Steve Petersen
Senior Veteran
The Torah requires two or more witnesses in order for capital punishment to be carried out. If the judges rule guilty, the witnesses were to be the first to carry out the punishment.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why do the OT and NT contradict so much?
- Thread starter R3quiem
- Start date
- Status
The Torah requires two or more witnesses in order for capital punishment to be carried out. If the judges rule guilty, the witnesses were to be the first to carry out the punishment.
CShephard53
Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!
In the name of God does not mean God sanctions it.
No, it does not. It supports the killing of those God commands to be killed. There's a difference between killing and murder.
Have you ever tried being totally honest before God, instead of putting on a mask (something everyone does, btw, not just you)?
That is not an argument. That is an excuse. You assume that anyone who claims the name of God represents what God represents. Just because one claims to be a Christian does not mean they are. Their actions must prove it.
Christianity is the only religion with a Holy Book that is the most accurate to the original ancient text we have. Most scholars agree with that. Christianity is the only religion where the God is personally involved and personal.
Read the Bible. It's got plenty.
You cannot put God to the test and expect results to your liking... it doesn't work that way. And yes, there have been healings. However, most think to explain them away. And I might add that nothing can be proven.
I understand your point, but you've defended it quite poorly to be honest. I'm not trying to rip on you, but you have lacked some clarity that would make your point clearer.
But anyway, if you see a lack it's because you're not looking hard enough. God cannot be viewed in extremes. There is a balance. It's not mercy or justice, it's both. And God limits what He does so we can be actively involved. View God within the context of the entire Bible. Ignore, if you will, the 'problem passages', and you will find that they are answered within the Bible itself.
Nothing and no one can make you do anything.
Evidence. Fact. Odds. Statistics. Hard data. Comparisons between other ancient texts.
Because having a relationship with God has helped me grow beyond anything I've ever seen. I've asked a psychologist, and they say that the progress I've made is a psychological miracle. How do I know He's all He says He is and exists? Some experiential, some faith, but 90% objective evidence to support Christianity as having less doubt on it than any other religion.
See elsewhere.
Evidence, oddity, popularity, impact on the world. Need I continue?
Originally? Read my homepage. How I decided to become a Christian then is different from why I am still a Christian.
Define Christian family. If you mean that my parents brought me to church, then yes. If you mean that my parents were actively involved in faith development or living out the Bible, then no.
USA. Does it matter much?
Evidence. What are the odds that the Bible has a .002% margin for error between what we have now and the original texts? What are the odds that the time span between most of the copies and the originals is phenomenally short? Slim. What are the odds that Jesus fulfilled every single prophecy about Him? 1 in 10 to the way to manyinth power. Far more than the hundred thousands.
.002% chance that you're right in that. Will you take that chance?
I hope you've found my claims interesting. An examination of them should prove my point for me. Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict is a great source, though not the one I used. I used common knowledge, or at least what is common knowledge to me and many Christians around me.
Finally, I'll say to you that faith is not blind. It's backed by the Bible. We can know God, who is unseen exists because we see what has recorded fact about Him. Evidence that the unseen is reality. I trust the unseen based on what is seen. I'll also say that unless you really do have an open mind and stop trying to find ways out of the evidence- which I've presented quite thoroughly by now- you will never have resolution on this issue. And by open mind, I mean seeing past your own experiences and feelings and taking into account evidence, testimonies, literary technique, and raw data- not just blindly accepting things.
Upvote
0
I see your still using the point-by-point arguing method. I guess I have to do the same.
And yes, killing and murder are different- those verses I've posted about the OT are definitely murder, not killing.
What's more amazing is the lack of outside sources to agree with the Bible. Jesus did a miracle to feed thousands of people. He rose from the dead and revealed himself to tons of people. He turned water into wine in front of tons of people. And yet, all of these thousands of people choose to not speak about it, not write about it, etc. It's all only found in the Bible.
"Why should I believe?"
Evidence? Found in one book.
