minor sin of hypocracy and pride.

In terms of the question of biblical interpretation several guidelines are provided. One has to judge people by the fruits of their teachings.

Salvation apparently comes only through Jesus

It's not clear to me that every. Inor misinterpretation leads one to damnation. To the contrary as the christian said there isca huge amount of emphasis in sincerity. Faith but not on intelligence or education per se

Quote
Christian: Nope, actually, that's the opposite of what Jesus meant. All the immoral is precisely what is important to abstain from, the exact beliefs that set up denominations are what is unimportant. That's why churches are so off base sometimes. 

I don't understand the last claim per se. Agree with him ikely intent has a huge importance in the message that Jesus parables seem to provide

Quote
Me jumping in: What about when Jesus said he came to uphold old testament law and not change it. Old Testament law includes, rape, beating slaves, murder, etc.
Matthew 5:17-18
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."


Fair point but in context of other things he did and said it makes no sense that the violence and lack of compassion was what he was referring to. Again consider adultery and turn the other cheek examples

In no case does Jesus ever condone harming others and when given the opportunity he even condemns allowing one to suffer by neglect.

Consider the parable of the good samritan. He condemned not helping a stranger, not working on the sabbath where somebody was being harmed and even praised a non jew

Now the kind of stuff he did condemn included divorce.

You are right the apostles in wishing to provide a good witness supported the status quo and even slavery.

Jesus never spoke on rape but given his views on divorce and on harming people the only reasonable interpretation is that he was against it. In a society that was against women and nonjews in many ways he defended both. Saving a woman and praising a Samritan
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 25, 2012, 12:56:33 PM
Provoker,
Despite what you may think, this is not a Monty Python Style argument clinic. We strive to exchange meaningful ideas and seek developed paths of thought.
Hello Brakeman:
I hoped that this forum would be a place to exchange meaningful ideas, but what I have run into is the proverbial Monty Python Style arguement clinic.
Quote


Please try to exchange ideas and not just comments to muddy up flows of conversation.
Have you noticed the the flows of conversation which I have had to defend against?  I am new here and I am simply following the lead of the regulars.  I think you should spread your criticism a little more evenly:-)
Quote

Additional care with your quoting would be most appreciated as well.
Not sure what you mean by that, but I will comment on whatever quotes I include.
Quote

Now that all of that has been said. Can you give us a clear summery of your position on the topic?
Certainly!
Scripture was written in flowing narrative, not verses, so it is my contention that scripture is more likely to be properly understood if we appeal to the narrative rather than the verses. 
The "church at large" agrees on one thing; "the Nicean Creed", and feels free to disagree on everything else.  Since the Nicean Creed was established by democratic vote among representatives of all the churches in the Roman Empire, it is undoubtably pagan, and Constantine legislated that the Nicean Creed was to be preached in every church.
What we have today is a church which still dutifully agrees with the Nicean Creed, and still feels free to disagree on everything else.
The only thing which unites Christians today, is a set of pagan doctrines which were forced on all the churches of the Roman Empire after the first ecumenical council at Nicea in 325AD.
Beginning with Abraham, "the faith", known as the faith of Abraham, is that a great nation of Abraham's seed will inherit all the land between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt for an everlasting possession, and will bless all the families of all nations.
Now since the earth lost peace and good will when man began to falsely judge good and evil, and since a NT prophecy says that the Christ will be given the kingdom of his father David, and will bring peace on earth, good will toward men, I concluded that peace on earth, good will toward men, brought about by David's kingdom, is close enough to a great nation blessing all the families of all nations, to consider it as evidence of story continuity.
Back to Abraham:  Abraham believed God's promise, and righteousness was counted unto him for his faith(he was justified by his faith).  Now since God's promise was that a great nation would bless all nations, not that God would bless all nations, Abraham began to watch, wait, and prepare for the coming great nation, and the annointed one who will establish and lead it.  Anything Abraham did in preparation for the coming great nation, was justified by his faith in the outcome.  If he had to do something which was evil to prepare for the coming great nation, he counted himself righteous because of his faith in the outcome.  Because Abraham had faith in the end which God saw from the beginning, his faith in the end, justified the means.  This is probably where the Catholic idea of indulgences came from.
It should be noted here, that it is commonly known that the very religious everywhere, have always given, and always give, God the credit for everything which happens in their lives.  It is a common form of worship, and it is even endorsed in scripture.  So even though God's promise to Abraham is that a great nation will bless all nations, religious writers after the fact, worshipped God by writing Him into the record as the author of every event. 
When the mixed national assembly known as the Children of Israel was chosen by Moses, to become the great nation of God's promise, Moses gave the national assembly 10 rules of national unity, which would lead it to great everlasting nationhood.
The Children of Israel virtually wiped out the Canaanites to conquer the land defined in God's promise, and it justified this evil action by their faith in the outcome.  Scripture writers made sure to complete that justification by adding that God told the Children of Israel to do it.
The geographically defined nation of Israel became a kingdom, and during the reign of Solomon, it became divided against it'self, having obviously broken the 10 rules of national unity, and Israel fell into non-existence without having achieved everlasting possession of the land, and obviously without repenting of breaking the 10.
Now since God saw the end from the beginning, then His promised ending is everlasting and unconditional.  Prophets began to warn the former Israelites in the two warring enemy kingdoms which resulted from Israel's fall, that Israel is going to be resurrected, and that the former Israelites should repent and resurrect Israel.
The small remnant of those who still remained faithful to God's promise, looked forward to the coming resurrection of the kingdom of Israel, so they were "spiritual Israel", or "the spiritual kingdom", looking forward to the literal kingdom of Israel.
When the Babylonian captivity ended, the faithful remnant among the Judahites, resettled in Persian ruled Judea, and were made to feel so "at home" that they lost interest in resurrecting the kingdom, and became focused on the ritual practice of old redundant Israelite laws and traditions.  They had become the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Jesus, a zealous member of the faithful remnant, came preaching the same good news which God had revealed to Abraham.  However, since Israel had become a kingdom before it fell, God's promise was now defined as the good news of the coming kingdom, rather than the good news of the coming great nation.
Since the borders of the great nation/kingdom were specifically defined in God's promise, and that specific land was part of the Roman Empire, Jesus' message represented a threat to the national security of the Roman Empire.  Jesus was executed for sedition, before he could do anthing which might cause Rome to retaliate by killing all the Jews.  "Jesus died to save the Jews" from death at the hands of the Romans.
The apostles carried on preaching the good news of the coming kingdom and were all killed by Rome.  The church was driven underground around 70AD, and was never heard from again, that we know of.
The anti-Nicean fathers were pagans, but since they defined the church, the church does not realize it.  250 years after the church went underground and disappeared, Emperor Constantine decided to unify all the religious organizations of the Roman Empire under one universal god, so he summoned representatives of all the churches of the empire to Nicea, and told them to bring all their sacred writings(refered to as testimonies) with them.  They were ordered to discuss all their various doctrines and by democratic vote, establish one universal set of doctrines which all could live with.
The council lasted for either almost 2 years by one account, to more than 4 years by another account.  In the end, the vote agreed with Constantine's initial proposal, and the Nicean Creed was established.  The names of the Celtic god Hesus, and the eastern god Krishna, were blended to name the new universal god.
Constantine ordered Eusebius to read all the testimonies of the gods, which had been brought to the council, and write "The New Testimonies", blending everything which is good in the testemonies, and throwing out everything which is evil in the testemonies.  50 copies of Eusebius' "New Testimonies" were made and distributed to all corners of the empire, with the order that the new creed be preached in all churches.
All the old testimonies, and records of the council, were burned, and Constantine ordered that anyone found with a copy of any of the old testimonies was to be beheaded.
The rest is church history.
I would be happy to enlarge on any particular part of my synopsis:-)



Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: monkeymind on February 25, 2012, 01:20:18 PM
Silly Monkeymind had a brain fart! I thot you copy/pasted  w/o giving credit.

I'm sorry.

I would give myself a thumbs down if it was allowed.
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 25, 2012, 01:39:17 PM
Interesting post, Provoker. A few quick questions.

Is it fair to extrapolate an area described as "all the land between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt" as the whole world?
Hi PP:
However one chooses to interpret scripture is fair as far as I am concerned.  My only interest is to show that there is a logical story to use as a starting point for interpretation.
Quote

"Nations" at that time were groups of people, not geographic entities. Does that make any difference today? In your opinion, of course.
I don't think that groups of people actually constituted nations, which I think were always geographically defined.  The concept of "nation" was skewed by the priesthood which Israel fell.  The point was that as long as the former national Israelites could remain convinced that they were still Israelites, the priesthood could maintain the status it enjoyed while geographically defined Israel existed.
For instance;  The two warring enemy kingdoms resulting from the fall of Israel, are commonly, but falsely, refered to as "the divided kingdom".  In fact, the kingdom was divided during Solomon's reign, and that division caused it's fall.  The two warring enemy kingdoms were not a divided anything, they were two separate, non-covenant kingdoms.
Quote
Given the Israelis inability to make even token peace with just the Palestinians, are they really likely to be the source of that claim that "peace and good will would be brought to the earth by a great everlasting nation"? If Iran nukes them, will that slow down the process?
There is nothing about the modern state of Israel which leads me to think that it is a legitimate resurrection of the great nation of God's promise to Abraham.
The reason I say that is because a majority of Israelite Jews are actually atheists, and as a democracy, the fact that Arab Israelies are reproducing at a much higher rate than Israeli Jews, it has been calculated that Israel will be an Arab state in a matter of 50 years or so.
Quote

If there is a god, he should known that if people are involved, it will never work out. He would have had better luck making Adam and Eve into dolphins. Of course that would have mucked up his plans to flood the place later on, which of course he knew about before he started playing in the dirt and making Adam. Were I omnipotent I think I would actually use the information I already know.
Of course you must recognize that I consider the story of Adam and Eve to be metaphorical, and while I believe in some kind of creation, I don't claim that the creator is the God of scripture, or that I have any idea of what form the creator has, is, was, etc.  Since astronomers tell us that the universe is explanding outward in all directions, suggests to me that it had a starting point.  Beyond that I cannot speculate.
Quote

A god who knows the shit is going to hit the fan and responds by making more shit available doesn't impress me much.
My sentiments exactly.  That is why I consider this part of the creation story; "God finished creation, declared it good, and sat down" to be metaphorically saying that God is not involved with His finished creation.
Quote


I do appreciate the overview you provided. I don't believe any of it, but at least it clarified a few christians points of view. And it wasn't preaching.
I doubt if there are any Christian points of view which can be clarified by my opinions:-) 
I am not trying to show that the story of the bible is true.  I'm simply trying to show that there is a chronologically continuous logical story running through the bible.
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: shnozzola on February 25, 2012, 01:54:56 PM
Hi Provoker,
   Sorry to jump into the middle of this, but looking over this thread,  I thought a posting in the review section might be of interest to you.  It is a quick critique of Christianity posted by "Foxy Freedom" (an hour or so reading) that I felt was pretty well written - although I disagreed with some things, most things I felt were well thought out, backed up with some evidence, and I could agree with:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21282.msg479417.html#msg479417

here's the actual link
http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V


My question is, do you think Jesus is going to return and “sow things up”, so to speak?

Oops, I almost forgot.  Can I use this below as a quote from you as my future signature?

You see, when the Miss America contestants wish for world peace, they are actually stating the faith of Abraham.
edit: spelling
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 25, 2012, 03:05:08 PM
Interesting...

