chrisuk_sw

Wow, a Christian accusing someone of not thinking things out for themselves... and I thought Americans didn't get irony. Not that it makes any difference, but I only found out about Bertrand Russell's views when I did some extra research on the fig tree story and after I had posted about it. You still haven't told me why you want to censor discussion about this flaw in Christ's character. Not in English it doesn't - dictionary.com, Merriam-WebsterLest means for fear that. Jesus says "I speak in parables for fear that they would understand and I would heal them". To me, this seems to be a flaw

No. That is not what scripture says.Jesus clearly says he speaks in parables SO THAT people like me will never get it (lest they should see and I should heal them). It is nothing to do with "no matter how many parables he tells" - he deliberately gives his talks obscurely (in parables) so that his message is obscure. You are projecting your own wishes onto the verses. I ask again: why not make the seed so hardy that it can flourish on bad ground?Also, Loismustdie - I've been thinking about your reasons for censoring me from bringing up the story of the fig tree (wikipedia link)Betrand Russell

Okay, you're saying that Old Testament law no longer applies. But hang on, didn't Abraham say that the law was going to apply for all time, without alteration? Was he lying? Jesus said that he came to fulfill and uphold the Law, and that not one stroke of a pen of it would change. Was he lying?And yes, slavery is the best option from those Deuteronomy passages, which certainly show God's hatred, evident throughout the whole Old Testament.But you are missing my point entirely. Why does the Bible (NT and OT) legitimise slavery? Why does it not condemn it as being a sin? I take it as self-evident

Ah, so he doesn't want us fig-worriers to get it and that's why he speaks in parables. I would have thought it would be better that he spoke in a way that all could understand so that all could be saved, that's all.

Not mad, I just pointed out that you chose a version that exclusively said "servant" so that you could deny that the Bible legitimises slavery. You claimed that I was confusing servants with slaves, which is not the case. Good, you now agree that the laws are talking about slavery. My whole point is that a text that legitimises slavery is morally unacceptable. You're right, not one scripture says "go get you some slaves". Here are two.In Leviticus 25, God speaks to Moses on Mt. Sinai:Leviticus 25:44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slav

Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Matthew 5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.You're ignoring the words of the text here. Jesus is not talking merely about prophecies in the Bible - he is talking about Old Testament Law (and "not the smallest letter will disappear"). Why do you think it mentions "the Law" twice in those passages? If it was proph

Jesus had no taste buds?

Mark 11:12 The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Mark 11:13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs.Mark 11:14 Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard him say it.Jesus curses a fig tree when it is not the season for figs. This tree was not useless.... it was just not in season. And he destroys it! What a fine lesson for us all.

I would agree with you that it would be remarkable for someone's of Paul's times to come out and say there shouldn't be slavery. However, this book is supposed to be the word of God, and Paul, one of his messengers. A lack of moral courage on his part is no excuse. The fact that the Bible legitimises slavery is shameful.

I personally believe that we were created to pass on our genes and we evolved higher thinking and communication so as to better enable us to pass on our genes. Religion is a virus that has hijacking the communication mechanic to make copies of itself. I don't think you should hold the religious in contempt any more than you should hold the diseased in contempt. You should seek to comfort them and remove their malady.

Matthew 5:17 Jesus has come to fulfill the barbaric and unjust OT laws Matthew 10:34-36 The spread of Christianity will bring war and violence to the world. So very very true.Matthew 13:10-13, Mark 4:10-12 Jesus speaks in parables so that people on the outside will not understand them and be condemned, like the seeds that fall on bad groundLuke 16:16-17 The barbaric and unjust OT laws cannot be changed. (reflected also in Matthew 5:18-20)... can you interpret Mark 11:20-25 for me?

here: [18] Servants (slaves), be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the forward (cruel).These passages are not talking about servants - they are talking about slaves. See this post. The same word is used in Exodus 20 & 21, and they are very clearly talking about slaves. Here:[9] Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; Here:[1] Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blaspheme

Some of the teachings and sound philosophies of someone who advocated nothing but goodMatthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the (Old Testament) Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.Matthew 10:34-36 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn "a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw, a man's enemies will be the members of his own household."Matthew 13:10-13 The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do

Ah, the old "context" argument... *sigh*... trotted out whenever anyone points out the absurdity and injustice that exists in the Bible by actually reading and quoting it. You say the New Testament makes it clear that slavery is not acceptable. You must be reading a different book to me then...1 Peter 2Titus 21 Timothy 6Read those chapters - actually read them. Tell me: do these chapters condemn slavery or legitimise it? What context can you put these chapters in?

