Do you believe in God?

[Flaco13]

Well for a start we have the clear contradiction between the OT and its views on capital punishment (which gets a massive thumbs up) and the Ten Commandments.

I don't see how you can be justifiable to killing children for being rude, but that not then count as killing.

Care to tell me exact passages because I don't know what you are referring at.

The Codex Siniticus contains two books omitted from later Bibles, namly the Apostle Barnabas and The Shepard
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/codex/content.aspx

Codex Sinaiticus was written 350 - 400 AD, the council of Nicea, where the canons were set was 325 AD so I don't see the relevance. The Apocryphias came to a late relevance for the Catholic church after Luthers Reformation in the medievil time. So it is not that something was omitted from later Bibles, it was ADDED to the Catholic Bible after the Reformation.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I'm struggling with whole concept of morality...

Can anyone explain in scientific terms why it would be wrong of me to murder somebody?

 

[Tesla]

Depriving someone of their right to life.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Depriving someone of their right to life.

Do rights don't exist in the natural world? They appear to be a creation of man and enforced by laws.

 

[Famine]

I'm struggling with whole concept of morality...

Can anyone explain in scientific terms why it would be wrong of me to murder somebody?

Yup.

However, it would be a rehash of the Human Rights thread.

Before you go browsing it, keep two questions in your head. The first is "Why would it be wrong for someone to murder me?". The second is "What's the limit of what I know to be true?".

 

[Flaco13]

Then Scaff's comment is not out of nothing either. It's out of a website called GTPlanet.I know full well what the Bible says. I was giving a thorough explanation of why ascribing culpability for a given immoral act to people who have no consciousness and/or no direct way of causing it is ludicrous.Christianity doesn't begin with the Jews. It begins with Christ - hence the name of it.

Christianity still has it's foundation in the OT. The first christians where jews. Christ is the greek word for messiah, a jew who finds Yeshua as messiah is a messianic jew hence a christian with jewish heritage, how else would that work if OT wasn't the foundation for the Jews and Gentiles alike.

The purpose of the Christ story is that, after laying down rules and letting people get on with it, it all rather went badly - and hey, it'd already gone down that way once, to the point of having to drown just about everyone and everything, so you think there'd be a lesson there. So God sent down his child (who's also him. Yay Trinity!) to teach a new message of love and friendliness. Turned out that some dudes had already made their own rules and weren't too happy with this whole hippy thing and it really kicked off. Luckily the kid was magical, so after they nailed him to a tree for saying how nice it'd be to be nice to people for a change he got right back up again and - bereft of his previous M&M juggling career - did the whole "Told you so" malarky and vanished.

Are you upset?
Funny story but far from the truth.

I mean, you folk even recite the phrase "Christ died for all our sins". The point was to wipe out the laws of Leviticus, the Judaic Code, the Ten Commandments and the laughable original sin. Not all future sin - all past sin.

No, you are moving around an area where I should now come up with the arguments thrown at me in the creation vs. evolution thread. This simplification is not the point in christianity.

And that's the laugh here. Christianity - by the message of the guy the religion is named for - shouldn't be about control and law and banning this and bombing that. It should be about going through life not hurting people. And when you do, you tell someone about it ("confess") and say sorry. Christianity shouldn't a book you can beat people down with (particularly as a last resort when you've run out of sensible argument), but a message to just don't be a nob to other people.

And I did any of that, when? I totally agree on the first part that is in fact what it should be, and it is! Only there are extremist everywhere, I too, think it is really sad what people in their hunger for power have done to it. But all of that doesn't mean the word of God is to blame. I'm no member of any institutional church, for exactly those reasons.

Which is particularly funny as it means that many atheists are excellent Christians in terms of living the message. Only we don't think that an invisible Skydad makes us do it, which makes us awful, awful people. Apparently.And not other people's sins either. Remember, the question was how we know you're born as a sinner and you're already agreeing that kids shouldn't be considered sinners...It's just a story-form history of what the world was like before your religion started.

Sure, there are many good people in the world, extremly sad if they where to be punished eternally for not accepting Gods Word, but they had a lifetime to seek him and chose not to, unfortunately. I didn't say kids shouldn't be considered sinners I said they are by birth. Those who never knew the gospel are the only ones who (according to the Bible) will not be punished for not accepting Christ btw. so that includes unborn children to young children and (very few) grown folks.

It's important to know, because it's important to know why the religion started, but it should not form a basis for Christianity - Christ does that.

Come on, I don't want to repeat myself over and over, its ok... See first part of my post.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Yup.

However, it would be a rehash of the Human Rights thread.

Before you go browsing it, keep two questions in your head. The first is "Why would it be wrong for someone to murder me?". The second is "What's the limit of what I know to be true?".

I'll give it a look, to be honest though, I didn't want it to become a question of human rights. I asked the question already having made up my mind that the reason was self preservation, the brain's rational fear of there being consequences shortening it's own life.

What I'm more interested in is why people believe and accept intangible things such as right, wrong, good, evil, morality etc, but they are not prepared to believe and accept the existence of a God... and I'm not saying they should or shouldn't, I'm here asking genuine questions of other people because as I said earlier on in the thread, so far I believe "God" in terms of humanity as something that exists within the brain (and I also have an idea of what God as a creator may be too, but I'll go into that later).