So what about the lost tribes? Anything in your narrative about them? Do the missing 10 tribes have to unite in or over Israel for world peace?
Hi monkeymind:
A tribe is an assembly, and when an assembly is dispersed, it is no longer an assembly(tribe), so there are no literal tribes to unite. 
Since the faith which the Children of Israel was chosen to fulfill, is a faith, not a family, being a member of that nation, or of a tribe in that nation, is not based on bloodline but on faith, so when the kingdom is resurrected, it will be populated by those who have the faith of Abraham at the time the kingdom is resurrected.  While the kingdom of Israel would have to be literally resurrected, the tribes will only be resurrected as names for the old tribal division of the land. 
In God's definition of the New Covenant he will make with Israel(Jeremiah 31:31-34), He refers to Israel as the two houses.  This is an obvious reference to the two kingdoms reuniting to resurrect Israel.  However, since these two kingdoms were not in existence in Jeremiah's day, the reference has to be metaphorical.  It is only logical that resurrected Israel will be populated by the faithful living at the time the kingdom is resurrected.  The tribes will be metaphorically be reunited.
The annointed one(Christ/Messiah), sitting on the throne of David's resurrected kingdom, will make his enemies his foot stool, he will rule them with a rod of iron, he will make them beat their swords into plowshares, he will stop them from learning war, and nation will no longer rise up against nation.  Sounds like a solid plan for blessing all the families of all nations with peace on earth, good will toward men:-)
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: monkeymind on February 25, 2012, 03:11:06 PM
Any idea/guess who the Messiah is?
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 25, 2012, 03:14:40 PM
Hi Provoker,
My question is, do you think Jesus is going to return and “sow things up”, so to speak?
Hi shnozzola:
I don't think that any dead person is going to show up again...LOL
The one and only prophecy of messianic purpose, is that he will be given the kingdom of his father David, and will bring peace on earth, good will toward men.  How many times must a messiah come, to fulfill one little prophecy?
Quote

Oops, I almost forgot.  Can I use this below as a quote from you as my future signature?
By all means, by my guest:-)
Quote

You see, when the Miss America contestants wish for world peace, they are actually stating the faith of Abraham.
edit: spelling
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: rickymooston on February 25, 2012, 03:48:25 PM
If you are expecting me to quote verses, forget it.

Well, if you are arguing about what the bible intends to say, you either have to quote verses or at least allude to them. It is true that its easy to quote them out of context.  :-X

Quote
  That is what has the church so doctrinally confused and doctrinally divided.

I disagree with this statement. Doctrine depended on a number of factors. One can't assume all the theologians were idiots unable to read their texts in context.

Quote
  Reasonable scriptural points can only be made by relating the pertinent parts of the whole story.
You have to be able to see the logical flow of the well known bible events, to see where they obviously lead.

I agree. Of course, quoting verses can sometimes help establish this but often one may also allude to context. The question of quoting or not quoting is a matter of people believing your claims about said texts and readibility of them.
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 25, 2012, 04:36:23 PM
What you say may very well be true, but it does not apply to anything I have written here.

...Yeah, it does. Read the part I quoted. It applies to that.
Hi Luci:
I am discussing with a legion of people here, so unless you can remind me what it is, I cannot comment.
Quote

Scripture was not written in verses.  It was written in flowing narrative.  It was later divided into verses for ease of making references.

Source?
Hmm.  I don't know.  However it is commonly known that scripture was written in flowing narrative, without punctuation or spaces, and it is also commonly known that splitting scripture up into verses was done sometime in the middle ages.  I guess you will have to google it:-)
Quote

Unfortunately, the good idea of verses created the bad situation of fragmenting scripture.  Scripture has to be defragged in order to get back to the flowing narrative.  A sentence which is lifted from narrative and quoted as if it was written to stand alone, is always quoted outside of it's context.  The accuracy of what a quoted verse appears to say, can only be determined according to it's agreement with the overall narrative.  IOW, quoting a single verse from a story, means absolutely nothing unless the quoter and the hearer both understand the story.

Irrelevant. The inconsistencies are not explained away by yelling "CONTEXT". Just in Genesis you have light before light sources, the moon being one of said light sources, A&E being created before and after all living things, et cetera.
Context appears to be quite relevant to the Republican candidates for presidential nomination:-)  Surely you have seen the lies which can be spread by lifting a "sound bite" out of it's context in a speach, and using it to imply something the speaker did not mean.  Without appealing to context, no one would understand anything.
If you can see the inconsistencies in scripture, you are half way to rightly dividing scripture so that you can see the consistency of the story which runs through scripture.
The story of Adam and Eve is a common creation legend in several cultures, and is not part of the faith of scripture.  One of the main morals found in the bible story, is that when we get hung up on religious traditions and customs, we cannot recognize "the faith" of scripture, which is that a great nation will bless all nations with peace on earth, good will toward men.  All the religious stuff which has been added to the faith over the last 3500 years, has only served to cover up the very faith which is the one and only point of scripture.
The church is also focused on silly religious traditions, and that is why it lost the faith more than 1500 years ago.
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: One Above All on February 25, 2012, 04:47:41 PM
I am discussing with a legion of people here, so unless you can remind me what it is, I cannot comment.

"It" is my post explaining what cherry picking is after you misused the term.

Hmm.  I don't know.  However it is commonly known that scripture was written in flowing narrative, without punctuation or spaces, and it is also commonly known that splitting scripture up into verses was done sometime in the middle ages.

True for the most part. Dunno about the bold parts and the "commonly known" bits, though. However, that doesn't matter. Even if that is so, it doesn't affect the issue with the inconsistencies, which is the main issue here.

Context appears to be quite relevant to the Republican candidates for presidential nomination
<snip>

I didn't say that context was irrelevant, but rather that a lot of the inconsistencies do not depend on the context of the verses.
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: screwtape on February 25, 2012, 06:44:51 PM
Hi Provoker

The green text indicates I am acting as a moderator and not a participant in the discussion.  This post is not meant to be argumentative and a rebuttal would be considered inappropriate

Additional care with your quoting would be most appreciated as well.

Not sure what you mean by that, but I will comment on whatever quotes I include.

He means you made an error in one of your posts with the quote tags. I fixed for you. I suggest you check out our quoting tutorial here (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/board,75.0.html).  Or, if you understand how to quote and it was simply a typo, I suggest using the preview button before you post.  I still make quoting errors myself and 100% of the time it is because I failed to preview before posting.

Regards 
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Graybeard on February 26, 2012, 06:29:40 AM
The first thing that a disinterested reader will note is that if you remove all references to God, from the following, there is no loss of meaning. (I have also corrected the spelling of Nicene and Nicaea)
Can you give us a clear summary of your position on the topic?
Certainly!
Scripture was written in flowing narrative, not verses, so it is my contention that scripture is more likely to be properly understood if we appeal to the narrative rather than the verses.
This is either trivial or misleading. It is obvious that words taken out of context are without value, but the proposition of the Bible is that all the words are God’s; a Christian who then suggests that God could not express Himself perfectly, is then committing blasphemy.
Quote
The "church at large" agrees on one thing; "the Nicene Creed", and feels free to disagree on everything else.  Since the Nicene Creed was established by democratic vote among representatives of all the churches in the Roman Empire, it is undoubtedly pagan,
This is a strange concept. In application this argument would indicate that the Declaration of Independence is a British Document, as those who produced it were British. I personally see this as the fact of the matter, but have to say that the Declaration makes sufficient distinction between “being British” and “being a member of a break-away group.” Thus the Nicene Creed established the basic tenets of Christianity sufficient to distinguish the belief system from the pagan one.
Quote
The only thing which unites Christians today, is a set of pagan doctrines which were forced on all the churches of the Roman Empire after the first ecumenical council at Nicaea in 325AD.
… and thus they are all that is required.
Quote
Beginning with Abraham, "the faith", known as the faith of Abraham, is that a great nation of Abraham's seed will inherit all the land between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt for an everlasting possession, and will bless all the families of all nations.
This is based upon an assumption that Abraham’s claim was indeed by God, and not simply Abraham and others claiming the authority of a mythical being.

Quote
Now since the earth lost peace and good will when man began to falsely judge good and evil,
This is a bald statement without any support. Against it is (i) the serpent’s word that “ye will be as gods and know good from evil” (ii) there is nothing in history to show that there has ever been a “loss of peace and good.”

Quote
and since a NT prophecy says that the Christ will be given the kingdom of his father David, and will bring peace on earth, good will toward men,
(i) Do you have the reference of that ‘prophecy’? (ii) I see you omit the slaughter of one third of Mankind in the process.
Quote
I concluded that peace on earth, good will toward men, brought about by David's kingdom, is close enough to a great nation blessing all the families of all nations, to consider it as evidence of story continuity.
So, this is a personal opinion of God’s word and has no authority at all. It is what you imagine.
Quote
Back to Abraham:  Abraham believed God's promise, … was that a great nation would bless all nations, not that God would bless all nations, …  Anything Abraham did in preparation for the coming great nation, was justified by his faith in the outcome.
This is the doctrine of “It seemed like a good idea at the time.” 

Quote
If he had to do something which was evil to prepare for the coming great nation, he counted himself righteous because of his faith in the outcome. Because Abraham had faith in the end which God saw from the beginning, his faith in the end, justified the means.
Were it so that God were inspiring him, would this not mean that God could not achieve His ends without being evil? 

Quote
When the mixed national assembly known as the Children of Israel was chosen by Moses, to become the great nation of God's promise, Moses gave the national assembly 10 rules of national unity, which would lead it to great everlasting nationhood.
You realise that there is no evidence for the existence of Moses, and much against it?
Quote
The Children of Israel virtually wiped out the Canaanites to conquer the land defined in God's promise, and it justified this evil action by their faith in the outcome  Scripture writers made sure to complete that justification by adding that God told the Children of Israel to do it. .
Again, an omnipotent God fails to find a peaceful or just solution
Quote
The geographically defined nation of Israel became a kingdom, and during the reign of Solomon, it became divided against itself, having obviously broken the 10 rules of national unity, and Israel fell into non-existence without having achieved everlasting possession of the land, and obviously without repenting of breaking the 10.
You make it sound as if God had something to do with this.
Quote
Now since God saw the end from the beginning,
But did He see the middle – did He foresee that He would have to order the death of millions?
Quote
then His promised ending is everlasting and unconditional.
How do you know that (i) God has not withheld a sequel? Or (ii) in view of later changing prophecies, that what you claim is at all correct?
Quote
Prophets began to warn the former Israelites in the two warring enemy kingdoms which resulted from Israel's fall, that Israel is going to be resurrected, and that the former Israelites should repent and resurrect Israel.
To accept this, you have to believe that prophets can see into the future, for which there is no evidence. You also have to realise that these prophets made no prophecies about things that God must have known but they could not know – you will note the lack of prophecies about events in Australia.
Quote
God's promise was now defined as the good news of the coming kingdom, rather than the good news of the coming great nation.
Here we see the fallacy of believing a prophecy, as the prophecy changes as circumstances changes and its words are tortured to fit.
Quote
Since the borders of the great nation/kingdom were specifically defined in God's promise, and that specific land was part of the Roman Empire, Jesus' message represented a threat to the national security of the Roman Empire.  Jesus was executed for sedition, before he could do anything which might cause Rome to retaliate by killing all the Jews.  "Jesus died to save the Jews" from death at the hands of the Romans.
The truth of the matter is that the Romans has little interest in the affairs of the Jews. There were constant squabbles about who should run the Temple and how it should be run. So unimportant was the internecine strife, that Jesus is never mentioned  in any known documents, although others who fomented trouble are.
Quote
The apostles carried on preaching the good news of the coming kingdom and were all killed by Rome.  The church was driven underground around 70AD, and was never heard from again, that we know of.
This is not true. I suggest you have a look at various “gospels” that were written ater that date.
Quote
The anti-Nicean fathers were pagans,
See my earlier point
Quote
The names of the Celtic god Hesus, and the eastern god Krishna, were blended to name the new universal god.
Really? I’d be interested in any substantiated references.

Reality is a little different. The OT is a general and fictionalised account of the area of and around present-day Israel. It is a story of warring tribes; sometimes they win, sometimes they lose.

The NT is a story of rebellion against authority. It is probably no more than a political document turned into a narrative with a fictional hero used for unity of that narrative.

I end by urging you to remove references to any deity and observing that the events then do not change, but tend to make more sense.
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 26, 2012, 09:57:06 AM
Any idea/guess who the Messiah is?
Hi monkeymind:
After trying to get me in shit with the moderators, I shouldn't even be speaking to you!!!
The only thing which would identify the messiah is:  A successful takeover of all the land between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt, by someone who intends to be a benevolent dictator to the whole world:-)
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: monkeymind on February 26, 2012, 10:56:52 AM
Any idea/guess who the Messiah is?
Hi monkeymind:
After trying to get me in s**t with the moderators, I shouldn't even be speaking to you!!!
The only thing which would identify the messiah is:  A successful takeover of all the land between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt, by someone who intends to be a benevolent dictator to the whole world:-)

No, that is a mischaracterization of what happened. I thot you copied and pasted your first paragraph in a post w/o attributing your source. I notified a moderator (I don't know which one) & also posted a link in the thread immediately. I noticed within a minute or two, my mistake. I immediately notified the moderator explaining I was in error and Modified my post apologizing to you as well. What happened was a simple mistake. However, the moderator may have made the same mistake, or just taken my word for it, and put you on watched status. At any rate, (once again) I am  sorry about this regretful error.

