EADD Theology Megathread

[JessHalo]

She has got a fine arse. Its an iconic pic because its beautiful. I believe God loves beauty in all its expressions.

Guilt is an enemy IMO. Actually I remember sneakily looking at it on the poster rail in Smiths and feeling confusingly aroused lol. Its just a fucking lovely bum!

Sham i've got a horrid virus. I've been thinking about your questions a lot. Please may I respond when I'm feeling a bit better?


And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Gen 1.27

 

[Raasyvibe]

Sorry i'm a bit late with this one. Didn't see the thread! assumed the mods did the right thing of deleting our posts after the picture thread was sabotaged!

Well done for the considerate cropping of the thread as well. It made me chuckle when I opened the thread to see a huge painting of God Almighty.

This is a big post, but a lot of the writing is quotes and pictures from the bible.

Found "answers" eh? Don't you mean you found apologetics? Big difference. You really need to ask yourself some serious questions about some of the shite apogeticists feed ya.

Apologetics? Excuse me, where did this come from? Truth is you know absolutly nothing about my my bible study and what meanings I have taken from it. Now you are making assumptions based on what you know nothing about. Unsurprisingly you are completely wrong. Never used apologetics when reading the bible. Occasionally if I was unsure of a verse I may ask for a second opinion, but thats only a few verses out of thousands.

____

It's a funny old book is the OT. The stories are absurd. If you don't have a strong belief in God, and a great inclination to learn, you're not really going to make much sense of it. I'd expound further on what findings i've made from the OT and how it coalesces with my own spirutal understanding, but you wouldn't accept it. You won't even accept I found any meaning without jumping to conclusions that I've just read apologetics. Finding meaning in the bible isn't compatible with your own hypothesis that the book is nonsense.

MsHalo produced a great verse, which sums up entirely what I'm trying to say . I don't think there is another verse in the entire bible more applicable for you (except maybe levictus 15:16 )


"'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." Acts 28:26


Simply, if you're not willing to accept God in your life. You won't accept the bible either. And if you're blind towards scripture, you won't listen to theology. And if you won't listen to the theology, you won't listen or relate to me or any other Christian.

Just a totally random selection. Prince of Peace. Religion of the meek 'n' mild. What a load of old cock. It's not just stuff "done in God's name" either. Plenty of it is either done directly or at direct command. Fukkin disgusting stuff. Finding meaning in such an execrable work of vile hate says a lot about those who subscribe to it

Your conclusion this time is that I, the Christian, consign to bigotry and hate and you the atheist are too moralistic for this and dissociate from it. Though this assumption again fits nicely into your self-fulfilling hypothesis, the reality again is very different to how you percieve it.

Your assumptions again are drawn from something you do not understand properly, and they are again, unsurprisingly, completely wrong. (i'll fill you in with your scripture ignorance later)


See, at the age of 21 God came into my life. I felt it would be a smart idea to purchase a bible (Which blows your theory that no-one i know has bought a bible, I BOUGHT MY OWN) when I started reading the OT I was pretty shocked. Then I read one line, where God had sentenced someone to be burnt at the stake. I threw the bible across the room. Threw it.

Y'see, i'm not any different than you. I too hate the brutality of our ancestors, I too despise "bigotry, hate and barbarism", and to read about this in Gods holy book I too found shocking. And I too, would never consign myself to something which condones such brutality. So please, do not claim some moral superiority over me.

The obvious reaction to these barbaric verses is to resent God? Resent the bible?

I've done it. You've done it. And hundreds of other cyber-atheists post things like this, all over the Internet

^^^ They've identified a lot of vulgarity in Gods book, and now are blaiming God. Which is the very easy, primary thing to do.

However, the more advanced thing to do. The more progressive, intelligent apporach is to question "Why is vulgarity in God's book, when God is supposed to be about peace and love" to look into it and search for answers. This is something you have failed to do. When it comes to slating God, and finding verses that sound peculiar, you are an EXPERT. But when it comes to finding out WHY they are there, and what is meant by them you are totally ignorant.

