|
| Thread: What Do You Really Know About The Bible? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Rarensu
Known Hero
Formerly known as RTI
|
posted August 09, 2009 08:19 PM |
|
|
So you do believe that god's rules changed.
____________
Sincerely,
A Proponent of Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, and Courtesy.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 09, 2009 08:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So you do believe that god's rules changed.
If the New Covenant were identical to the Old Covenant it would not be a new covenant, would it?
I alraedy quoted verses that showed the Old Covenant prophets predicted the time when there would be a New Covenant. The New Covenant has no civil penalty for sin. The New Covenant is not dealing with a nation, like the Old Covenant was. The church is not a physical nation and needs no civil laws. The church is not authorized to punish anyone for sin beyond disfellowshipping a person who professes to be a Christian but who persists in living in sin.
The New Covenant also has no ceremonial laws. The Old Covenant had ceremonial laws such as animal sacrifice and food laws and a specific day of rest.
Now, the moral law is the same in both covenants. Don't murder, don't steal, ect.
Jesus fulfilled (wrapped up) the Old Covenant and established the New Covenant. Jesus was the final sacrifice under the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant is no longer in effect (as per the verse in Hebrews I quoted.)
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted August 09, 2009 10:43 PM |
|
|
Asking a Christian to enlight you about the bible is the most pointless thing to do. I think everyone should get an opinion about the Holy book from his own reading experience and never try to share or convince anyone else.
If the Bible holds cruel statements, you will be simply told that the new covenant fixed that. If the bible holds impossible scientific facts, you will be told that there is symbolic purpose. So far, I enjoy reading Elodin explaining everything and enjoy his faith. But, when applying symbols, everything can be explained. Even the murder.
Anyway, I can't read the bible sometimes without having a malicious smile. I can not remain serious when I read that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, so the children of Israel can defeat the Amorites.
Galileo was convicted of heresy for affirming that it is the earth who moves, not the sun. Many years passed until we got the whole truth. The bible is and will be always a very controversial book, not only because we have no proof of being true or not, but because many of us need to delegate their responsibilities and feel softer. Life can be hard if one is alone and without faith.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 09, 2009 11:27 PM |
|
|
You are of course free to believe that Christians are just liars who will make up any "excuse" to defend the Bible.
I present Scriptural evidence of what the Bible teaches when people just throw out verses taken out of context to try to prove the Bible is an evil book. You are free hold whatever views you wish of what any passage in the Bible means.
Oh, the Bible does not teach that the sun revolves around the earth. The passage you referenced in no way teaches that. When it says the sun stood still it is speaking from the standpoint of a man on the earh looking at the sky, not from the standpoint of astrophysics.
Rather than just saying Christians make stuff up I defy you to disprove anything I have said in explaining the Bible. It is easy to just say "you're full of crap." It is quite another thing to prove your case.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted August 09, 2009 11:35 PM |
|
|
I will not disprove anything of what you say. And I don't want it because I respect your faith. Let it be.
But...have you convinced anyone on this forum? It seems not. This is only proving what I said previously: the Bible is an intimate experience, and faith can not be taught. Sorry if you took it as an insult or accusation, my english is somehow limited when throwing in those discussions. Did not mean to.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
wog_edn
Promising
The Nothingness
|
|
posted August 10, 2009 12:35 AM |
|
|
I love this speech .. Marilyn Manson reading from the bible  .. I guess you won't like this at all 
Anyways, I am strongly antireligious ... but it might be nice for the religious ones to have someone "superpowerful" one to blame this fu**ed up world on, and think that it'll all be good once they die.
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 10, 2009 01:46 AM |
|
|
And you wonder where the stereotypes about atheists come from.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 10, 2009 03:10 AM |
|
|
I have a question. Why do some churches insist that the only valid version of the Bible is the King James version? The 16th century language makes it easier to misinterpret than a more modern translation.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 10, 2009 04:13 AM |
|
|
@ Salamandre
I'm not here trying to convert anyone. I have been defending the Bible against false accusations and misunderstandings. A couple of people have said they understand some things better. And I am under no impression that everyone on the board wants to know the truth of what the Bible teaches. Some just want to throw stuff out there to try to make the Bible look bad without even knowing the context of the verse because they don't care what the Bible actually teaches. Their only goal is to make the Bible look bad with no regard for truth.
@ wog_edn
Quote:
Anyways, I am strongly antireligious ... but it might be nice for the religious ones to have someone "superpowerful" one to blame this fu**ed up world on, and think that it'll all be good once they die.