I  happy that you are willing to speak with me (in spite of you having reservations about it).

You must be a better provoker than I anticipated as I generally don't make those kinds of mistakes, maybe you threw me off my game!  ;)

Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 26, 2012, 02:18:08 PM
The first thing that a disinterested reader will note is that if you remove all references to God, from the following, there is no loss of meaning. (I have also corrected the spelling of Nicene and Nicaea)
Can you give us a clear summary of your position on the topic?
Certainly!
Scripture was written in flowing narrative, not verses, so it is my contention that scripture is more likely to be properly understood if we appeal to the narrative rather than the verses.
This is either trivial or misleading. It is obvious that words taken out of context are without value, but the proposition of the Bible is that all the words are God’s; a Christian who then suggests that God could not express Himself perfectly, is then committing blasphemy.
Hello Greybeard:
There is no bible proposition on the bible, making the rest of your comments on my first sentence either trivial of misleading:-)
Quote
Quote
The "church at large" agrees on one thing; "the Nicene Creed", and feels free to disagree on everything else.  Since the Nicene Creed was established by democratic vote among representatives of all the churches in the Roman Empire, it is undoubtedly pagan,
This is a strange concept. In application this argument would indicate that the Declaration of Independence is a British Document, as those who produced it were British. I personally see this as the fact of the matter, but have to say that the Declaration makes sufficient distinction between “being British” and “being a member of a break-away group.” Thus the Nicene Creed established the basic tenets of Christianity sufficient to distinguish the belief system from the pagan one.
Your analogy completely misses the point.  The apostolic church went underground in 70AD and never surfaced again.   The religious organizations of the 4th century Roman Empire were either pagan or Jewish, and the Nicean Creed is a blending of pagan and Jewish doctrines.   Hundreds of years later the universal religion was declared to be Christian, and that declaration, of course, became retroactive to the first century.
Quote
Quote
The only thing which unites Christians today, is a set of pagan doctrines which were forced on all the churches of the Roman Empire after the first ecumenical council at Nicaea in 325AD.
… and thus they are all that is required.
I agree that the universal church, and the protestant denominations, are all complete religious organizations, and their doctrines are valid within the context of those organizations.  My contention is the word "Christian", when understood in it's proper context, does not define the universal church nor the protestant churches.  This means that the universal church, and the protestant churches, regardless of how complete they are in themselves, are not Christian in the contextually accurate sense of the word.  The post-Nicean church defines the word "Christian" as "One who follows Jesus Christ".  But...a contextually accurate understanding of the word "Christian", would be; "One who watches and waits for the Annointed one(Christ) who will fulfill the gospel of the coming great nation/kingdom".
Quote
This is based upon an assumption that Abraham’s claim was indeed by God, and not simply Abraham and others claiming the authority of a mythical being.
This is actually based upon the fact that the continuous story running through the bible, says that God made a promise to Abraham.  I am arguing for the story, not for literal truth:-)
Quote
Quote
Now since the earth lost peace and good will when man began to falsely judge good and evil,
This is a bald statement without any support. Against it is (i) the serpent’s word that “ye will be as gods and know good from evil” (ii) there is nothing in history to show that there has ever been a “loss of peace and good.”
Let me put some hair on my statement:-)  The story of Adam and Eve is obviously a metaphore which refers to man being tricked into getting the knowledge of good and evil, even though he had been warned of the consequences.
Then man presumed to judge his own nakedness as evil, in contradiction to the fact that God had already declared man's nakedness as good.  There is nothing which will destroy peace and good will faster than men falsely presuming to judge good and evil.  I try to interpret "in context" rather than according to church tradition:-)
Quote
Quote
and since a NT prophecy says that the Christ will be given the kingdom of his father David, and will bring peace on earth, good will toward men,
(i) Do you have the reference of that ‘prophecy’? (ii) I see you omit the slaughter of one third of Mankind in the process.
(i) Trust me!  An angel in one of the gospels, states that he will be given the kingdom of his father David, and will bring peace on earth, good will toward men. (ii) I am offering the basis for my opinion that the bible contains a chronologically continuous story.  I am not attempting to interpret, or endorse, all the details, but to establish a contextual basis for the acceptance, or rejection, of details.  The logic is that if there is a continuous story running through scripture, then any text which conflicts with that story, is not part of the story.  It may simply be misunderstood, but a misunderstood meaning is still not part of the story.
Quote

Quote
I concluded that peace on earth, good will toward men, brought about by David's kingdom, is close enough to a great nation blessing all the families of all nations, to consider it as evidence of story continuity.
So, this is a personal opinion of God’s word and has no authority at all. It is what you imagine.
Everything I write is my own personal opinion.  I don't recognize any authority in anyone else's personal opinion.  Who do you know who has the authority to make opinions for you?:-)
Quote
Quote
Back to Abraham:  Abraham believed God's promise, … was that a great nation would bless all nations, not that God would bless all nations, …  Anything Abraham did in preparation for the coming great nation, was justified by his faith in the outcome.
This is the doctrine of “It seemed like a good idea at the time.”
Absolutely.  In context, can you think of a better explanation of justification by faith?
Quote
 

Quote
If he had to do something which was evil to prepare for the coming great nation, he counted himself righteous because of his faith in the outcome. Because Abraham had faith in the end which God saw from the beginning, his faith in the end, justified the means.
Were it so that God were inspiring him, would this not mean that God could not achieve His ends without being evil?
Yes, except that I don't see the fulfillment of God's promise as "God's ends".  God saw the end from the beginning and He graciously revealed the good news to Abraham, that in the end, man will bless all nations with everlasting peace on earth, good will toward men.
This is also based on my interpretation of the metaphorical statement that God finished creation, declared it good, and sat down.  I cannot see that meaning anything other than that the creator's job was finished properly, and that man is not a work in progress, as far as the creator is concerned.
Quote
   

Quote
When the mixed national assembly known as the Children of Israel was chosen by Moses, to become the great nation of God's promise, Moses gave the national assembly 10 rules of national unity, which would lead it to great everlasting nationhood.
You realise that there is no evidence for the existence of Moses, and much against it?
What I realize is that Moses exists as a principle character in the story of the bible.  I am arguing for the story, not for actuality:-)
Quote
Quote
The Children of Israel virtually wiped out the Canaanites to conquer the land defined in God's promise, and it justified this evil action by their faith in the outcome  Scripture writers made sure to complete that justification by adding that God told the Children of Israel to do it. .
Again, an omnipotent God fails to find a peaceful or just solution
In the context of the bible story, God's job was finished when He declared it good, and sat down.  God is not finding solutions for man, God is simply the one who saw the end from the beginning, and told Abraham what he saw.
Quote
The geographically defined nation of Israel became a kingdom, and during the reign of Solomon, it became divided against itself, having obviously broken the 10 rules of national unity, and Israel fell into non-existence without having achieved everlasting possession of the land, and obviously without repenting of breaking the 10.
You make it sound as if God had something to do with this.[/quote]Unfortunately there are so many factions for this to be understandable to, that it has to be written in accepted terminology.  "Repentance" for division, is obviously "reunification", and the 10 commandments are obviously designed to maintain unity.
Quote

Quote
Now since God saw the end from the beginning,
But did He see the middle – did He foresee that He would have to order the death of millions?
I would hope that you can understand the difference between "seeing the end", and "directing the end".
Quote
Quote
then His promised ending is everlasting and unconditional.
How do you know that (i) God has not withheld a sequel? Or (ii) in view of later changing prophecies, that what you claim is at all correct?
Quote
(i)God is simply a character written into the story by religious writers who considered it a form of worship to give Him the glory for everything.(ii)The only thing I claim is correct, is that there is a chronologically continuous logical story running through the bible.
Quote
Quote
Prophets began to warn the former Israelites in the two warring enemy kingdoms which resulted from Israel's fall, that Israel is going to be resurrected, and that the former Israelites should repent and resurrect Israel.
To accept this, you have to believe that prophets can see into the future, for which there is no evidence. You also have to realise that these prophets made no prophecies about things that God must have known but they could not know – you will note the lack of prophecies about events in Australia.
Actually, the prophets basically reiterated a slightly embellished version of God's gospel promise to Abraham.  Many passages which the post-Nicean church call prophecies, are actually just conveniently worded passages which, if they were prophecies, would support post-Nicean doctrine:-)
Quote
Quote
God's promise was now defined as the good news of the coming kingdom, rather than the good news of the coming great nation.
Here we see the fallacy of believing a prophecy, as the prophecy changes as circumstances changes and its words are tortured to fit.
A kingdom is simply a great nation which ruled and protected by the leader of an army.  I'm trying to simplify a principle which the church has purposely made confusing, and you are nit picking...LOL
Quote
Quote
Since the borders of the great nation/kingdom were specifically defined in God's promise, and that specific land was part of the Roman Empire, Jesus' message represented a threat to the national security of the Roman Empire.  Jesus was executed for sedition, before he could do anything which might cause Rome to retaliate by killing all the Jews.  "Jesus died to save the Jews" from death at the hands of the Romans.
The truth of the matter is that the Romans has little interest in the affairs of the Jews. There were constant squabbles about who should run the Temple and how it should be run. So unimportant was the internecine strife, that Jesus is never mentioned  in any known documents, although others who fomented trouble are.
The truth is that the only sect of the Jews which was not backslidden from the faith of Abraham, was called "The Zealots".  So called because they were zealous for kingdom resurrection.  The Zealots were a thorn in the side of Rome because they were waging a constant geurilla war against the Roman authority.  While it is true that Rome did not worry about the faithless Jewish ritual belief in the coming kingdom, Jesus came preaching the same message with faith.  His purpose was to heal the backsliding of the Jews, and return them to their lost zeal for kingdom resurrection.  That is why Jesus was a threat to the national security of the Roman Empire.  These events did not take place in a vacuum, they took place in the context of the reality of the time.
Quote

Quote
The apostles carried on preaching the good news of the coming kingdom and were all killed by Rome.  The church was driven underground around 70AD, and was never heard from again, that we know of.
This is not true. I suggest you have a look at various “gospels” that were written ater that date.
I suggest that unless you were there at the time, that you don't make statements regarding what is true or not true.  It is common courtesy to show the same kind of respect for another's opinion, that you show when your boss says that his wife is beautiful and his children are smart.  Not only that, but a "not true" accusation is nothing more than a thinly disguised ad hominem type strawman, unless you qualify it with some evidence other than a suggestion. 
All the gospels were written after 70AD, but in the context of documents recording the events of the first council of Nicea, and the life of Constantine, there is little reason to consider the gospels as evidence of the existence of the church after 70AD.
The oldest known bible, the Sinai bible, c. 380AD only contains one of the gospels which are found in our bibles today; "the gospel of Mark".  The gospel of Mark in today's bibles, contains 10,000 more words than the Sinai bible version of Mark, and it also contains passages from know pagan sources.
Quote
Quote
The anti-Nicean fathers were pagans,
See my earlier point
You made no point earlier:-)
Quote
Quote
The names of the Celtic god Hesus, and the eastern god Krishna, were blended to name the new universal god.
Really? I’d be interested in any substantiated references.
I'll look it up.  I read it in an article by Tony Bushby, and he gives references for everything he states.
Quote
Reality is a little different. The OT is a general and fictionalised account of the area of and around present-day Israel. It is a story of warring tribes; sometimes they win, sometimes they lose.
That is the "reality" you have been taught, and the church would rather deal with that general statement than deal with the possibily that there is actually a continuous, logical story running through the bible.
Quote
The NT is a story of rebellion against authority. It is probably no more than a political document turned into a narrative with a fictional hero used for unity of that narrative.
OK...The NT is Roman propaganda designed to support the dismissal of the faith of Abraham, which occurred after the apostolic era, and made official by Constantine in 325AD.
Quote
I end by urging you to remove references to any deity and observing that the events then do not change, but tend to make more sense.
And I urge you wait for a rebuttal before you declare yourself correct and the discussion closed.  I am never surprised when someone assumes that his one critical post will settle the issue...LOL
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: monkeymind on February 26, 2012, 02:25:56 PM
Once again the wall. I couldn't read all that, but this caught my eye:
Quote
There is no bible proposition on the bible