Odds? Statistics? What?
Hard data? Where?
Comparisons between other ancient texts? They disagree.
Why does God play favorites with countries? Depending on where you are born in the world, you have a good or bad chance of coming to Christ.
I would think he would want to correct his image then.
Yeah, people who kill in God's name believe that God commands those to be killed.
And yes, killing and murder are different- those verses I've posted about the OT are definitely murder, not killing.
I pray to him. Ask him to reveal himself, ask him to tell me the truth. Silence though.
And what actions prove it?
Actually, that would be the Qur'an. The Qur'an is nearly 100% identical to the way it was first written. The OT, on the other hand, was written by men different people over a long period of time. The NT was written by men decades after Jesus' death. What tells me the Bible is true instead of the Qur'an?
He's personal in Judaism. In Islam, God is personally involved in human affairs, and knows what each man thinks in his heart.
Apparently you're not seeing this from my point of view. The Bible SAYS that miracles happened- how do I know it's not a made up story? When you read the bible from a perspective where it probably isn't 100% true, this is not considered evidence at all. If I write a book that says all these crazy miracles happened, would you read it and be totally convinced it all really happened?
What's more amazing is the lack of outside sources to agree with the Bible. Jesus did a miracle to feed thousands of people. He rose from the dead and revealed himself to tons of people. He turned water into wine in front of tons of people. And yet, all of these thousands of people choose to not speak about it, not write about it, etc. It's all only found in the Bible.
Why would he decide to start hiding himself so well? When Jesus was around, he shot his voice down from heaven to plenty of listeners. Now, silence.
I haven't seen any.
I don't try to "explain them away", I think of the most rational reason for happening. If someone has some internal, unseen ailment cured, I'd assume that it healed itself over time or that it was diagnosed as being worse than it really was. If I saw someone heal someone's amputated arm, though, it would be pretty impossible to argue with that.
How is my point less clear than yours? You've gone in circles and have been unable to answer my questions. I asked for objective evidence, you said "read the Bible". I've presented evidence for why I doubt God such as the lack of miracles, and you've said "They happen." I've kept my debating towards the topic, whereas you've kept taking little jabs at me.
Perhaps I've worded that incorrectly. I'll rephrase it:
"Why should I believe?"
And yet you've expanded on none of them. I asked what makes you believe, and you've listed a bunch of nouns that mean nothing.
Evidence? Found in one book.
Odds? Statistics? What?
Hard data? Where?
Comparisons between other ancient texts? They disagree.
Very nice. I do believe that for some people, religion can be quite helpful.
I've already said what I think about the evidence.
Sin is much more popular than Christianity. Sin must be the even better way.
Both positive and negative impact.
Yes.
Of course it matters. Being raised by Christian parents, in a primarily Christian country, of course one is more inclined to be Christian. What do you think the chances are of you being Christian if you were born in a Muslim country?
Why does God play favorites with countries? Depending on where you are born in the world, you have a good or bad chance of coming to Christ.
Doesn't make the original texts true. It just means that our texts are similar to older texts which may or may not be a total story.
We can't know if Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies. We don't know any fact about his life that isn't found in the Bible. The Bible could have been written in such a way after the fact to say he accomplished all these prophecies.
Upvote
0
To respond to your argument used by many folks involving being born in a Christian country.
Many of the first Christians were not born in a so-called Christian Country.There are Christians in China, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, South Korea, Africa, and "the uttermost parts of the Earth" who were not forced to be Christians through war, cultural influence, or slavery, but came to know and acknowledge Him by walking in faith (trust in God) and not sight alone.
The problem I find with many is that they assume the perfection of the scientific method and thus use it and it alone to base all their decisions about the bible. Then, when they find that they do not work well together in many instances they give or lose hope.
Upvote
0
CShephard53
Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!
I chose Christianity thank you very much. But you're not listening. Not to what I say. You've not approached it with an open mind at all, like you claim. You haven't examined any of my points, you've simply discarded them.