Because quite simply, your interest does not lie in finding the truth behind the bible, your interest lies in slating it. You are biassed and it shows in your complete ignorance towards scripture. This is not an assumption before I get called a hypocrit, this is fact, because i'm the one who now has to fill you in with the meaning of scripture, as you have completely (deliberately?) negelected this your whole life.

The theological answers behind the vulgarity of the OT, have been given time and time again, century after century, but people who are biassed against God don't pay attention at their own convenience. And just dwell on the barbaric verses of the OT. So here we go again, I'll answer this age old question for you, yet again:

_____

Why is Jesus. The ultimate nice guy. The guy so painfully nice, he's even asking God to forgive those who were currently torturing him to death. Why is this example of God... have anything to do with this disgusting barbaric book known as the Old testament?



First off Jesus was no different to us, just like me and you, he opposed the OT law. He opposed the brutality. He was on the side of humanity.

"The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?”

Jesus of course went AGAINST what was directed in the "law of moses" and said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (Saving the womans life)

And he continously preaches against what is written in the OT, time and time again. Here's a load more examples of his opposition towards the coarse OT:

"You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, 'You shall not murder'; and 'whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.' 22 But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, 'You fool,' you will be liable to the hell of fire"

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you

"Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, 'You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.' 34 But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God,

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also;"

There's many more examples to be found also, i'm stopping now with consideration of the size of this post.

Apart from continuously preaching against all these old laws, Jesus himself physically DISOBEYED them. Jesus and His disciples did not observe the strict Jewish rules against doing any work on the Sabbath Luke 6:1:11

"1One sabbath while Jesus was going through the grainfields, his disciples plucked some heads of grain, rubbed them in their hands, and ate them. 2But some of the Pharisees said, "Why are you doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?" 3Jesus answered, "Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and gave some to his companions?" 5Then he said to them, "The Son of Man is lord of the sabbath." 6On another sabbath he entered the synagogue and taught, and there was a man there whose right hand was withered. 7The scribes and the Pharisees watched him to see whether he would cure on the sabbath, so that they might find an accusation against him. 8Even though he knew what they were thinking, he said to the man who had the withered hand, "Come and stand here." He got up and stood there. 9Then Jesus said to them, "I ask you, is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the sabbath, to save life or to destroy it?" 10After looking around at all of them, he said to him, "Stretch out your hand." He did so, and his hand was restored. 11But they were filled with fury and discussed with one another what they might do to Jesus"

...and then throughtout the NT, that vile OT get's put into perspective again and again

"by this Jesus everyone who believes is set free from all those sins from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses"

15We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law.

Yet...despite this ABUNDANCE of information.... which clearly shows that the OT is not the precise word of God and NOT to be taken too literally....and jesus opposes it....

Atheists, such as yourself.... overlook ALL of this, and focus on just one verse. Just one verse which reads as if Jesus is a proponent for the OT

"17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one stroke of a letter in the law to be dropped"

(ok, technically it's 2 verses because jesus's words are actually repeated in Matthew 5:17-18... but he's only quoted once)

17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished

Now, considering jesus has just spent so much time disobeying and preaching against the law... a bit of common sense tells us that in this verse, when he said "The Law".... he's probably not referring to "the law" of the OT where slaves are stoned and woman are beaten (and all the rest). Atheists interpret it that way, because they want to disprove God and make him out to be a callous tyrant. But simple common sense tells us that cannot be a correct interpretation, because Jesus has done so much to change and defy "The law of Moses".

So what does he mean by "the law", what cannot change lest heaven and earth pass away!?

The answer is found in Matthew 23:23 -
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith

Thats what Gods law is. justice, mercy and faith. That is what Jesus is referring too. The original law before the pharisees and Sadducees misinterpretted it and corrupted it for their own means. For instance what is told in the 10 Commandments. Do not kill, Do not Steal, Honour mother and father "etc would be considered part of the original law of God, passed down to the prophets (in this case Moses).