Is there nothing about the human consciousness that isn't simply a result of brain chemistry?

 

[homeforsummer]

If I would think the event had not happened I would totally agree. But I DO think it happened, so it is a different perspective.

This I can appreciate, apart from one aspect: The concept of completely innocent children being born with sin. Why is it so easy to accept that even those who haven't had the opportunity to sin should still be considered sinners?

It's like accusing a baby of alcoholism or being a junkie decades before they touch alcohol or drugs, simply because someone thousands of years ago might have got drunk once or smoked a joint.

 

[Flaco13]

What do you mean by prophecy? A miracle or something described in the quran or in the hadith that happened before?

I mean a passage (Sûrah), preferably in the Q'ran, that 'foretold' an event that actually happened as described in said Sûrah.

One example from the Bible:

Isaiah 11,11-12
"11 It shall come to pass in that day
That the Lord shall set His hand again the second time
To recover the remnant of His people who are left,
From Assyria and Egypt,(*Assyria=Northern Iraq)
From Pathros and Cush,(*Pathros=in Egypt)
From Elam and Shinar,(*Shinar=Babel=Babylonia=South Iraq)
From Hamath and the islands of the sea.(*Islands... Hebrew: Ijim = distant coastal lands = Europe, Hamath=Syria)
12 He will set up a banner for the nations,
And will assemble the outcasts of Israel,
And gather together the dispersed of Judah"
(New King James Version) (*Impl. by me)

Between 1941 and 2003 many Jews emigrated from those countries.

Something like that.

This I can appreciate, apart from one aspect: The concept of completely innocent children being born with sin. Why is it so easy to accept that even those who haven't had the opportunity to sin should still be considered sinners?

It's like accusing a baby of alcoholism or being a junkie decades before they touch alcohol or drugs, simply because someone thousands of years ago might have got drunk once or smoked a joint.

Well in the same way I don't understand how abortion can be justified through a long time exposed as false theory by Haeckel. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10...9th026411.html
From a christian perspective people KILL hundreds of thousands of Babies a day, justified through an assumption they where not (yet) human beeings. To me they are living human beeings.
And as I tried to explain earlier, the born Baby has its whole lifetime to reckognise its sinful nature and return to God. Of course if it crosses the way of an atheist and decides to become one aswell it won't return to God.

 

[Famine]

Christianity still has it's foundation in the OT. The first christians where jews. Christ is the greek word for messiah, a jew who finds Yeshua as messiah is a messianic jew hence a christian with jewish heritage, how else would that work if OT wasn't the foundation for the Jews and Gentiles alike.

And yet Jews are not Christians. They're both Abrahamic religions - they have their origins in the same tale of the sons of Abraham - but Judaisim is constructed around the laws of the Pentateuch and Christianity is constructed around the teachings of... Christ.

Are you upset?

What an odd question.

Funny story but far from the truth.

Except the M&M juggling part, which is largely for my own amusement, that's the story.

If you're not following the teachings of Christ, you're not being a Christian. You're being a hybrid of Christian and something else. That's swell and all, but if you don't believe Christ died on the cross for all our sins, you might want to analyse exactly what it is you do believe and adjust your label to suit.

No, you are moving around an area where I should now come up with the arguments thrown at me in the creation vs. evolution thread. This simplification is not the point in christianity.

The religion is named after the guy. How much simpler would you like it?

He taught forgiveness, compassion, love, tolerance and understanding for all people. He didn't teach racism, sexism, homophobia, the murdering of raped women - or anything some groups of Christians use to justify their hatred of certain social groups.

The whole point of Christianity is that this bloke wiped out the old Judaic code and sin - the rules of the Old Testament, like circumcising children, stoning raped women and smashing babies to death.

Frankly, if Christianity went back to that, it'd be a hell of a lot more popular amongst everyone, since even us atheists live like the NT says Jesus would want us to. Only without the whole skydad thing.

Sure, there are many good people in the world, extremly sad if they where to be punished eternally for not accepting Gods Word, but they had a lifetime to seek him and chose not to, unfortunately.

Actually, we choose to seek out all truth - no matter how ugly it can be.

I didn't say kids shouldn't be considered sinners I said they are by birth.

Actually, you said that you agreed children under 2 couldn't be considered to have committed sin consciously:

Christianity is about seeking God and confess your sins, those you remember doing (consciously, not when you were 2 yrs old of course, I agree on that part)

And since they cannot be considered to have sinned, they cannot be considered to be sinners at birth - and certainly not for the reason that an allegorical tart committed fruit larceny under direction of a reptile...

Those who never knew the gospel are the only ones who (according to the Bible) will not be punished for not accepting Christ btw. so that includes unborn children to young children and (very few) grown folks.

So another argument that, even according to the Bible, we are not born as sinners...

Come on, I don't want to repeat myself over and over, its ok... See first part of my post.

You can if you wish, but if you want to assert that the religion named after the founder of the religion is not based on the teachings of that founder, but instead on the rules of some earlier books from another religion that the guy himself apparently attacked, contradicted and denied, you're going to have a bad time.

Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ. The word "Christianity" means "the act of following of the messiah" - who, in Christianity, is Jesus Christ. The Old Testament is, for Christians, a story book that tells you why Christ was necessary and how he changed the world.

