Jump to content

Request For Balloon Guy


Recommended Posts

so they can reject the parts of the OT they don't like.
I find it really hard to believe that you are this stupid. How many times does this simple concept need to be explained to you? We didn't change anything from the OT, Jesus did. We are Christians so we follow what Christ said. I'm very sorry that the verses you use to condemn us, don't apply to us.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I find it really hard to believe that you are this stupid. How many times does this simple concept need to be explained to you? We didn't change anything from the OT, Jesus did. We are Christians so we follow what Christ said. I'm very sorry that the verses you use to condemn us, don't apply to us.
Right, contradictions are fine as long as Jesus said them. The point is that according to you, the same god was a smiting unforgiving vindictive badass and then suddenly decided to start teaching forgiveness and compassion. Oh yeah, situationally back in the time of nomads it was totally cool to mutilate the other tribes, right? But in modern roman times, that would be just sinful! And even though most of that stuff was wrong according to the new guy, it wasn't all wrong, because god still created the earth with stratified dinosaur bones embedded in it 6,000 years ago, and still all the species in the world made it to the middle east for a boat ride.I don't hold you responsible for creating the contradictions, I hold you responsible for buying them.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Right, contradictions are fine as long as Jesus said them.
Please list, by bullet point, all of the times Jesus 'contradicted' anything. Don't worry, it won't take long. Remember last time you were copying and pasting 'contradictions' from that atheist site, and they all had a basic lack of Biblical understanding? We can keep going through all those, if you want.
The point is that according to you, the same god was a smiting unforgiving vindictive badass and then suddenly decided to start teaching forgiveness and compassion. Oh yeah, situationally back in the time of nomads it was totally cool to mutilate the other tribes, right? But in modern roman times, that would be just sinful!
Wrong. In the OT, Nahum specifically, it says that God is just and he will 'right' all injustices. That hasn't changed.Also, God gave people so many chances in the OT before 'smiting' them that it's not even funny. In some cases he kept sending people to warn them for more than 100 years. They should have learned from history that it wasn't a good idea to mess with the Jews.
And even though most of that stuff was wrong according to the new guy, it wasn't all wrong, because god still created the earth with stratified dinosaur bones embedded in it 6,000 years ago, and still all the species in the world made it to the middle east for a boat ride.
Nothing about God changed, he simply fulfilled the promise that he had made. He told the Jews that he would send a Messiah who would change everything and save them. That's what he did.The Bible never mentions that the world was 6,000 years old. I'm fairly certain we've told you this >10 times.
I don't hold you responsible for creating the contradictions, I hold you responsible for buying them.
There are no contradictions.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong. In the OT, Nahum specifically, it says that God is just and he will 'right' all injustices. That hasn't changed.
What could you mean by this? He just forgives himself after committing an atrocity?
Also, God gave people so many chances in the OT before 'smiting' them that it's not even funny. In some cases he kept sending people to warn them for more than 100 years. They should have learned from history that it wasn't a good idea to mess with the Jews.
Oh please. That's just ridiculous and false. Don't make me re-read the OT for the purpose of recording all the examples, what a waste of time. And your response amounts to saying that they deserved it. Did jesus say, turn the other cheek for a while until they really piss you off? As long as you have warned them not to mess with you a few times, might as well get violent.
Nothing about God changed, he simply fulfilled the promise that he had made. He told the Jews that he would send a Messiah who would change everything and save them. That's what he did.
The entire morality changed. If you fail to see this it is because you are not able to read the book critically. If you accept it, but excuse it as consistent because it was vaguely forecasted, you are taking great lengths to bend the disparities to fit your conceptions.
The Bible never mentions that the world was 6,000 years old. I'm fairly certain we've told you this >10 times.
Tell it to Balloon Guy. The history of the earth reported by the bible is in contradiction to available evidence. I'm fairly certain we've told you this > 100 times.