It is my understanding that Gods original law was just, but man misinterpretted and corrupted it. It became more politically motivated, intertwined with the common brutality of that age (2000-3000 ago). It was the Pharisees and Sadducees that started adding hundreds of ceremonial rules.

And Jesus (The good guy, who hates brutallity like we do), as you can imagine, was pretty irrate with them:


Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup, so that the outside also may become clean. 27 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which on the outside look beautiful, but inside they are full of the bones of the dead and of all kinds of filth. 28 So you also on the outside look righteous to others, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. Matthew 23:25

______

So when you consider God as this evil tyrant and we Christians are fools taken in by it all, you are way off. You have a misunderstanding of Christiannity, and you misunderstand a lot of Christians. With a little more understanding and research you would realise Christiannity is a religion of peace and goodwill. If theres a verse you don't understand, look for an answer.

Christiannity is about recognising the pride, egoism and dark desires of human nature. Dissociating from it completely and furthering yourself spiritually.

I just hope you recognise this, lest you spend the rest of your life misunderstanding the entire bible and posting more stupid banners across the Internet like this:

 

[Shambles]

I'll type a more in-depth response later but can we get it clear right from the start that I don't post bleedin' memes anywhere. Not even ones that agree with me. Also, I don't "consider God an evil tyrant" and I don't "blame God" for anything. You seem to be confused at the term "atheist". It's like saying I blame Ra cos it's not sunny enough today or summat. My complaints lie purely at the things human beings do based on their belief in mythological beings. I'm also well aware of the standard complaint when Biblical passages are quoted "out of context" or without "proper understanding" of them. As far as I'm concerned every single word in every single religious text is simply the product of some entirely human pronouncements attributed either directly or indirectly to some non-human divine "Word". I post such things because (a) they're often hilarious (or revolting, ignorant, ridiculous, whatever) and (b) cos they're equally as relevant as when chapter and verse are quoted to point out the "good" parts of the Bible. You can't have it both ways. It's either just a book and the words are less important than whatever sentiment you happen to decide important to take from it or it's The Word with some kinda intrinsic importance.

Apologies for such a tossed-together response but I've only just woken up and will get back to you on any specifics. Suffice to say, not impressed, rather disappointed. But heyho. We gotta start somewhere, eh? Best to get the standard issue stuff out the way so we're all clear on the basics anyway. But if I wanted to know the textbook response I could've gone to any Christian site on tinterwebz to get it really. Thanks for taking the time though. Is a favourite topic of mine and I'd like to think I'm not quite as ignorant as you seem to think I am on it but maybe I am...

 

[parttime crackhead]

I'm sorry, but what a load of shite this statement is.

If you don't have a strong belief in God, and a great inclination to learn, you're not really going to make much sense of it.

So you have to already believe in it before reading the book that tells you about it? Good one. Isn't the bible there to tell us about god etc so that we will then believe in him? How can you believe in something you know absolutely fuck all about? Which would be the case if you had never read any of the bible (or had other people tell you about what they've read) before "believing".

Edit - You're basically saying that you can't approach the bible with an open mind. That you have to already have a biased point of view or it won't make sense to you. Can you understand the stupidity of that?

Also...

It is my understanding that Gods original law was just, but man misinterpretted and corrupted it. It became more politically motivated, intertwined with the common brutality of that age (2000-3000 ago). It was the Pharisees and Sadducees that started adding hundreds of ceremonial rules.

So, man made some of the stuff up in the bible? Agreed. I'm glad you can accept this. What is then to say that man didn't make all of the stuff up that's in the bible? That makes much more logical sense than an invisible magic man in the sky creating everything. Think.

 

[Myshkin]

See, at the age of 21 God came into my life.

Did you inivite him, or was it breaking and entering?

First off Jesus was no different to us, just like me and you, he opposed the OT law.

Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

It's like saying I blame Ra cos it's not sunny enough today or summat.

Personally, I blame Sol Invictus.