Well in the same way I don't understand how abortion can be justified through a long time exposed as false theory by Haeckel. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10...9th026411.html

You might want to avoid linking to Intelligent Design sites. Intelligent Design is just as fraudulent and misrepresentative of religion as it is to science and no-one who either believes in a deity or doesn't should ever give anything ID adherents say houseroom.

We also have a perfectly good abortion thread - particularly as this isn't massively relevant to the thread or the point homeforsummer made.

 

[Flaco13]

And yet Jews are not Christians. They're both Abrahamic religions - they have their origins in the same tale of the sons of Abraham - but Judaisim is constructed around the laws of the Pentateuch and Christianity is constructed around the teachings of... Christ.What an odd question.Except the M&M juggling part, which is largely for my own amusement, that's the story.

Your interpretation that's all. Shows that you understand only a bit on the surface of it.

If you're not following the teachings of Christ, you're not being a Christian. You're being a hybrid of Christian and something else. That's swell and all, but if you don't believe Christ died on the cross for all our sins, you might want to analyse exactly what it is you do believe and adjust your label to suit.

The religion is named after the guy. How much simpler would you like it?

I am following the teachings of Christ you either missunderstood something or it got lost while you ripped it all apart, like you seem to do all the time. Please, do not try to explain my own religion to me!

He taught forgiveness, compassion, love, tolerance and understanding for all people. He didn't teach racism, sexism, homophobia, the murdering of raped women - or anything some groups of Christians use to justify their hatred of certain social groups.

Yes and once again I am telling you that I distance myself from those extremist groups, I don't understand why you are trying to put me into the same group, or you might generalize. And from a person with your intellect I honestly expect to know a little better than that.

The whole point of Christianity is that this bloke wiped out the old Judaic code and sin - the rules of the Old Testament, like circumcising children, stoning raped women and smashing babies to death.

No its not the 'whole' point, its about salvation amongst many other things. You can't just simplify like that.

Frankly, if Christianity went back to that, it'd be a hell of a lot more popular amongst everyone, since even us atheists live like the NT says Jesus would want us to. Only without the whole skydad thing.

So?

Actually, we choose to seek out all truth - no matter how ugly it can be.

Yeah, sure, different topic tho, right?

Actually, you said that you agreed children under 2 couldn't be considered to have committed sin consciously:

So?

And since they cannot be considered to have sinned, they cannot be considered to be sinners at birth - and certainly not for the reason that an allegorical tart committed fruit larceny under direction of a reptile...So another argument that, even according to the Bible, we are not born as sinners...

Your interpretation, fine. But according to the Bible? Wrong! You twist it up, we are all sinners, we hear the gospel, we must accept it. Those who had never come in contact with it, are spared, it's God's grace nothing else.

You can if you wish, but if you want to assert that the religion named after the founder of the religion is not based on the teachings of that founder, but instead on the rules of some earlier books from another religion that the guy himself apparently attacked, contradicted and denied, you're going to have a bad time.

No if you simplify like that you are giving me a hard time.
Yes as christians Jesus is our fundament, but who said I live by some rules of the OT? That's not what I said, its about the OT beeing the fundament of the Bible, Christians have the Bible... why? Because old and new testament is connected and it only works properly with the 2 together.

Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ. The word "Christianity" means "the act of following of the messiah" - who, in Christianity, is Jesus Christ. The Old Testament is, for Christians, a story book that tells you why Christ was necessary and how he changed the world.

Not a story book, lol. Apocryphia might be story books, but they are not in a real Bible.

You might want to avoid linking to Intelligent Design sites. Intelligent Design is just as fraudulent and misrepresentative of religion as it is to science and no-one who either believes in a deity or doesn't should ever give anything ID adherents say houseroom.

Intelligent Design sites???

We also have a perfectly good abortion thread - particularly as this isn't massively relevant to the thread or the point homeforsummer made.

Good get-away of the topic 👍 Ok I will post there if I feel like it

 

[Scaff]

Care to tell me exact passages because I don't know what you are referring at.

For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’

Source - http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+15:4&version=NIV

Matthew 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Source - As above

Codex Sinaiticus was written 350 - 400 AD, the council of Nicea, where the canons were set was 325 AD so I don't see the relevance. The Apocryphias came to a late relevance for the Catholic church after Luthers Reformation in the medievil time. So it is not that something was omitted from later Bibles, it was ADDED to the Catholic Bible after the Reformation.

You don't see the relevance?

How about the rather large factor that you take as blind faith a book that has been re-written, edited, had sections added and removed over the centuries.

Now if these changes were made by your deity that would be odd enough (isn't God supposed to get this stuff right first time), but that these were moral men messing with the word of God. Yet you still consider it to be intact and we should apparently follow it without question even after the edits made by morals.

That's not a relevant thing to bring up?


Now on the subject of Original sin, I seem to recall that you are Lutheran, which would mean that you follow a Christian sect that does firmly believe in the concept of Original sin, Martin Luther firmly believed in it.

Augustine's formulation of original sin was popular among Reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin who equated original sin with concupiscence, affirming that it persisted even after baptism and completely destroyed freedom.[2]

Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin
Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin#Protestant_reformation

As such I find it rather odd that you are altering the very concept of it and removing one of the cornerstones of he religion you claim to follow?