Which of these did you mean?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proposition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proposition)
Quote
Definition of PROPOSITION
1
a (1) : something offered for consideration or acceptance : proposal (2) : a request for sexual intercourse b : the point to be discussed or maintained in argument usually stated in sentence form near the outset c : a theorem or problem to be demonstrated or performed
2
a : an expression in language or signs of something that can be believed, doubted, or denied or is either true or false b : the objective meaning of a proposition


What does this mean then?

http://bible.cc/2_timothy/3-16.htm (http://bible.cc/2_timothy/3-16.htm)
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 26, 2012, 03:06:52 PM
Once again the wall. I couldn't read all that, but this caught my eye:
Quote
There is no bible proposition on the bible


Which of these did you mean?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proposition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proposition)
Quote
Definition of PROPOSITION
1
a (1) : something offered for consideration or acceptance : proposal (2) : a request for sexual intercourse b : the point to be discussed or maintained in argument usually stated in sentence form near the outset c : a theorem or problem to be demonstrated or performed
2
a : an expression in language or signs of something that can be believed, doubted, or denied or is either true or false b : the objective meaning of a proposition


What does this mean then?

http://bible.cc/2_timothy/3-16.htm (http://bible.cc/2_timothy/3-16.htm)
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
Hello monkeymind:
I still should not be speaking to you:-)
Traditional church thinking is that "all scripture" refers to the bible, however there is a problem with that.  The bible contains books doctrinally selected from "all scripture", and passages in the bible, quote from, and refer to, scripture which is not found in the bible.  The book of Enoch is quoted in the bible, but the book it'self was rejected by the canonizers.  The bible cannot be considered "all scripture".
Beyond that, because God finished creation, declared it good, and sat down, nothing in God's creation is a a work in progress.  Man is on his own, and the only thing he has to thank God for is creation.
And beyond that, God is only written into scripture by religious writers who worshipped God by giving Him the credit for everything.  It is a very common practice among the religious.
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: monkeymind on February 26, 2012, 03:08:19 PM
^^^
Quote
Hello monkeymind:
I still should not be speaking to you:-)

And like a jilted lover, you keep complaining yet returning for more!
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: monkeymind on February 26, 2012, 03:12:58 PM
Quote
The bible contains books doctrinally selected from "all scripture", and passages in the bible, quote from, and refer to, scripture which is not found in the bible.  The book of Enoch is quoted in the bible, but the book it'self was rejected by the canonizers.  The bible cannot be considered "all scripture".

But there is enough to form a view and present it to us in narrative form? What have you read of the missing scripture?
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 26, 2012, 03:15:49 PM
Any idea/guess who the Messiah is?
Hi monkeymind:
After trying to get me in s**t with the moderators, I shouldn't even be speaking to you!!!
The only thing which would identify the messiah is:  A successful takeover of all the land between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt, by someone who intends to be a benevolent dictator to the whole world:-)

No, that is a mischaracterization of what happened. I thot you copied and pasted your first paragraph in a post w/o attributing your source. I notified a moderator (I don't know which one) & also posted a link in the thread immediately. I noticed within a minute or two, my mistake. I immediately notified the moderator explaining I was in error and Modified my post apologizing to you as well. What happened was a simple mistake. However, the moderator may have made the same mistake, or just taken my word for it, and put you on watched status. At any rate, (once again) I am  sorry about this regretful error.

I  happy that you are willing to speak with me (in spite of you having reservations about it).

You must be a better provoker than I anticipated as I generally don't make those kinds of mistakes, maybe you threw me off my game!  ;)
Hello Monkeymind:
I'm curious as to why you would jump to such a conclusion, and why you would be so quick to report it.  When you have no evidence, why would you not give me the benefit of the doubt?
I will have to admit that I am not finding this forum to be much of a positive experience:-(
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: monkeymind on February 26, 2012, 03:20:32 PM

I'm curious as to why you would jump to such a conclusion, and why you would be so quick to report it.  When you have no evidence, why would you not give me the benefit of the doubt?
I will have to admit that I am not finding this forum to be much of a positive experience:-(

No, I did not jump to a conclusion, I misinterpreted the results of my Google query. I copied your first paragraph and Googled it. At the top of the results page it asked did you mean....and had the entire paragraph underlined. I mistakenly thot that was a link. When I went back to see the link, I discovered my error. First time that this has ever happened.

The bad thing about it was that I reported it in haste (before going to the "link").


ADDED: BTW I won't hesitate to report anyone that uses someone's words without attribution. I'll be sure that I don't confuse the Did you mean? link tho....
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 26, 2012, 07:59:01 PM
.....
Well, if you are arguing about what the bible intends to say, you either have to quote verses or at least allude to them.....
Quote
Hi ricky:
When people ask me why I consider myself qualified to give a synopsis of the bible, I always tell them that I have read hundreds, maybe thousands, of stories in my life.  I always understood the stories, and I never remembered a single sentence from them:-)
Anyone who went to Sunday school knows all the stories of the bible.  It is simply a matter of placing them in chronological order, standing back, and taking a logical panoramic look at them.
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 26, 2012, 09:30:48 PM
Quote
The bible contains books doctrinally selected from "all scripture", and passages in the bible, quote from, and refer to, scripture which is not found in the bible.  The book of Enoch is quoted in the bible, but the book it'self was rejected by the canonizers.  The bible cannot be considered "all scripture".

But there is enough to form a view and present it to us in narrative form? What have you read of the missing scripture?
Hi monkeymind:
The very point of presenting the narrative is to bring you to the obvious conclusion that all Hebrew scripture exists to tell this narrative, and no matter what Hebrew scripture had been included in the bible, as long as it covered a sufficient time span, the story would still be clear. 
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: screwtape on February 27, 2012, 08:57:30 AM
Hi Provoker

Please practice using the quote feature. Your quoting errors are making it difficult to understand you.  In more than one of your posts I cannot tell which text is yours and which you have quoted.  please see this post:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21530.msg480146.html#msg480146

Thanks.
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: velkyn on February 27, 2012, 12:16:18 PM
Ah, Prov, your post in reply to mine was pretty much as expected.  Why yes, I am serious about being an atheist.  Nice try in your attempt to claim I’m a “Christian in denial”, it’s so cute when theists try their best to lie about atheists. No, Prov, I was a Christian but no more.  Just because I know a lot about Christianity, evidently much more than you, and I am willing to discuss the religion and its harmful tendencies doesn’t mean I “really” do believe in God.  Many Christians would desperately hope that, so they get more external validation.  Unfortunately, there is none to be found with me. 

It’s so cute that you can declare that the Jews were and are “backslidden” when their religion is just as intact, and supported, as yours.  No evidence for that claim at all.  They were waiting for their messiah and Jesus managed to screw up fulfilling the prophecies, and the Jews were split on whether to believe him or not.  Early Christians *were* Jews who thought they got the right one but like all theists had to cherry pick their supposed divingly given books to make things fit.  So much for any “truth”.  JC himself said that the laws were to be followed and yes, that the Pharisees were placing too much emphasis on the “word” and not the implicatiosn behind them.  Again, the laws were still to be followed, all of them. 

And then we get into your claims about the “end times”. Of course, no answers to be had about the details about those end times, just the usual ooga-booga by a Christian and then when asked about his claims of details on how one knows the end times will come, suddenly nothing.  No detaisl on how “large” is large.  Nice to cover your butt so you don’t look as ridiculous as every other Christain who has told a lie about the end times being “real soon now”.  You have claimed:
Quote
First, I have said nothing about God returning.
No, didn’t need to read your mind at all. 
Quote
Hence the good news of the coming kingdom. When the body of believers, which is being built for the Christ, becomes large enough to take and hold the land defined in God's promise, the Christ will appear and lead it to the resurrection of the kingdom of Covenant Israel from the dead, resurrected Covenant Israel will automatically be under the 10 commandments.
Quote
(Do you still beat your wife? Answer yes or no!)  Even though you asked your question in such a presumptuous way that I cannot logically answer it, I will answer the question that I think you meant to, or should have, asked:  "Large enough" means enough people to conquer and occupy all the land between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt, which is the land defined in God's everlasting, unconditional, good news promise to Abraham.
oooh, questions I “should have asked”.  That’s good, Prov.  Making baseless claims that you couldn’t “logically” answer what I asked by calling it “presumputous”and then making up a new question.  Nice dodge there, though.  Again, this means nothing.  This would vary depending on time period and technology.  The theist’s vagueness strikes again.   


Quote
What a dreamer:-(  Do you really think that everything I write is something that I think I know? 
  Oh my, what a lovely quote.  Good to know that you write about nonsense and evidently you do know it!    and this one too

Quote
Try to keep in mind that I have made no claims of having any knowledge of biblical truth, but my claim is that I know that there is a continuous, logical, story running through scripture, which has been covered up and ignored by all who take it upon themselves to make claims about bible truth.
You know, that quote above, where you say “The good news of the coming kingdom”.  Oh yes, that where you claim to be telling what will happen.  &) 
Quote
How could you know that?  What is your definition of a Christian?  You think you know way too much, for one who doesn't have a clue about what she is talking about.
Do you not see how ridiculous your questions are?  If you want me to show where the bible says all the things I have claimed, which you actually only think I claimed:-), I would simply say; read the bible for the chronologically continuous story which flows through it.  It's a story, and a story is only defined by the story.  I don't have a bunch of standard verses which have been doctrinally selected to support my position.  If that is what you expect, then I am becoming more convinced that you are a Christian in denial.
  So, you’ve not bothered actually showing where the bible supports the things you’ve claimed as I asked.  My definition of a Christian is based someone calling themselves a Christian.  There is no better way to know, especially since Christians differ on how they define being a Christian.  Now, you’ve claimed this, Prov: “However, God knows that even when Covenant Israel is resurrected from the dead, it would break the 10 commandments and fall away again.”  I want to know where in the bible it says this.  You have claimed that the bible is a continuous story. You have claimed that that you know that this god knows various things and has said various things. The only way you would know is by the bible, right?   I know the bible quite well and I’m calling you on your claims.  I find your claims ridiculous since they seem to be only things made up by you.  And why would my requests for you to support your claims make me a “Christian in denial”?  It’s a nice thing for you to baselessly claim but again, without evidence, it makes you only seem that you can lie.
Quote
Can't you keep your mind on anything long enough to type a sentence?  I just stated that God is not involved with man, and I gave you the reason why I say that, and immediately you ask me why God does not do the things that are in the myths about Him.  There is little point in you asking me questions, if you are going to ignore my answers, and just rant about whatever you imagine...LOL  I think you should settle down and become rational, before you respond to this post.  Apply the common rules of English composition to what I write, and be completely sure that you understand what I said.
More things made up.  yes, I saw that you claimed that god is now not involved with man.  You have declared that god has left the building and that suddenly the whole story is just a metaphor.  Nice decoder ring there.  You are now the arbiter about this god and what bits are myths and what bits are true.  That’s my point, Prov, you are just one more theist with your own religion.  You have decided on your own what the “true” story of the bible is.

Quote
If we were discussing Shakespeare, would you accuse me of stating that Romeo was an actual person?  Get real!!!:-)
No dear, I wouldn’t.  But I’m guessing that you would not have claimed that your interpretation of Shakespear was the only “right” one. But as it seems from your antics so far, you very well might do so.     

Prov, you have declared that the “10 Commandments” were the only law given by this god.  I’ve shown your claim wrong and I have your inabnlity to support your claim.  So, I find that I am indeed correct when I accuse you of making up your own version of what the bible “really” means.  We have repeated verses that have this god declaring he is giving laws.  You might wish to ignore those verses to support your own premise but that is exactly what I’m getting at. 