 

[Raasyvibe]

^^ ah ha, nice try, but I already answered that one in my previous post ;

goto the previous page: Choose Edit on the menu bar >> Find on this page >> and type: Matthew 5:17-18

I'll type a more in-depth response later but can we get it clear right from the start that I don't post bleedin' memes anywhere. Not even ones that agree with me. Also, I don't "consider God an evil tyrant" and I don't "blame God" for anything. You seem to be confused at the term "atheist". It's like saying I blame Ra cos it's not sunny enough today or summat. My complaints lie purely at the things human beings do based on their belief in mythological beings. I'm also well aware of the standard complaint when Biblical passages are quoted "out of context" or without "proper understanding" of them. As far as I'm concerned every single word in every single religious text is simply the product of some entirely human pronouncements attributed either directly or indirectly to some non-human divine "Word". I post such things because (a) they're often hilarious (or revolting, ignorant, ridiculous, whatever) and (b) cos they're equally as relevant as when chapter and verse are quoted to point out the "good" parts of the Bible. You can't have it both ways. It's either just a book and the words are less important than whatever sentiment you happen to decide important to take from it or it's The Word with some kinda intrinsic importance.

Apologies for such a tossed-together response but I've only just woken up and will get back to you on any specifics. Suffice to say, not impressed, rather disappointed. But heyho. We gotta start somewhere, eh? Best to get the standard issue stuff out the way so we're all clear on the basics anyway. But if I wanted to know the textbook response I could've gone to any Christian site on tinterwebz to get it really. Thanks for taking the time though. Is a favourite topic of mine and I'd like to think I'm not quite as ignorant as you seem to think I am on it but maybe I am...

lol, sorry. You're probably one of the more educated atheists I've spoken to. Didn't mean to suggest you didn't know entirely what you were talking about. Was just trying to make the point that, as a non believer, you're probably less interested in finding the meanings behind scripture than I am as a believer. you're interests are more concerned with objecting the bible. Which is absolutly fine as you dont believe in God. Just re-read the post. The idiolect is a little aggressive. It gets frustrating when you get treated contemptuously for your religious views; made out to be a fool for believing in certain verses, so I was keen to set things straight . You can only read so many of those memes posted around the 'net before u snap

I'm sorry, but what a load of shite this statement is.






Originally Posted by raas_2012

If you don't have a strong belief in God, and a great inclination to learn, you're not really going to make much sense of it.
So you have to already believe in it before reading the book that tells you about it? Good one. Isn't the bible there to tell us about god etc so that we will then believe in him? How can you believe in something you know absolutely fuck all about? Which would be the case if you had never read any of the bible (or had other people tell you about what they've read) before "believing".

Edit - You're basically saying that you can't approach the bible with an open mind. That you have to already have a biased point of view or it won't make sense to you. Can you understand the stupidity of that?

Well, let's be fair. It's a crazy book. I've read books by people written under the influence of strong psychadelic drugs, and not even they come close to some of the stuff read in the old testament... and you know that just as well as i do (I read your quotations). I wouldn't be able to take the book seriously, without a very strong belief in God, let alone try to learn from it.

Of course anyones entitled to read it, may even find some of it interesting. But if someone wants to learn of God, I would recommend the gospels...

 

[parttime crackhead]

How can you have a "very strong belief" in that specific god before reading the bible though?

 

[JessHalo]

God shows Himself in many different ways crackster. Sometimes through the bible, sometimes a song, sometimes 'feeling' a special Gods talking to you ' feeling.. Its not schizophrenia its not an audible voice.. its a still small voice sometimes its the voice of the wind lol I know you're going to love that one.

 

[parttime crackhead]

But how would you know it was the Christian god? Does he tell you that? If it's a feeling that "a god" exists, what is there to tell you that it's the one as described in the bible? Why not pick up a Qur'an? Or worship Odin?