On a side note:

Arizona Republicans Propose Bill That Would Not Allow Atheists To Graduate High School

 

[Flaco13]

Source - http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+15:4&version=NIV

He quoted the Phariseans and their teachings, to then tell them the truth. The law not to curse your parents was set in the OT, but the Phariseans disobeied it! Mat 5,6-7 'even if your parents are in need you will give their support money to the synagoge instead.'And so, by your man made rule, you nullify the direct comandment of God to honor and care for your parents.7 You hypocrites!...' Jesus's repetition of the comandment, there are comandment he repeated and added or altered things and some he did not repeat (like Sabbath comandment).
Put to death means through court! The Sanheddrin, not just by self-justice.

How about the rather large factor that you take as blind faith a book that has been re-written, edited, had sections added and removed over the centuries.

Now if these changes were made by your deity that would be odd enough (isn't God supposed to get this stuff right first time), but that these were moral men messing with the word of God. Yet you still consider it to be intact and we should apparently follow it without question even after the edits made by morals.

That's not a relevant thing to bring up?

What? lol

(isn't God supposed to get this stuff right first time)

Council of Nicea 325 AD - Canon - Evangelical Bible today - Canon, its the same as 325 AD was set. What are you talking about???

I'm not Lutheran.

 

[Famine]

Your interpretation that's all. Shows that you understand only a bit on the surface of it.

Nope. That's how it is. Judaism follows the message of the Pentateuch (which they call the Talmud), Christianity follows the teachings of Christ.

I am following the teachings of Christ you either missunderstood something or it got lost while you ripped it all apart, like you seem to do all the time. Please, do not try to explain my own religion to me!

If you remain consistent with it, I won't have to. You aren't.

Christians follow the teachings of Christ as their religion only. Anything else is either not Christianity or it's a hybrid of Christianity with something else.

Yes and once again I am telling you that I distance myself from those extremist groups, I don't understand why you are trying to put me into the same group, or you might generalize. And from a person with your intellect I honestly expect to know a little better than that.

I'm not putting you in with any extremist groups of any kind. Please read more carefully.

However the former list of things are requirements and law set out in the Old Testament.

No its not the 'whole' point, its about salvation amongst many other things. You can't just simplify like that.

How does one achieve salvation? By following the rules. The existence of Jesus changed the rules.

So?

It's a fun note, that's all. They get wrapped up with oppression, silly laws and hatred - opposition to gay marriage, for example - that Jesus would have absolutely dropped his hoop at. As a result they - and their religion - get marginalised as kooks...

Yeah, sure, different topic tho, right?

Not really. It applies directly to this one. If the truth ends up being a deity, so be it - but we absolute cannot be accused of not seeking it.

So?

It rather answers the point that we're not born sinners - the question you demanded of Scaff. So if you agree with that, why are you arguing and if you don't why are you making points that agree with it?

Your interpretation, fine. But according to the Bible? Wrong! You twist it up, we are all sinners, we hear the gospel, we must accept it. Those who had never come in contact with it, are spared, it's God's grace nothing else.

You... just contradicted yourself in one paragraph... We can't all be born sinners if some of us aren't...

No if you simplify like that you are giving me a hard time.
Yes as christians Jesus is our fundament, but who said I live by some rules of the OT? That's not what I said, its about the OT beeing the fundament of the Bible, Christians have the Bible... why? Because old and new testament is connected and it only works properly with the 2 together.

You seem to be furiously disagreeing with what I said for the reason of agreeing with it...

The Old Testament sets out what the world was like before Jesus. It's largely allegorical in nature but it explains why Jesus was necessary. The actual message and rules for Christians is in the New Testament. Levicitus is not rules for Christians, it's rules for Jews. The Ten Commandments are not rules for Christians, they're rules for Jews.

Not a story book, lol. Apocryphia might be story books, but they are not in a real Bible.

Very much a story book. Nothing in Genesis is even close to fact.

Intelligent Design sites???

Yes. The website you linked to was an Intelligent Design site - a site promoting the donkey crap tripe that is Intelligent Design, insulting science by lying and making things up and pretending they're scientific while insulting religion by lying and making things up and saying that faith enough isn't alone without the proof they fabricate.


Incidentally, I was Church of England Christened.

 

[Scaff]

He quoted the Phariseans and their teachings, to then tell them the truth. The law not to curse your parents was set in the OT, but the Phariseans disobeied it! Mat 5,6-7 'even if your parents are in need you will give their support money to the synagoge instead.'And so, by your man made rule, you nullify the direct comandment of God to honor and care for your parents.7 You hypocrites!...' Jesus's repetition of the comandment, there are comandment he repeated and added or altered things and some he did not repeat (like Sabbath comandment).
Put to death means through court! The Sanheddrin, not just by self-justice.

In which case he's just contradicted this:

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.

Now either way you head with this its a contradiction. Either he did change the OT laws (in which case 5:17 is a contradiction) or he didn't (in which case 15:4 is a contradiction).

Nice to know that you are also OK with killing kids for being rude, "don't worry son, daddy's still going to heaven - its actually your fault for swearing at me". Seriously your defending that because its an Iron age law!

What? lol

What a mature and well reasoned rebutal you've presented.

My point was rather clear. You place blind faith in a book written, edited, amended by men with no question of he aims they had when doing so. That's a rather reverent point in a discussion about religion.