Matthew 5:22 ... and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. Oh the bible says this does it?SlaveryExodus 21:20-21 If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property. Ephesians 6:5-6:6 Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God fro

I don't believe it is detrimental to believe in life after death. (Believing in a Christian heaven is another argument entirely).However, I do have concrete and irrefutable evidence, borne from my own experience, that NDEs are not evidence of life after death. Until you have one you will not have this evidence, but I can assure you that it is true.

Matthew 5:30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.Ahhhh I see now what sins you get up to with your "right hand"

I don't think any right minded person would disagree with some of the way cool stuff that Jesus said: in Matthew 5, for example, he says:- blessed are the poor, mourners, the meek, the hungry, the merciful, the peacemakers and the persecutedall good. But then he saysMatthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.He is coming to fulfill the law (OT law). Yowch. I'm not down with that, J-Boy. And in the next 2 passages he says you cannot change those laws. And what's up withMatthew 5:29 If your right eye causes y

Hello. I don't want to turn this into a : did the flood actually happen? : debate. I don't think that's important. The message of the flood story, amongst others in the OT, does matter though.As a non-Christian, it is not obvious to me why the Old is the Old and the New is the New. Why is this?Can you tell me why the old law does not apply, but more importantly, why was it ever appropriate that it applied?Why are there a set of laws describing how you should treat slaves in the OT?Why does the OT not say: human slavery is wrong, don't do it?Why is God inconsistent in his actions towards mankin

I don't know whether the mind dies when the brain dies or whatever. Whatever was being measured in Pam Reynolds' case was not her conscious self. What I do know, for sure, is that an NDE is a conscious, sensing experience and not evidence of life after death

It's good to take a critical look at Exodus 20 and 21 where God gives Moses the ten commandments and some other rules. Exodus 20Exodus 20:1-20:2 God introduces himselfExodus 20:3 You shall have no other Gods before meExodus 20:4-20:6 Create no idols. Do not worship them or I will punish you and also your children up to 3 or 4 generations away.Exodus 20:7 Do not blaspheme (take God's name in vain) or God will punish youExodus 20:8-20:11 Remember the sabbath, don't work on the seventh dayExodus 20:12 Honor your father and your motherExodus 20:13 Do not kill. (Do not murder in some Bible versions

FYP

Yes. The Bible is internally contradictory, so has no overriding message or morality. I have many qualms with your argument:(paraphrasing) "the world as we know it was completely different, in that it was not civilized, and how EVERYBODY dealt with each other was different than how we do now. Eye for an eye back then meant just that... Man has developed quite a bit since then- we now understand much better what makes sense for the greater good."I agree completely. We should reject the Old Testament morality as having no place in modern society. We're much better judges of what is right and wro

During my NDE, I experienced synaesthesia. Pam Reynolds was still receiving sensory input in some form, that is obvious from what she said afterwards, and evident from my own experiences. This is less to do with her brain function, it is everything to do with (the less well-defined) mind function. I agree with you that science has an inadequate model of the mind's function. But I can say with complete certainty that the NDE experience is wholely contained within the mind. The out of body experience, the tunnel of light, the brain dump, its all the wholely contained product of a single mind's w

Because stories tell us, through allegory, the way in which we perceive the world to be and how to act within it. The stories of the Old Testament have awful meanings.It says clearly in the Bible that God wishes he'd never created humanity. That he hates us so much he wishes to kill us all and everything else that he has made. He then carries out the deed. This is not a good example for children.