Sorry to disappoint you but I blame the condition of mankind on mankind. I am sad for anti-religious people.
I don't have to wait until I die for things to be good for me. They are good already. 
@ mvassilev
I don't know why some insist on the KJV only. I do think it is the best version. It is an actual translation, not a paraphrase version and is not pushing a particular agenda. Some modern versions don't translate word for word but do a paraphrase of what somebody thinks the verse means. I use a number of different versions in my study. I also look at the original Greek and Hebrew words.
Mostly there is little differce though. Read the Bible in whatever version you are comfortable with and refer to other translations if you are having trouble understanding a verse. Every serious Bible student should also use Greek and Hebrew study tools such as Strong's Concordance/Dictionary.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted August 10, 2009 07:42 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Sorry to disappoint you but I blame the condition of mankind on mankind. I am sad for anti-religious people.
As long as people accept war as a valid solution for ending conflicts, this situation won't change..
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Rarensu
Known Hero
Formerly known as RTI
|
|
posted August 10, 2009 08:32 AM |
|
|
I just find it funny that I asked twice about god changing the rules and got zero straight answers. Wink.
New question. It is quite clear that the old testament predicts the coming of a messiah. One of the tenets of Christianity is that Jesus was the messiah predicted by the old testament.
Jews believe that this is a bad assumption. They claim that Jesus was not the messiah predicted by the old testament because he failed to fulfil certain key prophecies, namely, the restoration of the throne of David.
Wow. Just as I wrote that I felt an overwhelming fountain of atheism spring up within me. It felt quite spiritual, despite the implied paradox. There was absolutely no doubt whatsoever in my mind that I KNEW the TRUTH. OK, it's gone now and I can think clearly again. It scares me how much I enjoyed that feeling of absolute certainty; now I have a much deeper understanding of religious people. And also of drug addicts.
Back to the question. How can one support the idea that Jesus was the messiah predicted by the old testament, despite the fact the he did not (or, has not yet,) fulfiled the prophecies central to that role?
____________
Sincerely,
A Proponent of Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, and Courtesy.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 10, 2009 01:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I just find it funny that I asked twice about god changing the rules and got zero straight answers. Wink.
I answered your question in detail twice.
Quote:
OK, it's gone now and I can think clearly again. It scares me how much I enjoyed that feeling of absolute certainty; now I have a much deeper understanding of religious people. And also of drug addicts.
Equating religious people with drug addicts is an insult. Can you please try to present your viewpoints without insults?
Quote:
Jews believe that this is a bad assumption. They claim that Jesus was not the messiah predicted by the old testament because he failed to fulfil certain key prophecies, namely, the restoration of the throne of David.
Back to the question. How can one support the idea that Jesus was the messiah predicted by the old testament, despite the fact the he did not (or, has not yet,) fulfiled the prophecies central to that role?
Actually, Jesus was a Jew as were the apostles, disciples, and all the early church. So saying that the Jews rejected him as Messiah is inaccurate. Some Jews rejected him and some dd not.
Also, you are wrong that Jesus is not seated on the throne of David. Now the throne of David and the throne of God are one. The one true God manifested himself as the man Jesus Christ. The son of David (who is also God) rules over all creation. On The Day of the Lord Christ will return, the world will be judged, and all things will be made new.
You also seem to be unaware that there was an idea of a suffering Messiah around in the days of Jesus. Some of the Jewish rabbis taught there would be two Messiahs. One suffering and one conquering because of the different prophecies. They did not realize that the one Messiah would fulfil the different prophecies at different times.
A recent archeological find confirms this, and even that there was a concept of the Messiah rising from the dead after three days. If you are interested, read about it here
Oh, and the Old Covenant writings predicted the Christ would be God born into the world as a man through a virgin in Bethlehem. Christ would perform miracles, ride into Jerusalem on a donkey, be betrayed by a friend for 30 pieces of silver, have his hands and feet pierced, die for our sins, rise again, and pour out his Spirit on his people.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted August 10, 2009 02:13 PM |
|
|
@ Elodin
Please...I slowly get the feeling nearly everything seems to be an insult in your eyes if it is only slightly "against" religion.
I don't see any insult if someone compares religious "addiction" with drug "addiction". The important thing is "addiction"...not "drugs".
No need to be to oversensitive here...
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 10, 2009 03:07 PM |
|
|
Yet if I ramp up my language I will be the one who is called down by the moderators. I was merely trying to prevent language escalation and to try to follow the rules and keep the forum pleasant for everyone.