The bible is not continuous and chronological.  We have no idea when some of the events occurred or if they did occur.  The bible ignores that it kills some tribes off “entirely” when it brings them back again to be annihilated.  The NT ignores the OT when it comes to prophecies when convenient.  And for you accusing me of paranoia, I do love your claim that
Quote
I am perfectly happy to demonstrate how scripture is a chronologically continuous story, and explain why that has been covered up, but I think you should settle down and become rational before I do that:-)
Ooh conspiracies!  Sigh, one more claim from a theist on how they “know” things.

As for your claims that I somehow feel “guilt”, again, nice but baseless claim.  Just how are you taking any punishment for me?  Tsk, such a martyr complex.  Nope, dear, I have anything but guilt, but I do have no problem in showing your claims to be nonsense and calling you on them.  You have claimed to know about “Covenant Israel”, something that only a few sects of Christianity try to natter on about.  You claim to know that “whole story of scripture is about Covenant Israel, because God chose Covenant Israel to fulfill His everlasting, unconditional, gospel promise.  Anyone who has read the bible through twice, should know that.” and try to claim that “anyone” should know this somehow, when that is not the case at all, again making claims that your version is the only “right” one.”

Quote
If your point is that the details are silly, I agree.  Interestingly, one of the important points that one finds in the story, is that concentrating on the silly religious details keeps one from seeing the point of the story.  If anything, the story goes out of it's way to dismiss silly religious details.
Yep, the details are silly, but they do show your claim that you somehow know that God only gave the “ten commandments” as laws to be utter nonsense.  And here we go with the claims of you knowing what the “real” point of the story is.  Yep, you and ever Christian all claims that they know this, and funny how they differ. 

You wan to claim that you know the “real” gospel.  Hmmm perhaps not a Mormon but a Gnostic Christian who again has made up his own version of the “truth”.  You want to split your god from the religion you don’t like.  Not suprising many theists do.  You’ve all shat on your religions by your actions so that you run away from the concept so you don’t have to be responsible for anything.  Again, nothing to show that this god is what you claim, that is means to bless anything or create an everlasting nation.  Just more wannabee chosen people.

Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 27, 2012, 01:10:13 PM
I am discussing with a legion of people here, so unless you can remind me what it is, I cannot comment.

"It" is my post explaining what cherry picking is after you misused the term.
Hi Luci:
Yes, now I remember.  Cherry picking is looking for a conveniently worded passage to support a preconceived belief.  My point is that every time someone quotes a verse, or a passage, outside of the story it is part of, he is quoting it out of context.  It might mean what he claims, but it is still quoted out of context.  The story is the story, and the story only becomes context when refering to a single verse of passage.  People who define the story with doctrinally selected single passages, are putting the cart before the horse:-)  No quoted single verse, or passage, means anything unless both the quoter and the hearer, understand the story.  So quoting verses to tell the story is not very reliable, and thousands of doctrinally disagreeing denominations shows that.
The verses, or passages, which support the obvious theme, can be reasonable assumed to be understood in context, but verses, or passages, which appear to conflict with, or contradict the obvious theme, must be assumed to be misunderstood, and doctrine should not be made out of them.  The problem of course, is understanding the continuing theme so that it can be used as context for understanding verses.
When one reads scripture logically, as a story, he is naturally looking for a continuous theme.  When a logical theme becomes obvious, the reader will then begin to understand the details he has already read so far.  Keeping
 the obvious theme in mind, the reader will know when a particular verse does not maintain continuity with the continuing theme, and so he will not make a kneejerk doctrine out of it.  By the time the reader finishes reading the story, he should understand it, even if he did not understand all the details(verses).  However, he will now have a contextual basis for going back and studying the details he did not understand.  It is the lack of that contextual basis which has spawned all the kneejerk doctrines which have spawned all the doctrinally disagreeing denominations.  And, of course, the doctrines of the Nicean Creed, which contradict the continuous contextual theme of scripture, discourage bible readers from even expecting a logically contextual story to exist.
Cherry picking is ignoring the context of the story, and selecting a verse for it's convenient wording, to support a preconception.  Establishing a continuing bible theme, is the opposite of cherry picking.
Quote

Hmm.  I don't know.  However it is commonly known that scripture was written in flowing narrative, without punctuation or spaces, and it is also commonly known that splitting scripture up into verses was done sometime in the middle ages.

True for the most part. Dunno about the bold parts and the "commonly known" bits, though. However, that doesn't matter. Even if that is so, it doesn't affect the issue with the inconsistencies, which is the main issue here.
The establishment of a logical continuous scriptural theme is the establishment of scriptural consistency.  Considering how old scripture is, and how many administrations it has gone through, it is bound to have inconsistencies.  The key to understanding scripture is separating the story from the chaos of quoted-out-of-context verses:-)
Quote


Context appears to be quite relevant to the Republican candidates for presidential nomination
<snip>