Council of Nicea 325 AD - Canon - Evangelical Bible today - Canon, its the same as 325 AD was set. What are you talking about???

And prior to 325AD? Did God get it wrong then and who decided he did?

I'm not Lutheran.

My apologies, the point however still stands, all the descendants of Adam and Eve (which as a Christian you would have as everyone on the planet) inherited original sin.

 

[Flaco13]

Nope. That's how it is. Judaism follows the message of the Pentateuch (which they call the Talmud), Christianity follows the teachings of Christ.If you remain consistent with it, I won't have to. You aren't.

Christians follow the teachings of Christ as their religion only. Anything else is either not Christianity or it's a hybrid of Christianity with something else.I'm not putting you in with any extremist groups of any kind. Please read more carefully.

You bring up Judaism and the Talmud to back yourself up. I didn't talk about either one. The Bibel contains the OT because of the connection between New and Old, a New Testament alone is pretty worthless. You could never understand the second coming in Glory because prophecy regarding end times is part OT part NT for example.

However the former list of things are requirements and law set out in the Old Testament.How does one achieve salvation? By following the rules. The existence of Jesus changed the rules.

It didn't just change them it strenghened them.

It's a fun note, that's all. They get wrapped up with oppression, silly laws and hatred - opposition to gay marriage, for example - that Jesus would have absolutely dropped his hoop at. As a result they - and their religion - get marginalised as kooks...

Good example, gay marriage, Scaff asked me once about my opinion and I guess my reply was rather surprising to him. A statement from me on another german forum: [QUOTE Flaco]... If you think homophobia was any christian-like, you did NOT understand Jesus!...[/QUOTE]

Not really. It applies directly to this one. If the truth ends up being a deity, so be it - but we absolute cannot be accused of not seeking it.

Ok, can't disagree here, seeking the truth is what we do

It rather answers the point that we're not born sinners - the question you demanded of Scaff. So if you agree with that, why are you arguing and if you don't why are you making points that agree with it? You... just contradicted yourself in one paragraph... We can't all be born sinners if some of us aren't...You seem to be furiously disagreeing with what I said for the reason of agreeing with it...

No I think you didn''t understand, I agree that unborn to say 3 - 4 year old cannot counsciousfully commit sin, but in God all humanity is sinful so we all are sinners by birth, Jesus died for OUR SINS. So it is HE who can set us free from it, we just need to accept HIM when we hear the Gospel.

The Old Testament sets out what the world was like before Jesus. It's largely allegorical in nature but it explains why Jesus was necessary. The actual message and rules for Christians is in the New Testament. Levicitus is not rules for Christians, it's rules for Jews. The Ten Commandments are not rules for Christians, they're rules for Jews.

That is correct

Very much a story book. Nothing in Genesis is even close to fact.

That is wrong, unless you believe sheister's like Finkelstein who does not represent the majority of Israeli archeologists.

Yes. The website you linked to was an Intelligent Design site - a site promoting the donkey crap tripe that is Intelligent Design, insulting science by lying and making things up and pretending they're scientific while insulting religion by lying and making things up and saying that faith enough isn't alone without the proof they fabricate.

Oh, my apologees then, I wasn't aware of the existance of that group.They are insulting both science and religion? Wow, what's next? lol
But the Haeckel bit is true isn't it? I mean he did fake these pictures or drawings.

 

[Famine]

You bring up Judaism and the Talmud to back yourself up. I didn't talk about either one. The Bibel contains the OT because of the connection between New and Old, a New Testament alone is pretty worthless. You could never understand the second coming in Glory because prophecy regarding end times is part OT part NT for example.

You're missing the point.

The Old Testament contained rules and laws. Boy howdy did it contain some rules and laws. Some of the better ones include lines forbidding tattoos and shellfish consumptions, while some of the worse ones include lines about stoning to death women who've been raped and seizing the children of your enemies and dashing their brains out with rocks.

The rules and laws of the Old Testament govern Judaism. They do not govern Christianity - though some Christians cherry-pick some of the rules they like (not laying with a man as you would with a woman being a favourite) because they fit in with their mindset on certain issues, but it's simply not Christian to do so.

Jesus's existence did away with those rules - no more infanticide or pig-shunning - to set some new ones. It did away with old sins too - the ones that broke those rules. Post-Jesus sin is very simple.

It didn't just change them it strenghened them.

Fact is it did away with the OT rules and set new ones.

Taking a child off your enemy and smashing it to pieces against a rock is a NT sin but an OT rule... That's not strengthening of the rules, but dismissing them in favour of newer ones.

No I think you didn''t understand, I agree that unborn to say 3 - 4 year old cannot counsciousfully commit sin, but in God all humanity is sinful so we all are sinners by birth, Jesus died for OUR SINS. So it is HE who can set us free from it, we just need to accept HIM when we hear the Gospel.

Humanity is only sinful under the concept of "Original Sin". The concept that comes to use from... Genesis in the Old Testament. The allegorical story book containing brutal, barbaric rules that Jesus's existence did away with.

If you can argue that you are to be held responsible for a murder that happened in Mongolia in 1327, you're free to keep hold of the concept that you bear the guilt of some light-fingered, fructose-addicted, nudist strumpet. If you can't, please don't.

That is wrong, unless you believe sheister's like Finkelstein who does not represent the majority of Israeli archeologists.