Link to post
Share on other sites
And your response amounts to saying that they deserved it.
Of course that's what I'm saying. If the Mormon god was killing people that made fun of them and they told me to quit making fun of them or I would die, then I would leave them alone.Don't mess with God.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Did jesus say, turn the other cheek for a while until they really piss you off? As long as you have warned them not to mess with you a few times, might as well get violent. The entire morality changed. If you fail to see this it is because you are not able to read the book critically. If you accept it, but excuse it as consistent because it was vaguely forecasted, you are taking great lengths to bend the disparities to fit your conceptions.
Wrong.Jesus told ME to turn the other cheek. He didn't tell GOD to allow people to persecute His people and wantonly blaspheme His name.
The history of the earth reported by the bible is in contradiction to available evidence. I'm fairly certain we've told you this > 100 times.
Are you talking about archeological evidence? I hope not.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Tell it to Balloon Guy. The history of the earth reported by the bible is in contradiction to available evidence. I'm fairly certain we've told you this > 100 times.
Let's go for a ride in my Delorean...
Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong.Jesus told ME to turn the other cheek. He didn't tell GOD to allow people to persecute His people and wantonly blaspheme His name.
You know I think you really just have very little idea what the Old Testament says. You need to read it again before we have this conversation. W'ere not talking about God persecuting his people because they blasphemed (and really what an a-hole is he for doing this), we're talking about the Jews killing and torturing their enemies for petty reasons (e.g. vengeance or land) with God's help and support.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You know I think you really just have very little idea what the Old Testament says. You need to read it again before we have this conversation. W'ere not talking about God persecuting his people because they blasphemed (and really what an a-hole is he for doing this), we're talking about the Jews killing and torturing their enemies for petty reasons (e.g. vengeance or land) with God's help and support.
Why do you feel the need to add in torture? and petty?Usually this type of additions to the argument are made when you feel your case is lacking on its own merit.During the time these so called atrocities were happening, they were happening already by people killing other people for tons of other reasons. Pretty much all of European and Asian history is large groups of people killing other large groups.So was God's commanding the Jews to kill some town worse than some king doing it because that town called him short?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do you feel the need to add in torture? and petty?
"Torture" I threw in to emphasize the cruelty of it. This is relevant because the later teachings emphasize kindness. "Petty" is there to distinguish this kind of response from the teachings of Jesus who was pretty clear that this was not the appropriate way to respond when you are wronged.
During the time these so called atrocities were happening, they were happening already by people killing other people for tons of other reasons. Pretty much all of European and Asian history is large groups of people killing other large groups.
I didn't say the practices were unique. I am only saying they demonstrate a morality which is inconsistent with the teachings of the same god at a later date (i.e. jesus). To me this seems rather uncontroversial.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You know I think you really just have very little idea what the Old Testament says. You need to read it again before we have this conversation.
*eyeroll*I accept your surrender.
Link to post
Share on other sites
*eyeroll*
Solid response. You asked for this, man.
Remember last time you were copying and pasting 'contradictions' from that atheist site, and they all had a basic lack of Biblical understanding? We can keep going through all those, if you want.
Why yes brvheart, I do remember this conversation. Do you? Here's how it ended. I said:
Strongly disagree with this. It specifically says "You may buy slaves". Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."You don't get any closer to condoning an action than specifically saying "You may do this". I don't see how any reasonable person could read this passage and think it is not condoning slavery. Furthermore, even if you were right, and the bible "took no position" the point would remain. Any moral authority worth its parchment should take a position on slavery. It should say "slavery is wrong".
And then
I made a specific mistake, that wasn't noticed by me, until your post. My entire post was about the heart issues that are applied to the world via Jesus in the New Testament. The heart issues and the instructions on behavior are all listed in the New Testament specifically and that is that I was referring to as 'The Bible'. I apologize for not being more specific. I'm off to read the context of the section of Leviticus that you posted.
What did you find out?