 

[JessHalo]

Mystical experiences, ecstasy's*, consolations leave you in no doubt that God is the creator. God asked me to follow Him and be with him and that was as Jesus. To be honest although I studied Theology before this conversion I was really into Indian religions. I didn't want to be a Christian it seemed a bit naff but I became more and more convicted to find a church.



Teresa of Ávila enjoyed regular heavenly extasies. She was taken so high she would faint with the Love she found there eg in the presence of the MOST HIGH

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_of_Ávila fascinating woman.. she would have been sectioned doing all that adoration and fainting with love these days.

You can find Teresas famous swoon in Rome Cornaro Chapel, Santa Maria della Vittoria. It was designed and completed by Gian Lorenzo Bernini,

 

[parttime crackhead]

Ok, so for the purpose of argument I'll accept that. Let's move on to the bible then. You Christians seem to be saying that you require a heavy belief in that particular god etc to be able to properly interpret the bible. How do you know that your belief in god/Christ isn't making you misinterpret the bible (which may just be the word/work of some not particularly nice humans, if not all then large sections) because your judgement is clouded by belief in a god whose word may not be what that book is completely made up of?

You are believing this "bible" because you believe in Jesus who is mentioned in it. What if the Jesus you believe in is real (there's no point debating that because it would be impossible to change your mind) but the parts of the bible that aren't about Jesus (maybe even the parts that are about him) are just made up by ancient humans?

Does that not seem entirely possible, given some of the sheer badness in the bible? Your belief in god/Jesus makes you interpret the sheer badness in a different way, because you want to believe that god had a hand in it all & that he is good, but that badness could well just have been put there by bad humans.

 

[Myshkin]

^^ ah ha, nice try, but I already answered that one in my previous post ;

Not to my satisfaction you haven't. Nor to that of the wider theological community.

All you've done is post a long and inconclusive rant, based entirely on your own interpretation. All I'm doing is putting the text out there to show what mental acrobatics rabid Xtians such as yourself have to go through. I notice you steered clear of posting those passages (the more emphatic quotations), yet spent a couple of lines trying to gloss over them. The usual.

Then you mke the ridiculous claim that only those who already have faith can understand the Bible. By which you essentially mean "only those who desperately want the Bible to make sense can delude themselves into thinking it does".

Though I see it's pretty much the same old wheeze with you: "blame it on the Yids". Lovely.

You still haven't answered my question, however - how did Jesus "come into your life"? Did you invite him, or did he break in?

As for the history of the NT, it's really worth checking out - the foundation of Pauline Christianity really was one of the greatest con-jobs in history. Nag Hammadi more or less finished it off in terms of (dubious) credibility.

Now forgive me (aren't you guys good at that supposedly?), I have a cross to trample and spit on*. Laters. :D



* See the history of the Templars if you don't get the reference.

 

[Cornishman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_of_Ávila fascinating woman.. she would have been sectioned doing all that adoration and fainting with love these days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_genital_arousal_disorder :D

 

[parttime crackhead]

 

[Raasyvibe]

How can you have a "very strong belief" in that specific god before reading the bible though?

Well, I was largely referring to those OT stories, rather than the bible as a whole. Generally, if someone is reading the bible open-mindedly, with the acceptance they may find God... they will be more open to finding meaning in scripture than someone who is reading it objectionably.

Funny old book the OT, with verses like this.

Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses. (1 Samuel 15:3)

People in this day and age will struggle to accept it.

How do you know that your belief in god/Christ isn't making you misinterpret the bible (which may just be the word/work of some not particularly nice humans, if not all then large sections) because your judgement is clouded by belief in a god whose word may not be what that book is completely made up of?

Nice retort. In theory you could be correct. As easily as i say a belief an openess to God allows you to look further into scripture, one could argue an openess to God makes you more delusional towards scripture.

In the end it's very personal. It's those moments where my experience of this life is opening me to greater ideas of sprirituality, good and evil, and I see it alluded to in those verses and i'm hit with the thought "that's amazing". It's those moments, for me, that make it real.