I didn't say that context was irrelevant, but rather that a lot of the inconsistencies do not depend on the context of the verses.
That is right, however, understanding the greater context of scripture will allow one to honestly reject the apparent meaning of inconsistent verses.  That is what context is all about:-)
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 28, 2012, 01:13:28 PM
Ah, Prov, your post in reply to mine was pretty much as expected.  Why yes, I am serious about being an atheist.  Nice try in your attempt to claim I’m a “Christian in denial”, it’s so cute when theists try their best to lie about atheists.  No, Prov, I was a Christian but no more.  Just because I know a lot about Christianity, evidently much more than you, and I am willing to discuss the religion and its harmful tendencies doesn’t mean I “really” do believe in God.  Many Christians would desperately hope that, so they get more external validation.  Unfortunately, there is none to be found with me.
Hi velkyn:
I suspect that the Christianity you know so much about, is simply someone else's doctrinal opinions which you have memorized.  But hey; one man's Christianity is another man's paganism:-)  I will certainly be happy to discuss Christianity with you.  Since you know it so well, I might be able to learn something.
Quote
It’s so cute that you can declare that the Jews were and are “backslidden” when their religion is just as intact, and supported, as yours.  No evidence for that claim at all.
I know it's cute, but again you are being presumptuous about what I believe.  I don't have a religion, and I accept the Jewish religion as a complete religion.  However, in the context of the story of scripture, the first century Judean Jews were clearly backslidden from the faith of Abraham, and I see no difference between the Jews of Jesus' day, and the majority of Jews today.  Here is the evidence which you are sure does not exist:  The Jewish faith has always nominally been the faith of Abraham.  The faith of Abraham was complete, and justifying the faithful, long before any law, or any Jewish religious traditions existed.  Judaism today is defined by the word "practicing", rather than "faithful".  This means that Jews today see the practice of the law, and religious traditions, as definitive of Judaism.  The Jewish faith, the faith of Abraham, is completely defined by belief in God's promise to Abraham.  The practice of Judaism has absolutely nothing to do with the faith of Abraham, and when Jews are more zealous for being a practicing Jew than in being a faithful Jew, they are backslidden.  The faith came first and the religious rituals were added after.  Zeal for the faith defines a faithful Jew, and zeal for the practice of Jewish rituals defines a practicing Jew.  A Jew can be both a faithful Jew and a practicing Jew, but when his zeal for the practice becomes greater than his zeal for the faith, he is backslidden.  That is exactly what happened to the first century Judean Jews.
Quote
They were waiting for their messiah and Jesus managed to screw up fulfilling the prophecies, and the Jews were split on whether to believe him or not.
Sort of:-)  Jesus' followers, and maybe Jesus himself, expected Jesus to "become" the messiah, but he was executed before it could happen.  The reason Jesus did not become the messiah, because he failed to fulfill the one prophecy which defines messianic purpose; the angelic prophecy that; "he will be give the kingdom of his father David, and will bring peace on earth, good will toward men."
Quote
  Early Christians *were* Jews who thought they got the right one but like all theists had to cherry pick their supposed divingly given books to make things fit.
Yes, early Christians were indeed Jews, because early Christianity was simply a return to true Judaism.  Remember that Jesus came specifically to heal the backsliding of the Jews, and bring them back into the fold from which they had strayed(the faith of Abraham).  The early church was simply true Judaism.
Quote
So much for any “truth”.
The meaning of the word "Truth" is quite obvious, but within the context of a story, there is "story-truth".  As an example: It is "story-truth" that James Bond likes his martinis shaken but not stirred:-)  We know that James Bond is a fictional character, and whether of not Jesus is a fictional character is not for me to say.  My contention is simply that there is a clear continuous logical story running through the bible, and the "story-truth" within the bible, is found in that one clear continuous logical story.  The way you say "so much for truth", it sounds as though you are still religious, but have simply changed religions:-)
Quote
JC himself said that the laws were to be followed and yes, that the Pharisees were placing too much emphasis on the “word” and not the implicatiosn behind them.  Again, the laws were still to be followed, all of them.
You sound like a preacher...LOL
Keeping of old redundant Israelite law was an important part of Jewish culture, and Jesus was a Jew.  He did not want Jews to reject their Jewish culture.  One of the problems which existed in the Judea of Jesus' day, was Jews rejecting Jewish culture to embrace Greek culture.  "Hellenization" was a dirty word among practicing Jews.  There was also a problem with Jews discovering that their cultural law keeping was not legally binding, and then becoming lawless.  This had to be a concern for Jesus the Jew.  Jesus did not want Jews to stop being Jewish, he simply wanted the Jews to see that "being Jewish" was not a substitute for "being faithful" to God's promise to Abraham.  Paul explained to the Galatians, that being a Jew is not defined by being Jewish, but by having a circumcised heart.  When you remember that "circumcision" was only ever the sign that one believed God's promise to Abraham in the Abrahamic Covenant, you will understand why Paul said;  "God preached the gospel first to Abraham saying; "In thee shall all nations be blessed".  Paul used a direct quote from the Abrahamic Covenant to define the gospel, making it clear that the gospel he preached was God's promise to Abraham.  Paul's statements also clarify that the gospel Jesus preached; "the gospel of the coming kingdom", is the very same gospel; "the gospel of the coming great nation".  The church did not miss such an obvious point, it is just not expedient for the church to point it out:-)  Churchmen traditionally believe what they are told by others who have a vested interest.  No wonder people are bitter when they discover that the "Christianity" they committed to memory, might not be true.
Quote
And then we get into your claims about the “end times”. Of course, no answers to be had about the details about those end times, just the usual ooga-booga by a Christian and then when asked about his claims of details on how one knows the end times will come, suddenly nothing.  No detaisl on how “large” is large.  Nice to cover your butt so you don’t look as ridiculous as every other Christain who has told a lie about the end times being “real soon now”.
In the context of the continuous story of scripture, there are no end times because the earth, the coming great nation/kingdom, and peace on earth, good will toward men, are going to exist forever.  According to God's everlasting unconditional gospel promise to Abraham(the one and only faith of scripture), a great everlasting nation is going to bless all the families of all nations, with everlasting peace on earth, good will toward men.  All the stuff about end times, and the end of the world, contradicts God's promise to Abraham.  This means that those who believe the end of the world stuff, do not believe God's promise to Abraham, are not justified by faith, and are simply members of the universal religion of the Roman Empire, which declared it'self to be "Christian" a few hundred years ago.  The Christianity that you claim to know so well, officially began after the first ecumenical council of Nicea, in 325AD, and has absolutely nothing to do with the one and only faith of the bible...The faith of Abraham.
Quote
First, I have said nothing about God returning.
Quote
No, didn’t need to read your mind at all.
Hence the good news of the coming kingdom. When the body of believers, which is being built for the Christ, becomes large enough to take and hold the land defined in God's promise, the Christ will appear and lead it to the resurrection of the kingdom of Covenant Israel from the dead, resurrected Covenant Israel will automatically be under the 10 commandments.....
Quote
(Do you still beat your wife? Answer yes or no!)  Even though you asked your question in such a presumptuous way that I cannot logically answer it, I will answer the question that I think you meant to, or should have, asked:  "Large enough" means enough people to conquer and occupy all the land between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt, which is the land defined in God's everlasting, unconditional, good news promise to Abraham.
Quote
oooh, questions I “should have asked”.  That’s good, Prov.  Making baseless claims that you couldn’t “logically” answer what I asked by calling it “presumputous”and then making up a new question.  Nice dodge there, though.  Again, this means nothing.  This would vary depending on time period and technology.  The theist’s vagueness strikes again.
No dodge here!  You got your answer, even though you did not ask it properly.  You are dodging the fact that you asked the question improperly:-)  Go back and look at the way you asked it, and see if you can figure out why I compared it to the "do you still beat your wife" question.
Quote
What a dreamer:-(  Do you really think that everything I write is something that I think I know? 
Quote
  Oh my, what a lovely quote.  Good to know that you write about nonsense and evidently you do know it!
Context girl, context!  I have no knowledge of anything which happened thousands of years ago, and neither does anyone else.  I only write personal opinion, nothing else.  That is all anyone writes, but of course those who insist that they are right will not admit that it is just opinion...LOL
Quote
and this one too
Try to keep in mind that I have made no claims of having any knowledge of biblical truth, but my claim is that I know that there is a continuous, logical, story running through scripture, which has been covered up and ignored by those who would have you believe that they "know" the truth.
Quote
You know, that quote above, where you say “The good news of the coming kingdom”.  Oh yes, that where you claim to be telling what will happen.
Absolutely.  That is what the bible story says, and I argue for the bible story.  It is not for me to tell anyone whether the bible story is actually true or not.
Quote
How could you know that?  What is your definition of a Christian?  You think you know way too much, for one who doesn't have a clue about what she is talking about.
Do you not see how ridiculous your questions are?  If you want me to show where the bible says all the things I have claimed, which you actually only think I claimed:-), I would simply say; read the bible for the chronologically continuous story which flows through it.  It's a story, and a story is only defined by the story.  I don't have a bunch of standard verses which have been doctrinally selected to support my position.  If that is what you expect, then I am becoming more convinced that you are a Christian in denial.
Quote
  So, you’ve not bothered actually showing where the bible supports the things you’ve claimed as I asked.  My definition of a Christian is based someone calling themselves a Christian.  There is no better way to know, especially since Christians differ on how they define being a Christian.
Yes, Christians define Christianity in different ways.  Since you are so knowledgeable about Christianity, what is your definition of Christian?
Quote
Quote
Now, you’ve claimed this, Prov:
“However, God knows that even when Covenant Israel is resurrected from the dead, it would break the 10 commandments and fall away again.”
Quote
  I want to know where in the bible it says this.
Jeremiah 31:31-34
Quote
  You have claimed that the bible is a continuous story. You have claimed that that you know that this god knows various things and has said various things. The only way you would know is by the bible, right?   I know the bible quite well and I’m calling you on your claims.  I find your claims ridiculous since they seem to be only things made up by you.  And why would my requests for you to support your claims make me a “Christian in denial”?  It’s a nice thing for you to baselessly claim but again, without evidence, it makes you only seem that you can lie.
You are getting way ahead of the discussion:-)  I can show you from scripture, everything I claim.  However, it is Christians, and ex-Christians, who expect me to do it by offering conveniently worded verses.  When reading a story, every principle cannot be technically explained, because it would make the story too long, and too boring.  Meanings tend to be extrapolated from the flowing text of a story, in the context of the story.  For example: In Genesis, God makes His good news statment that a great nation will bless all nations.  In the NT God makes the same good news statement that the christ will be given the kingdom of his father David and will bring peace on earth, good will toward men.  If one has followed the story of the bible, he knows that the nation of Israel was chosen by God to become the great nation of His good news promise in Genesis.  The story goes on to record that the chosen nation became a kingdom.  Then the story tells us that "David's kingdom" fell into non-existence without becoming everlasting, or blessing anyone.  Jesus comes along trying to heal the backsliding of people who were once zealous for the fulfillment of God's good news.  Jesus is preaching the gospel of the coming kingdom, which matches the original gospel of the coming great nation.  Now in the NT, when God says that the christ is going to be given the kingdom of his father David, and bring peace on earth, good will toward men, it has to be extrapolated from the story, that this is refering to God's promise in Genesis, that a great everlasting nation will bless all nations.  If you say prove it, I cannot show you a verse which states what you want to hear, but the continuous logical story of the bible makes it quite clear.  Since Christians, and ex-Christians have never read the bible as a story, they will miss obvious things like that, and will believe whatever their leaders tell them that any given single verse means.
Quote
Can't you keep your mind on anything long enough to type a sentence?  I just stated that God is not involved with man, and I gave you the reason why I say that, and immediately you ask me why God does not do the things that are in the myths about Him.  There is little point in you asking me questions, if you are going to ignore my answers, and just rant about whatever you imagine...LOL  I think you should settle down and become rational, before you respond to this post.  Apply the common rules of English composition to what I write, and be completely sure that you understand what I said.
Quote
More things made up.
Not made up.  I posted both sides of the converstation.  Why would you say that I made it up?  It is recorded in perpetuity for anyone to look up!
Quote
  yes, I saw that you claimed that god is now not involved with man.  You have declared that god has left the building and that suddenly the whole story is just a metaphor.  Nice decoder ring there.  You are now the arbiter about this god and what bits are myths and what bits are true.
The only thing I have declared is that there is a story running though scripture, and when logically read as a story, it is the proverbial "decoder ring" you mention:-)
Quote
  That’s my point, Prov, you are just one more theist with your own religion.  You have decided on your own what the “true” story of the bible is.
Yes, I have decided on my own what the "real" story of the bible is.  However, any honest, thinking person, who is not biased by preconceived doctrines, which he claims not to believe:-) should easily be able to follow my logic.
Quote
If we were discussing Shakespeare, would you accuse me of stating that Romeo was an actual person?  Get real!!!:-)
Quote
No dear, I wouldn’t.  But I’m guessing that you would not have claimed that your interpretation of Shakespear was the only “right” one.
No, I would have claimed that the interpretation of what Shakespeare wrote, is found in the story, which is exactly what I am claiming for the bible:-)
Quote
But as it seems from your antics so far, you very well might do so.
Since Shakespeare wrote stories, it is likely that anyone who reads them comes to the same conclusion.  If people started interpreting Shakespeare according to selected single sentences, there would be no end of doctrinal possibilities.
Quote
Prov, you have declared that the “10 Commandments” were the only law given by this god.  I’ve shown your claim wrong and I have your inabnlity to support your claim.
Virtually everything found in the 10 commandments, is also found in the 613 Mitzvot laws.  Do you think that God is so doddering that He repeats Himself, or that He forgot that He had already given a law?
Every national assembly that ever existed had laws to maintain civil society, yet as far as God is concerned, no law existed from Adam to Moses.  The 613 Mitzvot laws have the appropriate penalties written right in, which means that the breaking of one of the Mitzvot laws is completely atoned for by the penalty prescribed, and therefore does not come down to what God is going to do to the law breaker after his death.  The 10 commandments were given to the national assembly as a national standard, so there is no individual personal penalties attached, as in the 613.  The national assembly was chosen to become the great everlasting nation of God's good news promise.  National unity is absolutely key for a nation to become great and everlasting.  The 10 commandments cover all the national unity bases without specifying any individual penalties.  When you put all this together with the context of the whole story, it becomes obvious that the 10 commandments had a special purpose for a special nation, and that purpose apart from the 613 laws which were simply the equivalent of the laws of any other nation which ever existed.
Quote
So, I find that I am indeed correct when I accuse you of making up your own version of what the bible “really” means.  We have repeated verses that have this god declaring he is giving laws.  You might wish to ignore those verses to support your own premise but that is exactly what I’m getting at.
Yes, you have indeed declared yourself correct...LOL
One of the very first points in my contention, is that "God finished creation, declared it good, and sat down".  To me that is a metaphore which says;  God's plan was over when creation was finished and declared good.  God sat down because creation was no longer a work in progess, but it was finished.  God, who saw the end from the beginning, revealed the good news that He saw, to Abraham.  A great nation(not God) is going to bless forever, all the families of all nations.  That one statement defines the faith of Abraham, which is faith in the accuracy of God's promise, not faith that God is going to personally fulfill the promise.  After the initial statement of the faith, then scripture writers start writing as if God has taken control of everything.  However, we can see that when God appears to say that He will win the war for Israel, Israelites still have to fight and die to win the war.  It is clear to me, from the context of the bible story, and my own experiential knowledge, the the religious always give God the credit for everything.  It is obviously a common, basic, form of worship, to give God the "glory" for everything, and it is even a bible priniciple.  The continuous logical story of the bible requires that God is not involved with man, and that man is on his own in his attempts to fulfill the good news ending which God saw from the beginning.
Words, and verses, can be doctrinally altered over the centuries, but if there is a continuous logical story present in a book as large as the bible, it will still be there even if some verses conflict with it.
The whole point of appealing to context, is to clarify the meaning of specific text, however, when we know that the text has changed over the centuries, context can also show us which sentences have been changed.
As an example, the gospel of Mark found in our modern bibles, has 10,000 more words than the gospel of Mark found in the oldest bible known to exist: the Sinai bible from around 380AD.  We cannot trust any individual word, or verse, to be accurate, but we can be sure that if a continuous logical story ever existed in the bible, it is still there to discover, by considering that scripture was written in narrative style, and reading it as narrative, and not as single verses to mix and match to make doctrines out of.
Quote
 
The bible is not continuous and chronological.  We have no idea when some of the events occurred or if they did occur.  The bible ignores that it kills some tribes off “entirely” when it brings them back again to be annihilated.  The NT ignores the OT when it comes to prophecies when convenient.  And for you accusing me of paranoia, I do love your claim that
I am perfectly happy to demonstrate how scripture is a chronologically continuous story, and explain why that has been covered up, but I think you should settle down and become rational before I do that:-)
Quote
Ooh conspiracies!  Sigh, one more claim from a theist on how they “know” things.
I would have thought since you left the church, you would no longer be ruled by preconceived beliefs...LOL
Quote


As for your claims that I somehow feel “guilt”, again, nice but baseless claim.  Just how are you taking any punishment for me?  Tsk, such a martyr complex.  Nope, dear, I have anything but guilt, but I do have no problem in showing your claims to be nonsense and calling you on them.
I hope you start soon...LOL
Quote
  You have claimed to know about “Covenant Israel”, something that only a few sects of Christianity try to natter on about.  You claim to know that “whole story of scripture is about Covenant Israel, because God chose Covenant Israel to fulfill His everlasting, unconditional, gospel promise.  Anyone who has read the bible through twice, should know that.” and try to claim that “anyone” should know this somehow, when that is not the case at all, again making claims that your version is the only “right” one.”
Quote
  If your point is that the details are silly, I agree.  Interestingly, one of the important points that one finds in the story, is that concentrating on the silly religious details keeps one from seeing the point of the story.  If anything, the story goes out of it's way to dismiss silly religious details.
Quote
Yep, the details are silly, but they do show your claim that you somehow know that God only gave the “ten commandments” as laws to be utter nonsense.
The "somehow" is the one and only point I am trying to make.  If you have read my stuff this far and you still say that "somehow" I know, you have missed the whole point of what I have written.  I have been trying to explain to you how I arrived at the opinions I have.  There is no somehow about it.  That there is a continuous logical bible story is my only claim.
Quote
  And here we go with the claims of you knowing what the “real” point of the story is.  Yep, you and ever Christian all claims that they know this, and funny how they differ.
Nothing to it:-)  You just have to read the bible as a story, to realize that the whole point of the one and only faith of scripture, is for men to establish a great everlasting nation, and bless all nations with everlasting peace on earth, good will toward men
Quote
 

You wan to claim that you know the “real” gospel.  Hmmm perhaps not a Mormon but a Gnostic Christian who again has made up his own version of the “truth”.  You want to split your god from the religion you don’t like.  Not suprising many theists do.  You’ve all shat on your religions by your actions so that you run away from the concept so you don’t have to be responsible for anything.  Again, nothing to show that this god is what you claim, that is means to bless anything or create an everlasting nation.  Just more wannabee chosen people.
It is no big deal to claim to know the "real" gospel, because it is obvious from the beginning of the bible to the end of the bible, if one is not committed to a preconceived belief.
Those who think they understand Christianity because they have memorized a dozen or so verses suggested to them by a denomination, will never admit that there is a continuous story running through the bible, because they are committed to their doctrinal preconceptions.  Whether they admit it or not:-(
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: One Above All on February 28, 2012, 01:20:57 PM
Yes, now I remember.  Cherry picking is looking for a conveniently worded passage to support a preconceived belief.