I didn't read it yet. I might have to put it off until School is out in 3 weeks.
I hate you. I already had my weekend planned out. Ok. I'll make it happen sometime this weekend.
I lied, and just remembered I lied. I'm super busy with school this weekend, so I have to put this off for now, but rest assured, I WILL NOT SLEEP until these questions are answered!
Link to post
Share on other sites
bump
bump
Nudge.
bump
I do feel bad that you haven't slept in so long!So I'm sure you'll understand if I don't waste my time proving a basic point about the Old Testament that is almost universally accepted, to someone who obviously hasn't read the book. And perhaps you can appreciate the irony of you trying to get out of a real response by accusing me of surrender.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't say the practices were unique. I am only saying they demonstrate a morality which inconsistent with the teachings of the same god at a later date (i.e. jesus). To me this seems rather uncontroversial.
Some people have made the comment that it seems that God got saved in the NT.From a surface reading this is understandable to get this impression.But there are a couple factors to consider.One, these other cultures were not neutral in their conduct. They were worshipping false gods that had them do things like kill their children etc, things abhorrent to us all. When you take a culture that is completely steeped in a religion, there is a very high likelihood that they aren't going to change.From God' perspective you could argue that these people were 'unsavable', meaning that they would only cause harm by existing. If that were the case, could the argument be made that this entire culture and race of people were a cancer on mankind and their extermination was a positive?I mean natural selection did that every day for billions of years and you see it as healthy. God does it and you claim to be mortified by the action.Two, God demonstrated that He was willing to let a culture live if there were just a few righteous people in it. Sodom and Gomorrah were two towns that God was set to destroy, and Abraham asked God to spare the city if he could find 50 righteous people, ended up there was only one guy, Lot and they were removed before the cities were destroyed.Is it possible that an All-Knowing God could know that a people were destined to do evil and cause innumerable pain on the world, and as such have them destroyed to stop their effects on people that would do good with their lives?It kind of becomes the argument "If you could go back in time and kill Hitler as a child, would that be an immoral or moral act?"I'm not implying that God is not a jealous God, He is. But His jealousy isn't improperly applied. His knowledge of all things makes His decisions correct every time.As such we can get a picture of God, that He is just and merciful, and also righteous in His anger. Judging His decisions requires you to either make Him less than who He is, or make yourself higher than you really are.Either way, to apply human conditions on His actions leaves you incorrect from lack of data, and lack of understanding.So yes, God can kill whom He wants, when He wants, for whatever reason He wants. Luckily He wants to save as many people as will accept His salvation.On His terms and on His whim.For this reason we can call Him a Just and Jealous God and not have that be a negative because He is 100% correct in what He judges.That's why the Jews who only have the OT can worship God and love Him, because the big picture God is worthy of our love and worship.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Solid response. You asked for this, man. Why yes brvheart, I do remember this conversation. Do you? Here's how it ended. I said: And then
Thought I clarified that slavery issue for you.Do I need to go back over it?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I do feel bad that you haven't slept in so long!So I'm sure you'll understand if I don't waste my time proving a basic point about the Old Testament that is almost universally accepted, to someone who obviously hasn't read the book. And perhaps you can appreciate the irony of you trying to get out of a real response by accusing me of surrender.
I answered all of your questions. That particular question of BaseJester's was put off and then forgotten. I have absolutely no problem with that. (sorry BJ... I still haven't slept. Thanks for not hounding me.)Also (I can't believe I actually need to explain this) I don't have the Bible fully memorized yet. So when I say things like, "I haven't read it yet", in relation to a question, it actually means, I haven't "re" read it. (You knew this, right?)bolded = lol
Link to post
Share on other sites
this is understandable to get this impression.
Thank you for acknowledging that.
One, these other cultures were not neutral in their conduct. They were worshipping false gods that had them do things like kill their children etc, things abhorrent to us all. When you take a culture that is completely steeped in a religion, there is a very high likelihood that they aren't going to change.