I have no idea who that is, but the Genesis account of creation is absolutely untrue on every level. It's a story at best.

Oh, my apologees then, I wasn't aware of the existance of that group.

Intelligent Design proponents try to prove that the Creation myth of Genesis is correct and, very specifically, that evolution is wrong and they use "pseudoscience" to do this. This largely requires them to ignore great chunks of fact and evidence, while literally making up facts and dressing them in complex language.

To call it science (which they do) insults science, but it's more subtlely insulting to religion. By suggesting it's not sufficient to have faith in your creator, they directly deny one of the fundamental tenets of religion that all you need is faith. They try to provide evidence for faith which is inherently contradictory. That they do so by way of fabrication is, of course, a significant issue that they fail to recognise - and they actually harm fellow believers by portraying this image of the faithful as ignorant, untrustworthy liars.

But the Haeckel bit is true isn't it? I mean he did fake these pictures or drawings.

I presume you're referring to the woodcut duplicate, where he used the same woodcut to represent three different chordate embryos in the same book? In later editions it was changed to a single image of the woodcut.

I'm not sure of the relevance though, since the point was appropriate. Up to about an eighth of the way through embryonic development, it's impossible to distinguish any one mammallian species (human, dog, cow) embryo from another by sight alone. Up to about half that time, it's impossible to distinguish any one chordate species (tortoise, herring, penguin) embryo from another by sight alone.

 

[Flaco13]

In which case he's just contradicted this:



Now either way you head with this its a contradiction. Either he did change the OT laws (in which case 5:17 is a contradiction) or he didn't (in which case 15:4 is a contradiction).

Nice to know that you are also OK with killing kids for being rude, "don't worry son, daddy's still going to heaven - its actually your fault for swearing at me". Seriously your defending that because its an Iron age law!

Why? He fullfilled the law actually he was free of sin, unlike Isaac. That is why God showed us how Isaac could not be sacrificed, he was a sinner, exactly! This young man probably never actively sinned, see... born sinner. Jesus was the only exception. He never disobeid any OT law! And each time he was accused of doing so, by Phariseans and the like, he explained what is right! And 15:4 is contradictive why? Because Jesus should have killed the Phariseans for disobeing the law? Again that would have been Sanheddrin's job, but they wouldn't have killed them because, well most of them where Phariseans, lol.

What a mature and well reasoned rebutal you've presented.

My point was rather clear. You place blind faith in a book written, edited, amended by men with no question of he aims they had when doing so. That's a rather reverent point in a discussion about religion.

And prior to 325AD? Did God get it wrong then and who decided he did?

It was written, yes! Not changed on purpose. Prior to 325AD It was still Hebrew,Aramaic and Greek. No changes otherwise it wouldn't mach P52 from ca. 130AD and Isaiah role from Qumran wich is 200BC! John finished his last book at ca. 100AD, so all the changes might have happened between 100 and 130AD ?I Don't think so.
No it wasn't clear, what aims, do you think had they?

My apologies, the point however still stands, all the descendants of Adam and Eve (which as a Christian you would have as everyone on the planet) inherited original sin.

No need to apologise. And yes, all descendants of Adam and Eve (except Jesus) inherited original sin.

You're missing the point.

The Old Testament contained rules and laws. Boy howdy did it contain some rules and laws. Some of the better ones include lines forbidding tattoos and shellfish consumptions, while some of the worse ones include lines about stoning to death women who've been raped and seizing the children of your enemies and dashing their brains out with rocks.

The rules and laws of the Old Testament govern Judaism. They do not govern Christianity - though some Christians cherry-pick some of the rules they like (not laying with a man as you would with a woman being a favourite) because they fit in with their mindset on certain issues, but it's simply not Christian to do so.

Jesus's existence did away with those rules - no more infanticide or pig-shunning - to set some new ones. It did away with old sins too - the ones that broke those rules. Post-Jesus sin is very simple.Fact is it did away with the OT rules and set new ones.

Taking a child off your enemy and smashing it to pieces against a rock is a NT sin but an OT rule... That's not strengthening of the rules, but dismissing them in favour of newer ones.Humanity is only sinful under the concept of "Original Sin". The concept that comes to use from... Genesis in the Old Testament. The allegorical story book containing brutal, barbaric rules that Jesus's existence did away with.

I'm beginning to understand where you are heading! Judaism is the cause of all evil and such. Throwing babies on rocks (where in OT does it say so?) Well I think there have to be some missunderstanding or that over-dramatization of OT interpretations here follow another purpose. And if throwing babies on rocks was so fundamentally important I'm sure I should have seen more blood stains in Old Jerusalem. The Hasidic are very fundamental, I haven't seen one single Baby sticking on a wall from blood. On the other Hand abortion is a lot worse but accepted throughout the 'civilized' world... I honestly dont like where this is going.

You have an interpretation of the Bible that makes me shiver. Now I respect your opinion but I will now resign from our conversation because I cannot take this double-moral of yours! Too bad because so far it was a good conversation, no direct insults and relatively respectful. Thank you for that, Famine.

 

[Scaff]

Why? He fullfilled the law actually he was free of sin, unlike Isaac. That is why God showed us how Isaac could not be sacrificed, he was a sinner, exactly! This young man probably never actively sinned, see... born sinner. Jesus was the only exception. He never disobeid any OT law! And each time he was accused of doing so, by Phariseans and the like, he explained what is right! And 15:4 is contradicted why? Because should have killed the Phariseans for disobeing the law? Again that would have been Sanheddrin's job, but they wouldn't have killed them because, well most of them where Phariseans, lol.