________

Not to my satisfaction you haven't. Nor to that of the wider theological community

All you've done is post a long and inconclusive rant, based entirely on your own interpretation. All I'm doing is putting the text out there to show what mental acrobatics rabid Xtians such as yourself have to go through. I notice you steered clear of posting those passages (the more emphatic quotations), yet spent a couple of lines trying to gloss over them. The usual.

Seriously dude. I quoted all over the bible and have looked at many sources. This was not "my own rant", but accepted theological answers and i put a lot of effort in to make sure it was clear to understand.

If that's not to your satisfaction, nothing will be. As long as it's written by a christian, nothing will be to your satisfaction, because you are heavily biassed. You can't even find faults in my answer or re-address any theological issues. You just blindly quote "Thats not to my satisfaction". How pathetic.

And your idea that I'm avoiding certain verses deceitfully is absurd. Both the passage in Luke and Matthew pretty much spell out the same thing. In honesty I just pasted over the first one which came up in google without feeling the need to analyze them as they are exactly the same quote.

The fact I quoted Luke over Mathew is neither here nor there, I even mentioned it was written in matthew also. If i edit the post and replace the Luke quote with the Mathew one it's not really going to make any difference is it? I explained exactly what "the law" was. and both passages are referring to "the law". That's a really petty point to bring up considering the size of the post and how irrelevent that is to my point.



And BTW Your "question", completely irrelevent. Please answer the original theology before you find something else to pick on.

 

[Shambles]

You can find Teresas famous swoon in Rome Cornaro Chapel, Santa Maria della Vittoria. It was designed and completed by Gian Lorenzo Bernini,

And a masterpiece it is too. Art is the only worthwhile thing that has ever come out of Christianity as far as I can tell. And if we're doing favourite nuns: Christina The Astonishing

(wiki linki to explain the background if she's not one you know of)

There are plenty enough known medical causes for "religious ecstasy" though so I just don't buy it as anything other than that. Besides, personal revelation is summat that can't ever really be argued as nobody else can ever know what exactly anybody else is experiencing. I certainly can't deny yours - or anybody elses - personal experience, but equally it is of no real use to a debate anymore than it would be to say that Yahweh came to me and told me he's a figment of other foks' imagination really.

I'd like to pick up on PTCH's point about connecting any supposed religious experience with a particular deity though. You state that it's essentially "a feeling" which is obviously open to interpretation. Would I connect such an experience with the Christian god too if I were to have one? How would I as somebody with a keen interest but absolutely no belief relate to such an event? Have I had such events happen and thought they were nothing more than intuition? The concept of "intuition" may well be a tad fuzzy to pin down but is essentially what I believe most of these religious experiences - especially the kinda stuff you talk about "coming in the wind" and so on - to be. Can you explain the difference between standard intuitive feelings (essentially talking to yourself without words) and "feeling Jesus" or whatever?

It just seems like we're basically back to "you have to believe in order to understand" - putting the chicken before the egg, as it were. How do you believe in the first place?

 

[Myshkin]

Seriously dude. I quoted all over the bible and have looked at many sources. This was not "my own rant", but accepted theological answers and i put a lot of effort in to make sure it was clear to understand.

If that's not to your satisfaction, nothing will be. As long as it's written by a christian, nothing will be to your satisfaction, because you are heavily biassed. You can't even find faults in my answer or re-address any theological issues. You just blindly quote "Thats not to my satisfaction". How pathetic.

Can you tell me how you know that I have some kind of prejudice against Christians? For the record I don't. I have family and friends who are Christian, but they don't seem to take offence quite like you do when I question them. For all you know, I could even be a Christian. And please don't call me 'dude'. I don't live in California.

And your idea that I'm avoiding certain verses deceitfully is absurd. Both the passage in Luke and Matthew pretty much spell out the same thing. The fact I quoted Luke over Mathew is neither here nor there, I even mentioned it was written in matthew also. If i edit the post and replace the Luke quote with the Mathew one it's not really going to make any difference is it? I explained exactly what "the law" was. and both passages are referring to "the law".