Is this not also true in Jesus's time and thereafter? How would this account for the change?
From God' perspective you could argue that these people were 'unsavable', meaning that they would only cause harm by existing. If that were the case, could the argument be made that this entire culture and race of people were a cancer on mankind and their extermination was a positive?I mean natural selection did that every day for billions of years and you see it as healthy. God does it and you claim to be mortified by the action.
That seems rather unchristian to me. Unsaveable? So exterminate them? We're back to Islam!I think you know by now that natural selection says no such thing about what is healthy, or about what is right.
Two, God demonstrated that He was willing to let a culture live if there were just a few righteous people in it. Sodom and Gomorrah were two towns that God was set to destroy, and Abraham asked God to spare the city if he could find 50 righteous people, ended up there was only one guy, Lot and they were removed before the cities were destroyed.Is it possible that an All-Knowing God could know that a people were destined to do evil and cause innumerable pain on the world, and as such have them destroyed to stop their effects on people that would do good with their lives?It kind of becomes the argument "If you could go back in time and kill Hitler as a child, would that be an immoral or moral act?"I'm not implying that God is not a jealous God, He is. But His jealousy isn't improperly applied. His knowledge of all things makes His decisions correct every time.As such we can get a picture of God, that He is just and merciful, and also righteous in His anger. Judging His decisions requires you to either make Him less than who He is, or make yourself higher than you really are.
I am not judging anyone's actions to be right or wrong here, I am saying the recommended morality was different at different times. He says to love thy neighbor, but is happy to help David smite whichever philistine or whoever he doesn't happen to like. It really takes quite a stretch to say this is the same teaching.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I answered all of your questions. That particular question of BaseJester's was put off and then forgotten. I have absolutely no problem with that. (sorry BJ... I still haven't slept. Thanks for not hounding me.)Also (I can't believe I actually need to explain this) I don't have the Bible fully memorized yet. So when I say things like, "I haven't read it yet", in relation to a question, it actually means, I haven't "re" read it. (You knew this, right?)
Your comments every time we have discussed the issue have reflected a general unfamiliarity with the testament. Furthermore, please re-read the thread in question. I quoted a passage in Leviticus and you said you were going to review it and respond. BJ then pressured you for your response. Go read both texts, while I wait here for your apology.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for acknowledging that.
That you have a surface understanding of the meaning of the Bible? Your welcome.
Is this not also true in Jesus's time and thereafter? How would this account for the change?
But Jesus was the turning point in all of history. His coming was the moment in time that all the OT pointed to, that all the faithful were waiting for, of course things changed.
That seems rather unchristian to me. Unsaveable? So exterminate them? We're back to Islam!
Again, when your source for this decision is man, than another man can judge it. Can you judge God if you grant Him that He is God?
I think you know by now that natural selection says no such thing about what is healthy, or about what is right.
Natural selection is the most cruel way to cull the herd possible. There could not be invented a more cruel way for organisms to further their evolution than natural selection. Starving to death, being eaten by stronger animals, freezing to death, or dying from exposure. All a result of natural selection.
I am not judging anyone's actions to be right or wrong here, I am saying the recommended morality was different at different times. He says to love thy neighbor, but is happy to help David smite whichever philistine or whoever he doesn't happen to like. It really takes quite a stretch to say this is the same teaching.
Not really, we have a constitution that talks about freedom and jail in the same sentence. Do you deem this body of works to be cruel because there are provisions for people to be put in jail for the rest of their lives for offenses?Now imagine you have perfect judgment, you know that a man will kill a child if released. 100% know for a fact. What is more cruel; To keep him locked up, or to free him and let the child die?With perfect knowledge comes perfect judgments.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Your comments every time we have discussed the issue have reflected a general unfamiliarity with the testament. Furthermore, please re-read the thread in question. I quoted a passage in Leviticus and you said you were going to review it and respond. BJ then pressured you for your response. Go read both texts, while I wait here for your apology.