That's not at all what I said. I made that clear.
I have no reason to read the Hindu texts. I have no reason to read about Buddha. I've already done research into what they believe and why. There is no tangible, trustworthy evidence to them.
You have. And what you say is authoritative? What you say overrules anything I've posted, simply because you make a claim about them?
There's a pretty good chance Allah doesn't exist. So yeah, I will.
Which in case you forget, is the OT- part of Christianity.
That's not a personal God. That's a personally involved God. I said both about Christianity.
Unreliable 'recorded fact'. The Quran is not the original. Parts have been omitted and changed.
Yes we can know. Do you know how impossible it would be to tell a tale such as the NT? Do you know how impossible it would be to not get something wrong unless it really happened? You should do more math.
No, which is why I included other evidence about manuscripts/copies.
Yes, this is why there are millions of Christians in atheist, or other government-sanctioned religion countries. China. North Korea. Egypt. Saudi Arabia. Need I list more?
Chance doesn't matter. Choice does, when it comes to what you do about God.
That's pure speculation. Men have no excuse. Just because I'm born in the middle of the rainforest with no contact with anyone from the outside world, go into a city and knock down signs- does that mean I'm innocent of wrongdoing? I don't think so. The standard doesn't change just because you are raised a certain way.
The Bible condemns favoritism as a sin. God cannot sin. Oh, but that's right. You think the Bible's a load of dung.
If you knew me or my story at all you know I'd probably be in jail if not for God.
Popular does not mean it's right. You should know that. When I say popular, I mean well known (I wrote that at 1:30-2 in the morning, cut me some slack I couldn't think of a better word at the time). Most of the world knows what the cross means, or have heard of Jesus.
What, you want me to give you stories of miracles in my life so you can explain them away? I never told you to go read the Bible- I told you to take things in context.
I've taken quite a few jabs at your claims.For example, you claimed to have an open mind.
He's not hiding. He's active in the world. You just don't know how to see it.
Yes, four long books isn't enough. That Jesus was even written about is astounding, nevermind that the account is so well preserved. Do you think people would suddenly start writting 20,000 books on how the Titanic sank? Or a few to spread the news far enough?
Have you ever read any Roman historians? There's at least 3 that mention Jesus. Have you ever heard of Jericho?
Yeah, minus the stuff that got taken out. You know their prophet couldn't read or write?
Yeah, and funny how next to none of it directly contradicts.
The NT is made up of copies of what they wrote. We have enough to know that they are accurate to the originals, but we do not have the originals. What's your point? It was contemporary for its time.
I've already posted evidence, and you've seen fit to ignore it or discard it.
You'll find the context is different. You'll also note that different Hebrew and Greek words can have many English meanings, and vice versa. Context matters. It wasn't out of any sin that they were killed, but because they were guilty of sin. Ever read Romans 6:23?
Yes, and what you think is perfect. God's ways aren't the same as your ways. Much different, in fact. However, you do have somewhat of a point. However, your point can be explained away- there's reasonable doubt.
When you're done ignoring evidence, let me know, so we can debate properly. When I'm wrong I usually admit it.
Upvote
0
You think just because I disagree with your points means I haven't examined them? These aren't new points to me, I've heard them all before.
So you disregard them before really learning about them?
How much research have you done? I don't see how you can tell me that I don't have an open mind; I'm basically an agnostic- pretty much the definition of an open mind. I don't see much evidence for a God or gods, but I don't rule it out. I don't rule out any religion as completely false, or see any religion to be completely true.
You, on the other hand, believe that your religion is true and all others are false. How open is your mind?
One can't be authoritative unless one has all the facts, and neither of us do. I haven't said that anything I've posted rules out anything you've posted. I merely disagree with what you've posted.
And yet, you'd scoff at me for thinking the same way about the God you worship.
Still a different religion. Unless you are saying Judaism = Christianity, this statement doesn't hold.