Which I already explained was wrong. Cherry picking means, for example, accepting one Bible verse and rejecting all others. Quoting one verse is not the same. It's just that - quoting. Are you also going to claim that the way you reply to people is cherry picking?

My point is that every time someone quotes a verse, or a passage, outside of the story it is part of, he is quoting it out of context.  It might mean what he claims, but it is still quoted out of context.  The story is the story, and the story only becomes context when refering to a single verse of passage.  People who define the story with doctrinally selected single passages, are putting the cart before the horse
<snip>

So by replying to your posts by splitting them up into individual quotes, I'm taking things out of context? Good to know.

The verses, or passages, which support the obvious theme, can be reasonable assumed to be understood in context, but verses, or passages, which appear to conflict with, or contradict the obvious theme, must be assumed to be misunderstood, and doctrine should not be made out of them.  The problem of course, is understanding the continuing theme so that it can be used as context for understanding verses.

Cherry picking level: Over 9000
"If it makes sense, it's true. If it doesn't, you misinterpreted it."

The establishment of a logical continuous scriptural theme is the establishment of scriptural consistency.  Considering how old scripture is, and how many administrations it has gone through, it is bound to have inconsistencies.  The key to understanding scripture is separating the story from the chaos of quoted-out-of-context verses

Look, just face it - the Bible has more contradictions in it than a poorly written fan fiction.

That is right, however, understanding the greater context of scripture will allow one to honestly reject the apparent meaning of inconsistent verses.  That is what context is all about

No, that's what cherry picking, lying and poor logic is all about. You reject that which doesn't make sense while claiming that it doesn't matter.
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 28, 2012, 02:21:52 PM
Yes, now I remember.  Cherry picking is looking for a conveniently worded passage to support a preconceived belief.

Which I already explained was wrong. Cherry picking means, for example, accepting one Bible verse and rejecting all others. Quoting one verse is not the same. It's just that - quoting. Are you also going to claim that the way you reply to people is cherry picking?
Hi Luci:
I see your point, but I would say that both our definitions are cherry picking.
Unfortunately, I do often cherry pick when I reply to others.  A personal accusation, or negative innuendo, made within a paragraph, quite often has to be addressed at that point in order not to confuse the issue by addressing it at the end.  The larger issue of the whole paragraph will wait till the end:-)

Quote
My point is that every time someone quotes a verse, or a passage, outside of the story it is part of, he is quoting it out of context.  It might mean what he claims, but it is still quoted out of context.  The story is the story, and the story only becomes context when refering to a single verse of passage.  People who define the story with doctrinally selected single passages, are putting the cart before the horse
<snip>

So by replying to your posts by splitting them up into individual quotes, I'm taking things out of context? Good to know.
It depends.  If I post in point form, it is best to respond to the points individually.  However, if my post is a narrative which makes it's conclusion at the end, it might interfere with the context being established in the narrative.  Nothing is black and white:-)

Quote
The verses, or passages, which support the obvious theme, can be reasonable assumed to be understood in context, but verses, or passages, which appear to conflict with, or contradict the obvious theme, must be assumed to be misunderstood, and doctrine should not be made out of them.  The problem of course, is understanding the continuing theme so that it can be used as context for understanding verses.

Cherry picking level: Over 9000
"If it makes sense, it's true. If it doesn't, you misinterpreted it."
It's not quite that simple.  Remember, nothing is black and white:-)
If a continuous logical story can be seen running though scripture, then any verse which appears to conflict with that story, either has to be misunderstood or spurious.  I am not just making up an arbitrary rule here, I am simply making a logical statement.  The story is context, and the reason we appeal to context is to come to a proper understanding of a verse.  If there is no proper understanding within the context of the story, what are you going to do?  You have to be double minded to believe conflicting principles, so you accept the one which agrees with the context of the story, and reject the one which conflicts with the story.
Think of it this way; if a printer accidently put a page from a different novel into the middle of a novel you happen to be reading, when you come across that page, would you simply accept it as part of the story, or would you reject it because it did not fit into the story?

Quote
The establishment of a logical continuous scriptural theme is the establishment of scriptural consistency.  Considering how old scripture is, and how many administrations it has gone through, it is bound to have inconsistencies.  The key to understanding scripture is separating the story from the chaos of quoted-out-of-context verses

Look, just face it - the Bible has more contradictions in it than a poorly written fan fiction.
There is no doubt that there is a lot of contradictions in the bible, but what is your point?

Quote
That is right, however, understanding the greater context of scripture will allow one to honestly reject the apparent meaning of inconsistent verses.  That is what context is all about

No, that's what cherry picking, lying and poor logic is all about. You reject that which doesn't make sense while claiming that it doesn't matter.
Do you think that accepting that which doesn't make sense, and claiming that it matters, is a better way to go?  You must be a churchman...LOL
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: One Above All on February 28, 2012, 02:30:16 PM
I see your point, but I would say that both our definitions are cherry picking.

You can say that as many times as you'd like. It won't make a difference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_%28fallacy%29).

Nothing is black and white

Wrong, but let's just skip this for now.


You have to be double minded to believe conflicting principles, so you accept the one which agrees with the context of the story, and reject the one which conflicts with the story.

False analogy, because there is no story in the Bible.

There is no doubt that there is a lot of contradictions in the bible, but what is your point?

Could it be that... *gasp* the Bible is full of crap?

Do you think that accepting that which doesn't make sense, and claiming that it matters, is a better way to go?

False dichotomy and strawman, all in one sentence. I'd say "amazing", but I've seen worse.

You must be a churchman...LOL

Every time you say "LOL" and/or add a smiley face to something that's meant to be taken seriously, you "project" stupidity. Note that I'm not calling you an idiot. At least not based on that.
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: velkyn on February 28, 2012, 03:16:50 PM
Mmmm.  You know, this whole post could be really “You’ve made your baseless claism again.  Evidence please.” 

I think I'll just say this rather than the several page response I did.
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 28, 2012, 03:18:27 PM
I see your point, but I would say that both our definitions are cherry picking.

You can say that as many times as you'd like. It won't make a difference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_%28fallacy%29).
Hi Luci:
Would you be convinced if I went to wikipedia and edited the definition of Cherry picking to say what I want it to say?  You do understand the priniciple of wikipedia don't you?

Quote
Nothing is black and white

Wrong, but let's just skip this for now.
Now that is a classic ad hominem and strawman...LOL  Don't say "wrong" and then not give an explanation:-)


Quote
You have to be double minded to believe conflicting principles, so you accept the one which agrees with the context of the story, and reject the one which conflicts with the story.

False analogy, because there is no story in the Bible.
That is not an analogy, it is a simple, logical statement of fact, and I don't see anything in what you quoted, which has anything to do with a story in the bible.

Quote
There is no doubt that there is a lot of contradictions in the bible, but what is your point?

Could it be that... *gasp* the Bible is full of crap?
I don't know.  Is that your point?

Quote
Do you think that accepting that which doesn't make sense, and claiming that it matters, is a better way to go?

False dichotomy and strawman, all in one sentence. I'd say "amazing", but I've seen worse.
You write worse...LOL

You must be a churchman...LOL

Every time you say "LOL" and/or add a smiley face to something that's meant to be taken seriously, you "project" stupidity. Note that I'm not calling you an idiot. At least not based on that.
[/quote]Are you sure you see me as a projector, and not as a mirror...Yuk yuk
I apologize for seeing the humour in the silly confrontational attitude, and the poor attempts at wit, of people who pretend that they are here for serious discussion...LOL
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 28, 2012, 03:22:14 PM
I see your point, but I would say that both our definitions are cherry picking.

You can say that as many times as you'd like. It won't make a difference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_%28fallacy%29).

Nothing is black and white

Wrong, but let's just skip this for now.


You have to be double minded to believe conflicting principles, so you accept the one which agrees with the context of the story, and reject the one which conflicts with the story.

False analogy, because there is no story in the Bible.

There is no doubt that there is a lot of contradictions in the bible, but what is your point?

Could it be that... *gasp* the Bible is full of crap?

Do you think that accepting that which doesn't make sense, and claiming that it matters, is a better way to go?

False dichotomy and strawman, all in one sentence. I'd say "amazing", but I've seen worse.

Quote
You must be a churchman...LOL

Every time you say "LOL" and/or add a smiley face to something that's meant to be taken seriously, you "project" stupidity. Note that I'm not calling you an idiot. At least not based on that.
Are you sure you see me as a projector, and not as a mirror...Yuk yuk
I apologize for seeing the humour in the silly confrontational attitude, and the poor attempts at wit, of people who pretend that they are here for serious discussion...LOL
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: One Above All on February 28, 2012, 03:28:39 PM
Would you be convinced if I went to wikipedia and edited the definition of Cherry picking to say what I want it to say?  You do understand the priniciple of wikipedia don't you?

Yes, I do. Add information from reliable sources and cite said sources. Information without reliable sources gets removed.
Are you sure you understand what that means?

Now that is a classic ad hominem and strawman

Go back to school. You have no idea what those fallacies are.

Don't say "wrong" and then not give an explanation

Why not?

That is not an analogy, it is a simple, logical statement of fact,

If it's not an analogy, then it's irrelevant to this discussion.

I don't know.  Is that your point?

Pretty much.

You write worse

Show me where I "write worse".

Are you sure you see me as a projector, and not as a mirror

Your idiocy is as clear as vacuum.

I apologize for seeing the humour in the silly confrontational attitude,

LOL U GAIZ R DEBATING!! SO FUNNY!!
^That's what you sound like.

and the poor attempts at wit, of people who pretend that they are here for serious discussion

This coming from the idiot who keeps posting "LOL" every third paragraph or so.
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: changeling on February 29, 2012, 06:47:37 AM
I suppose that on his keyboard the period key was replaced with an LOL key.
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 29, 2012, 10:45:31 AM
Mmmm.  You know, this whole post could be really “You’ve made your baseless claism again.  Evidence please.” 

I think I'll just say this rather than the several page response I did.
Hello again velkyn:-)
And I always thought that cut-and-run was a Christian trait...LOL
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: velkyn on February 29, 2012, 10:56:15 AM
Hello again velkyn:-)  And I always thought that cut-and-run was a Christian trait...LOL
You'd like to see the whole thing? I'm happy to oblige.  You see, I figured you'd try this.  Please do show me how asking for evidence of your claims is "cutting and running".  I'm sorry that you seem to have decided that you need to try to tell a lie about me.

Prov,  the Christianity I know about is that which is in the bible, and the various sects that claim to all be Christian.  Your version is one among many.  You have made repeated claims that you know certain things about it, but of course have no evidence to support your claims.  Again, like so many theists who decide that their version is the only “right” one.

However, I do notice that you simply try to ignore when I point out you are wrong.  Typical.

It seems you do have a religion, but like so many theists, you wish to avoid that word since others like you have made it associated with so many bad things.   You have accused the Jews of being backslidden, but of course you don’t seem to know much about the religion, no matter your claims of knowing it as a “complete religion” whatever that’s supposed to mean.  I see nothing “clear” about the Jews being backslidden.  That seems to be the accusation of a Christian who is looking for support for his religion and the supposed “need” for their supposed messiah. 

You calim that the Jewish faith is “nominally” the faith of Abraham.  If this faith of Abraham was complete, then there should be no need for the laws that the Hebrew god made up.  Of course, this assumes that this story is true and again, no evidence for this at all, none of it.  You have repeatedly claimed that the bible is a continuous chronological story, which makes no sense if you want to declare that only the faith of Abraham is valid which it seems you want to do in your attempts to ignore that your claim that this god only gave the 10 commandments is utterly unsupported. 

I also see that you’ve taken it upon yourself to determine if Jews are “faithful” or not.  I do love to see theists attacking other theists on the basis of what they claim to “know” and no evidence at all.  I think you should as a real Jew if they think they are faithful. I suspect that your opinion matters little to them. 

Again, it seems that you have decided that you know what the god of the Israelites “really” meant, with your ignoring that it seemed to have no problem with giving the laws to the Israelites and it didn’t consider that its promise to Abraham was all that was needed.  Oh and nice how you’ve decided that you and you alone can determine if someone has enough “zeal” for you to accept that they are a faithful Jews.