Can you please stop with the text-speak - it does nothing to further your point and is an AUP violation.

Now to that point, the individuals are irreverent to this. The core is if Jesus' position is that OT law is still valid (15:4) or its not (15:17), as these two statements (both attributed to him) differ in that regard.

Oh and while we are on the topic of contradictions, what was he doing around 9 in the morning on the day of his crucifixion?

It was written, yes! Not changed on purpose. Prior to 325AD It was still Hebrew,Aramaic and Greek. No changes otherwise it wouldn't mach P52 from ca. 130AD and Isaiah role from Qumran wich is 200BC! John finished his last book at ca. 100AD, so all the changes might have happened between 100 and 130AD ?I Don't think so.
No it wasn't clear, what aims, do you think had they?

Who knows what the aims were, I would have thought given the changes made to the single holy work within your religion that would have been well documented and investigated to the highest degree. After all they could have done it to further there own needs and position.

I also find it odd that over 300 years after the alleged death of Jesus, people who didn't know him are better placed to do this than those who were around at the time.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

I'm not going to get into the larger discussion, however:

Its only contradictive if you are looking at the wrong places or don't look any further than two taken verses that, on first sight, seem to be contradictive. Tell me one part that seems contradictive to you.

Please tell me I don't have to post the video again.

 

[alfiD]

When did reptiles come into the mix.

 

[Flaco13]

Can you please stop with the text-speak - it does nothing to further your point and is an AUP violation.

Now to that point, the individuals are irreverent to this. The core is if Jesus' position is that OT law is still valid (15:4) or its not (15:17), as these two statements (both attributed to him) differ in that regard.

Oh and while we are on the topic of contradictions, what was he doing around 9 in the morning on the day of his crucifixion?

If the individuals are irrelevant you are tearing apart the meaning of it. And miss the point.
I explained to you that in Matt 15:4 Jesus was quoting the matching OT verse to show the Phariseans how they disobeyed this law.

Please read Matt 15: 1-9 and you might understand the context.

9am on the day of his cruxifiction? The cruxifiction was between 9 and 12 so I don't know what you mean... carrying a cross, maybe?

Who knows what the aims were, I would have thought given the changes made to the single holy work within your religion that would have been well documented and investigated to the highest degree. After all they could have done it to further there own needs and position.

I also find it odd that over 300 years after the alleged death of Jesus, people who didn't know him are better placed to do this than those who were around at the time.

I cannot complain about the documentation, maybe looking a little further than wikipedia could be usefull.

When did reptiles come into the mix.

The snake, that convinced Eve to eat the fruit

I'm not going to get into the larger discussion, however:



Please tell me I don't have to post the video again.

You don't have to post the video again.

 

[alfiD]

Thanks Denur



It doesn't suggest you should soft boil an egg for seven minutes either, but the absence of information on something doesn't mean it's automatically being denied.

It's fair to say that if the paper isn't actively using anomalies in red-shift as evidence that the Big Bang didn't happen, it's probably not saying that at all. You can't just cherry-pick an element of a scientific paper vaguely related to something and use it as proof of an unrelated theory.



No, I do understand. It's a comedy. Everything is done for comic effect. You said:



Saying you "don't like how they dumb down engineering" is like complaining that Two And A Half Men dumbs down the deep responsibilities of raising a child.



I wasn't insulting you. I was taking the piss, however. Not of you, you understand, but of a slightly silly comment about being annoyed that a comedy show wasn't taking something seriously.



Then the lesson here is, "don't post when you're too tired to post something that makes sense".

Okay. Well I choose no side whether the Big Bang (the actual proposed scientific theory) happened or not. I mean, I think more research has to be done, and more likely than not new discoveries will be made.

About the show, I'm not the only one who finds it insulting to actual scientist and engineers. I mean yeah it is a comedy, but a lot of these "comedies" have a deep message in them.

 

[Famine]

I'm beginning to understand where you are heading! Judaism is the cause of all evil and such.

Nope.

Throwing babies on rocks (where in OT does it say so?) Well I think there have to be some missunderstanding or that over-dramatization of OT interpretations here follow another purpose.

Nope. It's in Psalms - and probably the most famous one at that. Curiously oft-skipped too.

You have an interpretation of the Bible that makes me shiver.

Interesting word, that. "Interpretation"...

Seems to me that Christianity itself can be diluted to a simple message of not being a nob to other people, with a Skydad rider tacked on. It's not terribly complex and it's not particularly flawed. But if you bury that message deep enough in an highly verbose, florid text in a mixture of Hebrew, Sanskrit, Aramaic, Greek and Latin, adopting earlier Sumerian and Babylonian myth as associated imagery, preferentially anthologise it, translate it into Latin, then English, then come up with different versions of it, the "interpretation" becomes important.

If you dress that up in ceremony, tradition and religious law (fun time: find a reference in the Bible to the position of Pope), it becomes even more important and therein we get the varying denominations of "Christian" - Catholic and Lutheran and Baptist and Episcopalian and yadda yadda yadda...