One could argue Allah is more personal. Unlike the Christian view of God (except Calvinists), Muslims believe that Allah controls absolutely everything, he chooses who to bring to him and who to let go, etc.
How are other religions' facts less reliable than your religious facts? Proof?
How would it be different than writing any other book? It's just a collection of stories, which may or may not be true.
And I'm already learning too much math for my liking with classes, thank you very much.
What other manuscripts?
Of course chance matters. The percentage of Chinese Christians is WAY smaller than the percentage of American Christians. Where you are born statistically determines your religion. Sure, you can become another religion than that of your country and parents, but the chances are quite low.
You've told me numerous times to use math. Go look up the percentage of Christians in various countries around the world, especially, Middle Eastern Countries. You'll see that Christianity is not spread out uniformly.
Your argument here contradicts what you said in an earlier post about how people living in OT times had a much different world, so they acted much differently. I brought up that killing babies in any time is bad, you disagreed.
If you want to put words in my mouth, that's fine. Have I said that? No. Christians seem to want to think that non-Christians are all evil.
I think the Bible is a wonderful look into culture of the time. If anything, it's the world's most interesting book.
In the General Apologetics section, one guy described it something like "A poorly written account of impossibilities, mixed with vague threats and bad poetry." I'm not that extreme in my views towards it.
I do like the Gospel a lot. I think Jesus' teachings on morality were right on. I try to follow them as best as I can, not because of eternal life, but just because I think they're good ideas.
Well, I'm glad you're not in jail. I guess I'll just repeat what I said in my last post and say that religion can be good for some people.
That was my point of what I said. Just because something is followed by more people doesn't mean it's right.
Fair enough.
Judging from what you've said about jail, I'd assume they're miracles about how you came from a bad situation with a misguided mindset and are now on a straight path following God, or something of the like? Or are we talking blatant physical miracles here?
I'm not going to attack personal miracles. If something changed you I'm not going to assault it. In the context of this thread, though, that doesn't help at all because it's not something I can see to make me believe.
Which one of us believes in a religion and believes that everyone else's religions is false? Which one of us has read other religions' texts? Which one of us cannot rule out anything?
If I didn't have an open mind, I wouldn't even be at these forums.
So I guess he's just hiding from me then. If he's God, then he knows how my mind works and what would allow me to believe, but chooses not to fix it.
People did write a lot of books on how the Titanic sank...
I've heard before that a couple Romans have mentioned him, but I don't know what they've said. If you have a link or something, you could post it.
There really isn't any evidence that anything got taken out. And yes, I know Muhammad was illiterate.
That makes it a bit more interesting though. His followers wrote down his supposed revelations on scrap papers, and it was put together into a giant seamless poem. Pretty cool stuff.
2 Kings 2:11
As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.
John 3:13
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.
Again, just because I'm disagreeing with what you've presented doesn't mean I ignore it/don't consider it. Perhaps you'd like to think that everyone would agree with everything you say if they really try hard enough, but that's not the case.
Upvote
0
CShephard53
Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!
I've done enough research to know which is more reliable and which is more desirable. And if someone were to present solid, concrete evidence that Christianity is junk, then I'd probably have to make that conclusion. But I'll say this now- they still, after thousands of years, have not been able to find such evidence. So I'd very much doubt any evidence presented. I'd have to know the source is credible and the evidence logical.
So Baal worship is okay with you? You wouldn't call it junk?
See above...
Oh, go ahead and disagree. But claiming that I'm spouting nothing but fiction isn't okay. "no objective facts" I think you said. That's a very rash statement, one you have not backed.
Because of the amount of evidence suggesting that I'm right.
It holds just fine. Judaism is part of Christianity. Christianity is simply a continuation of Judaism, if not the fulfillment of its prophecies.
I told you that the Quran has been changed. That is fact. History. Uthman got rid of a bunch of stuff to please people. The Quran itself is not complete, and we do not know if what it records is exactly what Muhammad really saw.