Oh I love this part
Quote
Yes, early Christians were indeed Jews, because early Christianity was simply a return to true Judaism.
Ah, the claim by a Christian that he’s really part of the supposed “chosen people”.  He’s the “true jew” here.  &) 

Your contention that the bible has some “clear continuous logical story” is belied by the attempts you have made trying to claim that the parts you don’t like aren’t “really” part of this story.  What a magic decoder ring you have.  And oh, claiming againt that I must “still be religious” and the nice little attempt to equate atheism with religion, how not original.  Sorry, to disappoint you dear, but no, I’m not and will not become so, no matter how hard you wish for it.  And no I don’t sound like a preacher, I sounds like someone who’s read the bible. 

and hmmm, how did it become that the religious law of the Jews (for it was not *only* cultural, not to them and not to the bible. Again, you seem unable to accept that this bible has this god repeatedly saying directly that it was giving these laws) become not legally binding?  It seems that it sure was binding, even the Romans allowed it as long as it didn’t conflict with Roman law.

As for what Paul said, it doesn’t often match with what JC said.  Paul needed a new audience and there were plenty of early Christians who disagreed with him aka “judaizers”.  Suddenly, Paul says that you don’t hve to follow those pesky laws, you can just believe and this god is good with it.  Quite a different religion he created.  This bible that you claim is so clear, etc, has a tribal religion for one group to one that is expanded to everyone who wants in.  Not the same god or religion at all. Oh and Prov, Abrham was cutting off real foreskins for his god.  If this god only “really” wanted believers, why did it take thousands of years for this god to decide this and spare men such a personal snipping?  It seems that this religion changes its mind as soon as it needs to accommodate reality, the reality that jews found Jesus and Paul to be ridiculous. Paul does use a direct quote, but golly he had a copy of the torah, so that must mean this god “really” meant it just for him to understand in a completely different way &)  Yep, plenty of believers decide that they know what god “really” meant. 

It seems that you are as guilt of believing what others tell you too.  Nothing original about your conspiracy claims of how you now know the “real” Christianity and how you know what this god “really” means.  Like this:

Quote
In the context of the continuous story of scripture, there are no end times because the earth, the coming great nation/kingdom, and peace on earth, good will toward men, are going to exist forever.  According to God's everlasting unconditional gospel promise to Abraham(the one and only faith of scripture), a great everlasting nation is going to bless all the families of all nations, with everlasting peace on earth, good will toward men.  All the stuff about end times, and the end of the world, contradicts God's promise to Abraham.  This means that those who believe the end of the world stuff, do not believe God's promise to Abraham, are not justified by faith, and are simply members of the universal religion of the Roman Empire, which declared it'self to be "Christian" a few hundred years ago.
  Yep, one more theist sure that his version is the “right” one and the interpretation he’s latched onto is the bestest.  Of course, just like the rest of the theists, you have no more evidence than they do.  I’ve seen Christian after Christian make the same claims you do, that those “other Christians” aren’t TrueChristians, and that you are.  You want to claim that the bible has some “one and only faith” but history is full of various claims of that, debates on what books should have been included. It seems you’d claim that one can stop at Genesis and then have the “truth faith”, of course assuming that has any more validity than the rest of your “complete and continuous” blah-blah-blah. 

 And more claims that I didn’t ask a question “properly”:D  No dear, I did ask it properly, since I asked exactly what I wanted too.  I’m sure you find it improper since you can answer me.  I’m still waiting and if you wish to explain why you think your attempt at being clever “do you still beat your wife” (oh my, I’ve never seen that before &) ) means anything then do so. 

then we get your protestations of “context”.
Quote
Context girl, context!  I have no knowledge of anything which happened thousands of years ago, and neither does anyone else.  I only write personal opinion, nothing else.  That is all anyone writes, but of course those who insist that they are right will not admit that it is just opinion...LOL
I have a lot of knowledge of what happened thousands of years ago. That’s called archaeology and paleontology.  I’m sorry if you’ve never encountered them.  I see your claims that you “only write personal opinion” hilarious when in the same post, you claim to know all about the Council of Nicea and Rome, etc.  Which is it, Prov, do you know history or not? Is it accurate or not?  it is nice to see you try to eat your cake and have it too.

I know a lot about the bible, history, etc.  I suspect that you are not used to that considering your antics.  I know what I’m talking about and unlike you I don’t try to get away with making vague claims like
Quote

Do you not see how ridiculous your questions are?  If you want me to show where the bible says all the things I have claimed, which you actually only think I claimed:-), I would simply say; read the bible for the chronologically continuous story which flows through it.
You see, you claim that the bible is such things, but when I say, demonstrate it, you can’t.  I have read the bible and I do not see this supposed “onologically continuous story which flows through it”.  You cry that it is “obvious” but I do not see it as such, so I want you to support your claims, not wave your hand like just one more Christian. You keep making claims that you know that the bible means this and such but when I ask for verses, you claim you don’t “have a bunch of standard verses which have been doctrinally selected to support my position”.  This makes me wonder where your position comes from then.  If not the bible, if not archaeology, then what?  Of course then you claim that you can show everything I ask for in the bible. 
Quote
I can show you from scripture, everything I claim.
which is it, Prov?  You seem to be wasting a lot of time with these promises but I still don’t see any verses.  Excuse after excuse, claims that you magically know what was “really” meant, declaring that prophecies must have meant this and such when we have no way to know if the books were written as events were happening or not. 
Quote
Since Christians, and ex-Christians have never read the bible as a story, they will miss obvious things like that, and will believe whatever their leaders tell them that any given single verse means.
Oh and I’ve read the bible as a story and I still find you wrong.  Now what’s your next excuse?  Again, you seem to be just as guilty at finding your own belief in whatever you like for each verse or the whole “story” means.  Lucifer is quite right to point out your cherry picking. 

I told you my definition of a Christian which you promptly ignored and asked again.  So I’ll quote myself: “My definition of a Christian is based someone calling themselves a Christian.  There is no better way to know, especially since Christians differ on how they define being a Christian.”  Now, if I was defining it as the bible does, I’d require a Chritian to perform miracles like JC promised they could.  But since Christians can’t agree on what a Christian is, I must take them at *their* word. Not my own, not someone else’s.
Quote
Jeremiah 31:31-34
  Okay, let’s look at this:
Quote
31 “The days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand  to lead them out of Egypt,because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. 33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD.
“I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God,    and they will be my people. 34 No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the LORD. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”
and it seems this all is about Babylon and Israel/Judah events with it, and from what scholars think, it was written after the fact.  Nice for ‘Zeke to write about how bad things are and assign reasons after the fact.  To claim that this is a prophecy of Christianity is amusing since it seems that this god failed pretty badly in “writing” anything on anyone’s “heart”.   
It’s just one more theist declaring that after the fact, that oh God must have meant this new thing since the one we thought he meant was wrong.  Ooops, David failed so Jesus must be it!  Oh Jesus failed so Mohammed must be it.  God is not involved with any man since Prov says its true and that he’s found it in the magical “context” and “story” of the bible.  It’s only if you read the bible “logically” as Prov defines it, and agree with him, that you’ll have the “true” meaning of the bible and be considered an “honest, thinking person, who is not biased by preconceived doctrines”.  Seen this all before. Same arguments every time.
Quote
Virtually everything found in the 10 commandments, is also found in the 613 Mitzvot laws.  Do you think that God is so doddering that He repeats Himself, or that He forgot that He had already given a law?
Evidently he is if you believe the bible since it says he did exactly that. So, please tell me how this is in the 10 commandments: Leviticus 20:18? Leviticus 11: 9?  All god given laws and I’ll be hapy to see how you fit them into the “10 commandments”.  Oh yes, you still haven’t shown how you know that god gave only these laws and how the bible is wrong when it says that god gave the others.  The other laws were given to the national assembly as a national standard, just like I showed from bible verses saying exactly that. There is nothing that seperates out the first ten laws from the others if you read the bible like a story, page after page, not ignoring what you don’t like.  If you have evidence to the contrary, show it. If not, it’s just more baseless claims from you.
Quote
One of the very first points in my contention, is that "God finished creation, declared it good, and sat down".  To me that is a metaphore which says;  God's plan was over when creation was finished and declared good.
  And then God appears over and over again, thus belying your claim that God left humans alone. Yep, Israelites do die but god is always claimed to have a reason, so again, nothing to support your claim that the story says god goes away.  Or is that more of the bible that you’ve decided to ignore?  I know the whole story is garbage but I do love to point out to theists that they create their own religions to suit themselves in quite a nice bit of hypocrisy and cherry picking. 

It is only your version that requires that god is not involved, no logic needed or presented. There is no reason to assume that your claim that one can ever find some magical “continuous logical story” especially when we can watch you cherry pick, declaring that anything you don’t like “obviously” must not be considered as valid because they show your claims of the bible having a continuous chronological story to be false.  There is no reason to assume this
Quote
We cannot trust any individual word, or verse, to be accurate, but we can be sure that if a continuous logical story ever existed in the bible, it is still there to discover, by considering that scripture was written in narrative style, and reading it as narrative, and not as single verses to mix and match to make doctrines out of.
  It could all be garbage and indeed seems that it is.
Quote
I would have thought since you left the church, you would no longer be ruled by preconceived beliefs...LOL
  What preconceived beliefs, Prov?  and I’m still waiting for that demonstration of your claims. Lots of excuses but nothing yet.  No evidence supporting how your claims are true. You’ve made nothing but unsupported statements on how you supposedly “know” that the bible is somehow wrong, etc.  That’s what I’m asking for, Prov.  You can make up all you want but until you show that your claims are based in reality, and not your fantasies, it’s all just more theist woo.
Quote
It is no big deal to claim to know the "real" gospel, because it is obvious from the beginning of the bible to the end of the bible, if one is not committed to a preconceived belief.
Funny how so many people don’t find this obvious at all and find you wrong.  I don’t have a preconceived belief and I still find you wrong.  How can that be!
Quote
Those who think they understand Christianity because they have memorized a dozen or so verses suggested to them by a denomination, will never admit that there is a continuous story running through the bible, because they are committed to their doctrinal preconceptions.  Whether they admit it or not:-(
  ah, there we go, the claim that only you understand Christianity “correctly”. 
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: Provoker on February 29, 2012, 11:09:52 AM
Would you be convinced if I went to wikipedia and edited the definition of Cherry picking to say what I want it to say?  You do understand the priniciple of wikipedia don't you?

Yes, I do. Add information from reliable sources and cite said sources. Information without reliable sources gets removed.
Are you sure you understand what that means?
Hi Luci:
Do you suppose that there are a lot of peer reviewed articles of the meaning of cherry picking, in scientific journals...I can hardly keep from placing an LOL here, but I won't:-)

Quote
Now that is a classic ad hominem and strawman

Go back to school. You have no idea what those fallacies are.
Another strawman/ad hominem combination.  Is the principle too subtle for you to grasp?:-)

Quote
Don't say "wrong" and then not give an explanation

Why not?
Duh...

Quote
That is not an analogy, it is a simple, logical statement of fact,

If it's not an analogy, then it's irrelevant to this discussion.
Wow...LOL  I guess I can buy that you do not consider facts as relevant to this discussion.  So the fact that my statement was not an analogy is naturally irrelevant eh?
Quote
I don't know.  Is that your point?

Pretty much.
Then why did you not just say that instead of asking me if it is your point?

Quote
You write worse

Show me where I "write worse".
Ha ha ha.  The illogical way you write means that you wouldn't get it if I did show you:-)

Quote
Are you sure you see me as a projector, and not as a mirror

Your idiocy is as clear as vacuum.
I guess that one went over your head...LOL

Quote
I apologize for seeing the humour in the silly confrontational attitude,

LOL U GAIZ R DEBATING!! SO FUNNY!!
^That's what you sound like.
The rules here don't allow me to say what you sound like...LOL

Quote
and the poor attempts at wit, of people who pretend that they are here for serious discussion

This coming from the idiot who keeps posting "LOL" every third paragraph or so.
Sorry, I really cannot keep the grin off my face as I read what you think is witty.  Incidently, if my laughing bothers you so much, just consider LOL to mean "lots of luck"...LOL
Title: Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
Post by: jetson on February 29, 2012, 06:27:54 PM
Moderator request:

Let's get back to the discussion at hand and off of the "cherry picking" debate.  If someone would like to start a separate thread on "cherry picking", it could be a great topic!

Thanks!

Jetson