And BTW Your "question", completely irrelevent. Please answer the original theology before you find something else to pick on.

My question isn't irrelevant. It's very relevant.

You state that "Jesus came into your life". I asked how. I'm genuinely interested. And I'm not "picking on you". That's pathetic and absurd.

I've told you why I quoted the passages I did - they're far more emphatic and unequivocal. You've completely failed to demonstrate how the 'New Covenant' is divorced from the old; all you keep saying is that only those with 'faith' can understand. How are people supposed to develop this 'faith'? Blindly?

Like Shambles says - chicken and egg, cart and horse, etc.

 

[Raasyvibe]

Can you tell me how you know that I have some kind of prejudice against Christians?

Of course you're extremely biassed. You've overlooked the entire post, you haven't taken in the point I concisely made and dismissed it as a "rant". And all your attention is on one small, irrelevant point. Doesn't mean you are prejudiced towards Christians as such, just that you are very biassed in your perception of christian theology.

Are the verses in Mathew slightly more emphatic? This doesn't effect the point I was making at all. Jesus is referring to EXACTLY the same thing when he says he wants to "fulfill the law" in both Mathew and Luke. And I made it clear what he meant by "fulfilling the law". Whether I quoted him from Luke or Mathew is completely irrelevent. Such a petty point to pick out, considering the size of the post.

You state that "Jesus came into your life". I asked how. I'm genuinely interested. And I'm not "picking on you". That's pathetic and absurd.

Never said you were picking on me. That would be absurd. I said you were picking on another aspect of Christiannity which is not direct to the post i was making. At least make sense of my theological clarifications, before you question my personal coming to God.

You've completely failed to demonstrate how the 'New Covenant' is divorced from the old;

That was never my intention. The post took long enough to write as it is, what more can I do!? My intention was to clarify why there is so much vulgarity in the OT, and how it should not be attributed to God.

all you keep saying is that only those with 'faith' can understand. How are people supposed to develop this 'faith'? Blindly?

That's so unfair. I spent ages digging around the Internet for every relevent Bible passage to clarify the meaning of scripture for those who didn't understand.

 

[Shambles]

I think the issue - for me at least - is more the problems in using scripture to "clarify" scripture when most of us here seem to agree that scripture is often deeply flawed (for any of a number of reasons). It's all well and good saying that you've explained "the vulgarity" but all I can see is assertions. How do you know what is really meant? Why is your interpretation more accurate than other interpretations? It's not just folk like me and others here who pick up on some seriously shady stuff in the instruction manual - there are many "proper" and devout Christian theologians who also find some of that stuff deeply troubling and will admit there's no easy way of avoiding the kinda conclusions many non-Christians come to: that it's just plain shady, bizarre and repulsive in places. Obviously you have your firm belief in the interpretations you favour but the way you're coming over is that it's a done deal and us heathens are just plain wrong when that is far from a decided matter even amongst believers. How do you determine which interpretation is "correct"? Or is it just a case of choosing the least troubling?

 

[Myshkin]

Of course you're extremely biassed.

How can you divine that from a couple of posts? You know nothing about my spiritual beliefs.

You've overlooked the entire post

No I've not, I've challenged some of your assertions, which seem entirely based on your own interpretation of scripture. Which is that of a believer, not a skeptic. As Shambles points out, there's little agreement even among believers, let alone scholars.

You can't essentially argue that people who don't share your belief aren't qualified to criticise scripture because they 'lack faith'. Now that to me seems a little ignorant.

My intention was to clarify why there is so much vulgarity in the OT, and how it should not be attributed to God.

Which is, erm... an attempt to put distance between the new and old covenants, if I'm not mistaken. Can't you see that you've failed to clarify anything?

And you've still evaded my very first question (just how did Jesus 'come into your life'?). Though on the evidence I've seen so far, you're probably going to continue to do so.

By the way, the scripture I quote comes from my own studies. If I were so biased against Christianity why would I bother to keep a copy of the King James Bible?