Since comparing someone to a drug addict for being religious is ok I'll file that one in my cabinet for future use and I'll feel free to express my views of the similiarity of atheism and drug addiction at some future time. Thanks for clearing that up.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 10, 2009 03:24 PM |
|
|
You mean, you'd call the absence of any kind of drug an addiction as well?
Eating nothing is no special diet.
Not believing in ghosts is no special kind of spiritism.
Also, compare the difference between someone who never ever did believe in any religion and someone who did so, but shook off the believe eventually.
The second one might conceivably be part of what you consider the "religion" of atheism, but certainly not the first.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 10, 2009 04:04 PM |
|
|
What do you mean "the absence of a drug?" Most atheists on this forum don't say "I don't believe in God," they say "God does not exist. That is a statement of faith. Further, an idea is not a drug. Is a mathematician an addict for saying 2+3=5? Your "lack of belief" that "2+3=5" does not make the mathematician an addict, it makes you wrong.
Saying a religious person is an addict is a rather foolish thing to say. How does me saying that God exists make me an addict? One could not logically conclude that I am an addict because I believe in God.
Why then are such comparisons made? Bigotry. The same motivation for saying that someone of a different race or gender is inferior. Many bigoted people are egotistical and snobbish and like to look down their noses at others. That is the only way they are able to feel good about themselves. Deep within themselves they have a self-loathing or sense of inferiority that they might not even be aware of. This core feeling causes them to want to put down others "to build themselves up." Thus they assign entire groups of people who are different from them into a "less than me" category.
Thus we have the "militant" brand of atheism (also called the "new atheists") that is pushed by hatemongers such as Dawkins and Hitchens who say religious people are mentally diseased/mentally enslaved/addicts. That is the kind of speech I was objecting to since it is quite simply bigoted speech with no anchor in reality.
Religious people are not shackled. We are free. And certainly many atheists have shaken off the "shackles" of atheism to become theists.
Sorry, the only motivation I can think of for calling a religious person an addict is bigotry.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 10, 2009 04:34 PM |
|
|
I swear, if I read 2+3=5 or 2+2=5 one more time in a religion-based thread, I think my head will explode from the sheer inanity of it. Seriously, find a new argument. Please.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted August 10, 2009 05:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Saying a religious person is an addict is a rather foolish thing to say. How does me saying that God exists make me an addict? One could not logically conclude that I am an addict because I believe in God.
Come on Elodin...now it's getting funny. Is someone who says "Drugs exists" a drug addict? No...of course not. But someone who consumes drugs regularely and can't live without it is an addict.
So someone who "consumes" religion (e.g.:reading in the bible or going to the church every week...) and can't live without religion anymore can be called an addict aswell...why not?
You can be addicted to GOOD things the same way as to BAD things..
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 10, 2009 06:06 PM |
|
|
Oh yes, things are getting to be quite knee-slapping hilarious. You are essentially claiming that a mathematician who lives always with the idea that "2+3=5" is an addict for having that belief every day and for allowing himself to use that concept in his daily calculations. And it seems that you claim that students are addicts for attending their weekly classes and reading their textbooks.
I'm guessing you are also saying an atheist is an addict since he lives every day with an atheistic world view and that world view certainly affects his daily activities. It would seem that according to the definition you have presented everyone is an addict, which renders the word meaningless.
I really would not call a thirst for knowledge,self improvement, and consistant behavior to be an addiction. Certainly not one that needs a cure.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 10, 2009 07:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Saying a religious person is an addict is a rather foolish thing to say. How does me saying that God exists make me an addict? One could not logically conclude that I am an addict because I believe in God.
Come on Elodin...now it's getting funny. Is someone who says "Drugs exists" a drug addict? No...of course not. But someone who consumes drugs regularely and can't live without it is an addict.
So someone who "consumes" religion (e.g.:reading in the bible or going to the church every week...) and can't live without religion anymore can be called an addict aswell...why not?
You can be addicted to GOOD things the same way as to BAD things..
Sounds like a paradox or circular reasoning. Either that or we are ALL addicts. We all breathe, for instance. We all think. We all LIVE, so you can say that we are addicted to life as well.
You can say atheists are addicts of not believing in God -- hence, they aren't "free" as they think, since they will not believe in God -- a possibility of freedom to choose. Religious people, same story.
No matter what you do, if you have opinions on something, you are an addict, according to that logic. An opinion means lack of freedom, since that opinion makes all other options unreachable (well you CAN reach them, but you wouldn't be an atheist or religious person anymore, like believing in God for the former, or denouncing religion for the latter).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
|
|