While you're waiting, do you want me to explain again why you are wrong?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not judging anyone's actions to be right or wrong here, I am saying the recommended morality was different at different times. He says to love thy neighbor, but is happy to help David smite whichever philistine or whoever he doesn't happen to like. It really takes quite a stretch to say this is the same teaching.
The Philistines were actively rebelling against God and engaging in infant sacrifice to their god "Molech". God killed them because they are worshiping false gods in the face of the truth. We would still be under that cloud of judgment if God hadn't provided Jesus as a ransom for sin. Nothing has changed morality-wise. Everything has changed for our path to salvation.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Go read both texts, while I wait here for your apology.
I'm sorry I was cranky with you earlier. That wasn't practicing what I was preaching with BG.YOU WILL GET NO FURTHER APOLOGIES!
Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't wait anymore.Here you go.Leviticus 25 is about the year of conduct for the Jews and the year of Jubilee. Something that happened every 50 years.The commands were what they were to do during this time. The practice of slavery was a reality of the time. Just like it was when Thomas Jefferson was sleeping with his slave. He wrote the Declaration of Independance, was that document tainted by his owning slaves?As such the Bible was telling the Jew how to conduct themselves in the culture they lived in.It wasn't making a stance on the morality of slavery, any more than it was making a stance on the morality of some being rich and some being poor. There are plenty of people today who think that someone being rich is immoral, that other being poor is a travesty. But the reality is that some are rich and some are poor. As such the Bible gives us guidelines on how to conduct ourselves, whether we are rich or poor.It merely addressed the reality of the existence of slavery.Spiritually we are all slaves, slaves to sin. This is of 1,000,000th more importance to our souls and lives than whether we are free to leave our job. So God can be unhappy with slavery, ye still acknowledge it's existence, and give guidelines for how to conduct yourself whether the slave or the master.Because being a slave to sin, while being free in physical body has way worse consequences than being free from sin and a slave for the minute time you are on this planet.If you are a slave, the Bible commands you to be a good slave, because your real Master is in Heaven. And it also tells masters on earth to treat their slave right, because they also have a Master in Heaven.If you were going to be a slave, I would bet you would much prefer a master who is a Bible believing Christians than one who is an atheist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That you have a surface understanding of the meaning of the Bible? Your welcome.
Well, it's something.
But Jesus was the turning point in all of history. His coming was the moment in time that all the OT pointed to, that all the faithful were waiting for, of course things changed.
Of course what was right and wrong changed? I don't see why that should "of course" happen. Will it happen again? What if he comes back in another 1K years and now the only way to get into heaven is to have loads of gay sex and bestiality? What is right and wrong is not inherently right and wrong, its just up to his whim?
Natural selection is the most cruel way to cull the herd possible. There could not be invented a more cruel way for organisms to further their evolution than natural selection. Starving to death, being eaten by stronger animals, freezing to death, or dying from exposure. All a result of natural selection.
Substitute "hurricanes" for natural selection and you have an equivalent point.
Not really, we have a constitution that talks about freedom and jail in the same sentence. Do you deem this body of works to be cruel because there are provisions for people to be put in jail for the rest of their lives for offenses?Now imagine you have perfect judgment, you know that a man will kill a child if released. 100% know for a fact. What is more cruel; To keep him locked up, or to free him and let the child die?With perfect knowledge comes perfect judgments.
Well isn't that your worst analogy of the day. A better legal analogy would be having a law that says abortion is legal and another saying its punishable by death.
While you're waiting, do you want me to explain again why you are wrong?
Sure, let's start from the beginning. Go!edit: I'm too slow
Link to post
Share on other sites

So contextually, Lev 25 is like the laws in this country in the 1800s. Slavery was a reality, making rules about it was just as much about making the best of a bad situation, not condoning or approving of the action

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...