I made a distinction between personal and personally involved for a reason. Personally involved is what you're describing. Personal means that God interacts to some level with His people. One on one. In Islam, god revealed himself or spoke with to only a handful of people. Christianity has many more eyewitness claims of such happening between its God and His people.
Clearer now?
Yes, except other story books have many contradictions where the Bible does not. And if you're going to try to keep posting contradictions, I'll keep giving explanations on why they are not. See the bottom of this post.
Yeah, I hate math too. I understand the complex stuff easier than the easy stuff. Like Quadratics. As opposed to the FOIL method.And I'm already learning too much math for my liking with classes, thank you very much.
People are fully capable of becoming that other religion. Chance is not everything.
Of course it isn't. Do you think that Christians when they become Christians are going to automatically think of ways to spread themselves out? Your point does not prove anything.
How is what I said a contradiction?
I didn't put any words in your mouth. You don't think it's reliable. If I were to hear someone say that the sun was really yellow, I'd call that a load of dung. Because science dictates that it's every color but yellow. It's not a true statement = a load of dung. How is that putting words in your mouth?
This Christian thinks all people by nature are evil, including himself. So your last statement really doesn't mean much in that light. The Bible says no one is righteous, all have sinned. I go by that.
Well, good for you. But I think it's much more. I think it's 100% reliable in what it says. You don't (which is, in my eyes, the same as calling it a load of dung- as explained before about reliability/truth).
Good. Then you know I'm not making that argument. I'd even venture to say that Christianity is not popular at all, used in that sense (popular meaning cool, followed by most, etc.)
I'm talking both. Is it probable that a 15 year old with the social skills of about a 6-7 year old to develop those skills to that of an adult in 5 years? Not in my eyes or the eyes of others. That's the first assumption you make.
But I've also seen the latter. My ankle, for instance. About 2 and a half years ago I sprained it very badly. I rolled it one way, and my body fell the other way. From then to this past spring, it had been bugging me off and on- a dull throbbing. I finally worked up the courage to ask God to heal it to where it was before I sprained it and I haven't had any problems with it since- not even with mildly rolling it again, which happened about once a month previous to praying.
Another instance, a classmate's dad had 2 blood clots that if the docs didn't act on would kill him within a week. One in his neck, one in his chest (they did an MRI and identified them). He told us about it the day before surgery, and we prayed that it would be healed without the need for doctors. Next day they did another MRI, and they were gone. Explainable? Maybe.
I've said before, it's not up to me or anyone else to make you believe.
Uh, you believe in a religion as well. Even atheism is a religion, as is agnosticism.
Unnecessary if one already knows what they say via a reliable summary.
If having an open mind means that you can't rule things out, then having an open mind is a bad thing. Otherwise most people would still be thinking the world is flat despite evidence to the contrary. And science would be destroyed by saying they're not having an open mind. I'm sure you see my point here.
That's a poor if then statement. It assumes that God desires to control what you believe. If that were the case, no one would have free choice.
First note that that was only an analogy, which eventually breaks down. The point is the number of writings will be limited. How many biographies can you find of Abe Lincoln?
How about Henry VIII? The number is limited, because only so much should be written on the subject.
Just three notable historians, one Jewish, two Roman. The Gnostics have stuff too, but theirs is mostly unreliable.
[FONT="]Josephus, in two different places (97 AD):
"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrim of judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whos name was James"
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
Tacitus (AD 120):
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abomination, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from who the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and harmful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.
Lucian (early 100's AD):
The Christians, you know, worship a man to this daythe distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
Yes there is. Plenty. Do a Google search for 'Quran Reliablity'.
Yet it was never verified by Muhammad, never copied and spread until hundreds of years later.
Ah, getting to the good stuff.