Then those of us who read the actual written words get accused of "the wrong interpretation" by folk who would argue until they're puce about one word's difference in one of ten thousand passages with another bloke who otherwise believes exactly the same thing as them...

As I said, interesting word.

I cannot take this double-moral of yours!

And I have no idea what this means.

 

[Scaff]

If the individuals are irrelevant you are tearing apart the meaning of it. And miss the point.
I explained to you that in Matt 15:4 Jesus was quoting the matching OT verse to show the Phariseans how they disobeyed this law.

Please read Matt 15: 1-9 and you might understand the context.

I've read the context and it does nothing to change the obvious contradiction.

9am on the day of his cruxifiction? The cruxifiction was between 9 and 12 so I don't know what you mean... carrying a cross, maybe?

Odd beacsue the text is a lot more specific, contraditory, but specific.

Mark 15:25: And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

John 19:14-16: And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour: and he (Pilate) saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he him over therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.
The sixth hour is Noon.

Mark 15:32-33: And they that were crucified with him reviled him. And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

John 19:14-15: And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him.

Now the third hour would be 9am and according to Mark he was on the cross at this time. John however seems to disagree quite a bit on that front and is insistent that at the sixth hour (noon) he's still with Pilate.

Would seem to be quite a difference of opinion on that rather key point.

However its interest you mention carrying the cross, exactly who did that again?

I cannot complain about the documentation, maybe looking a little further than wikipedia could be usefull.

I've looked significantly further than Wiki be assured of that, I do however find it astounding that you take this book to be true yet appear to have no understanding of why the word of your God needed mortal help to be 'corrected'. It would appear you have blind faith not only in a deity, but in mortal men with an agenda of there own from over a thousand years ago.

 

[Flaco13]

There is no word in english that can really describe it:

Doppelmoral :

Doppelmoral*{f}
double standard
double standards*{pl}

SYNO** Bigotterie | Doppelmoral | Heuchelei

hypocrisy - Heuchelei {f}

source: www.dict.cc

 

[Famine]

I got the gist but since I apply only a single, consistent standard - unlike the varying versions and interpretations of the Bible - the use of the term baffles me.

 

[Flaco13]

I've read the context and it does nothing to change the obvious contradiction.

Then I can't say anymore, if you are that stubborn I'm speechless, really.

Odd beacsue the text is a lot more specific, contraditory, but specific.









Now the third hour would be 9am and according to Mark he was on the cross at this time. John however seems to disagree quite a bit on that front and is insistent that at the sixth hour (noon) he's still with Pilate.

Would seem to be quite a difference of opinion on that rather key point.

So? I said between 9 and 12. John isn't specific, he said 'about noon', and Mark says 'it was about the third hour when the crucifiction took place'.

Well I don't have a single problem with 3 or 4 hours difference from two men who lived almost a generation apart.

"He died at 8:36" "No, No he died at 11:45"

However its interest you mention carrying the cross, exactly who did that again?

Jesus, until the soldiers made Simon carry it!

I've looked significantly further than Wiki be assured of that, I do however find it astounding that you take this book to be true yet appear to have no understanding of why the word of your God needed mortal help to be 'corrected'. It would appear you have blind faith not only in a deity, but in mortal men with an agenda of there own from over a thousand years ago.

I have no understanding...blind faith....

round and round and round we go

mighty powerful people a thousand years ago, wow an agenda kickin to this day...

And Rockefeller and Rothschild are soon going to build up their New World Order huh?

👎

 

[TheDrummingKING]

You don't have to post the video again.

Just to make sure, you do know what one I meant, correct? The bible contradiction gameshow one.

"He died at 8:36" "No, No he died at 11:45"

I could understand this if it were just some random person, but this is supposed to be the son of God (that was also God), you'd think people would be able to agree upon a time or at least document it coherently.

 

[Flaco13]

Just to make sure, you do know what one I meant, correct? The bible contradiction gameshow one.

No, but since you insisted I should tell you you don't have to I thought it was the best way to avoid it. lol.

I could understand this if it were just some random person, but this is supposed to be the son of God (that was also God), you'd think people would be able to agree upon a time or at least document it coherently.

Well it's not that I dismiss the fact that this seems odd, but I am 100% sure that there is an explanation to be found and that God made the different times for a reason.

Looking at it from a non religious view, Mark was not an Eye-witness but he investigated by talking to eye witnesess, he has been close to them I mean he lived in Jerusalem as far as I know, so I don't know exact dates but he must have written it before 70AD of course.

John, on the other hand was an eye witness but he went to Turkey and was imprissoned at Pathmos where he wrote (first probably) the Book of Apocalypse/Revelation and his gospel, as an old man of about 90 yrs in about 95 - 100AD.

So given that Mark as a young man, dependant on what people told him in contrast to a 90 yr old imprissioned and almost a whole generation in between the two, a difference of 3 hours is not really bad.

But of course I have a problem now, because I believe in the scripture beeing inspired by God, I must come to the conclusion that it has a deeper meaning, so I'll spent my free time with a Bible in my hands instead of my G27.

I know you will not understand or better said, agree with me but that's just how I am. I found my status/my way and it is perfectly cool to me.

@Scaff

I'm really really sorry, I made a mistake earlier on...please note it was the council of Hippo, not Nicea!!! No wonder you couldn't find it, my bad.