Heaven, in John 3:13:
ouranos
Thayer Definition:
1) the vaulted expanse of the sky with all things visible in it
1a) the universe, the world
1b) the aerial heavens or sky, the region where the clouds and the tempests gather, and where thunder and lightning are produced
1c) the sidereal or starry heavens
2) the region above the sidereal heavens, the seat of order of things eternal and consummately perfect where God dwells and other heavenly beings
Part of Speech: noun masculine
When taken in context with the rest of the Bible, it's clear that the second meaning is the one intended. And it's talking about a specific part of heaven, not all of it.
Here's the BDB definition of heaven in 2 Kings 2:11:
1) heaven, heavens, sky
1a) visible heavens, sky
1a1) as abode of the stars
1a2) as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc
1b) Heaven (as the abode of God)
Part of Speech: noun masculine
Obviously much different meaning. That's not a contradiction.
You show you are ignoring and discarding the evidence I've given when you claim none of it is 'objective fact'. Unless you'd like to retract the statement?
Upvote
0
This is exactly why I'm not a faithful Christian. If someone were to present solid, concrete evidence that Christianity is true, I'd believe it. But, I'd have to know the source is credible and the evidence logical. Your words here describe exactly mine, flipped 180 degrees.
Sure it's ok, they can believe what they want. It only becomes not okay with me when they go and kill people for not believing in Baal, or something similarly evil. No, I wouldn't call it junk. I never directly assault someone's beliefs with a negative word. If I disagree with something, I discuss it, not insult it. If they are insulted by my non-belief, that's not my problem.
Again, you're putting words into my mouth. I haven't said that everything you're sprouting is fiction, instead I just don't see a reason to hold it as true. If you get insulted by that, then that's you. Why do I have to back my non-belief? You believe, I don't. The burden of proof is much more on you than on me. I would like to believe in some type of powerful, good, deity, but haven't found any solid reasons to.
I would argue the equal and opposite point that there is more evidence suggesting otherwise.
Would you consider then that Islam is a continuation of Christianity?
What Muhammad really saw? How do we know what Paul really saw? After all, he wrote over half the NT, and all from a revelation he said he had.
Allah only revealed himself or spoke to a handful of people? How is Christianity any different? You've already said that one has a personal relationship with God through a priest.
Besides, God has not revealed himself to me or spoke to me in such a way that I took it as coming from God. He is not acting one on one then, unless he's behind doing things but not talking to me.
When someone writes a story, we don't all get excited over the fact that it does not have contradictions. It's expected to not have contradictions if it was by a good writer. Do I want to keep throwing contradictions at you? Not really, although I've already posted my concerns about the moral contradictions that you haven't really given a good answer for yet.
Chance isn't everything, but it certainly plays a big role.
My point was that where you are born plays a huge effect on what religion you are, and that does prove something.
When we were discussing the infanticide, you pointed out that they lived in a different time and had different ways of looking at things. You then said that no matter what, everybody is responsible for their actions, regardless of their way of looking at things.
But that's exactly what you're doing- putting words in my mouth. You use harsher words like "a load of dung" instead of "see no reason to find it truthful". I don't think the Bible is a load of dung, I think the OT is a good, deep look at culture of a group of people, and that the NT is a good moral guide.
I meant evil on an Earthly sense- not by the "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" sense. What I mean is that anything a non-Christian says, Christians automatically regard as evil and untruthful. "How dare you say the Earth is not the center of the universe?!?! Burn this Satan worshiper!"
Improbably? Yes, I believe so. I would venture that it was more hard-work and a helpful guide than divine help though. As I have said before, I won't argue that it IS false, but that I don't see it as a miracle unless shown otherwise.
I sprained my ankle 6 years ago and it never healed right. I broke my knee about 2 years ago while kickboxing and it still hurts a good amount. Are you suggesting that I pray about it to fix it? It's part of being human- we have imperfect bodies and live in an imperfect world- aches and pains are a part of life. Do you think if I lose my arm in a car accident and pray for it to grow back, it would?
My father keeps becoming incredibly unhealthy. I've prayed about it, but he keeps having to go back to surgery over and over and over and over again. Something like 5 major surgeries in a few years. I have at least thanked God that he hasn't died, but he sure is miserable.
My mother is an alcoholic and mentally disturbed. I've prayed about her situation, but it only gets worse.
Well, it's not up to you, no. You don't have to be on these forums, just like I don't have to be. Christians are supposed to try to spread the word, though, because they think everyone who doesn't believe what they believe is going to eternal torment by their loving God. I think that in most cases it is a moral and good thing to try to convince people, but I would imagine it to be frustrating to have people not listen to you.
I also get frustrated when I see people do terrible things in the name of a god that they assume exists.
Atheism, at least strong atheism, takes faith, so I'll agree with that.
Agnosticism, on the other hand, is not a religion at all. It just means I don't see which path is the true path, what the Truth really is, which deity exists and demands my worship if any, etc. I doubt things, but I rule out nothing.
A reliable summary doesn't cover it. If you didn't know a thing about Christianity, and read a reliable summary about it, what would it tell you? It would tell you that some guy was supposedly the Son of God that you know very little about and died for the sins you were born with so that you wouldn't be endlessly tortured.
Reliable summaries aren't enough. Reading from the source is better.
If people didn't have an open mind, then everyone would still think the Earth is flat. If nobody had an open mind, the Catholic Church would still be punishing people who claimed that the Earth was not the center of the universe. If nobody had an open mind, people would still believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Oh, wait....
(Sorry for the bit of sarcasm there, but I can't think of a different way to convey my point in this matter.)
How is giving people the facts mind control? How is it free will if one can't know which path we are asked to pick?
An exercise:
If I give you three boxes that you can't see in, and say that one of them has a key in it that leads to salvation, and if you pick one of the other two, you get tortured forever- is that just?
What if, instead, when presenting the boxes to you, I actually care about which one you pick for your own well being, so I allow you to make your choice with the boxes open. You can still choose whatever you want- it's not mind control. I just made it clear to you what the various options were and what they led to.
Ok so far...
What could possibly be more important than the subject of God?
Thanks for showing these to me.
[FONT="]
This one I would consider reasonable testimony that Jesus exists, but not necessarily anything else. It also describes him having a brother, which surely would anger a lot of Christians.
This one is more interesting.
Most of these testimonies only point to his existence.
[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
This seems pretty reasonable.
My one question, however, would be to ask what happened once Elijah was carried up to the sky heaven? If he didn't get to go to the actual God-heaven, did he just get carried up there and then die?
Upvote
0
CShephard53
Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!
Religions that do child sacrifice? Infant sacrifice? I'm talking about whether or not they are junk, not whether you insult them or their religion.
You said everything I've been claiming isn't objective fact. If it's not fact, what is it?
You made a claim that the OT and NT contradict. You need to back that. I'm not asking you to back non-belief.
However, when you make statements like that, I would ask you to back them.
No, because it directly contradicts most Christian doctrines. For example, the Trinity.
Yes, but what was written was not changed. And if he didn't have the revelation, he must have been insane. Which isn't possible, given his writings.
The number of eyewitness testimonies (as recorded in the Bible) and the fact that they don't contradict.
Yeah, that's OT. Not NT. When Jesus died, the veil was torn, allowing a direct relationship with Him. Our sins were atoned for.
You cannot expect to hear God without faith, or an active trust, in Him. It doesn't happen overnight.
To have that many writers, though, that do not contradict is extremely difficult unless there are special circumstances- like it being God's Word rather than just a book.
[BIBLE]Romans 6:23[/BIBLE]
It's not a contradiction. You haven't taken God's character in context, you've focused on the extremes of it. It is not unloving to punish sin.
Not much. If anything, it proves that we live in a fallen world.
This is your idea of a contradiction?
I'm very confused as to how this contradicts, unless I pointed out that they were responsible for killing the infants, which I did not and will not.
Two different contexts. One, I was talking about how they looked at (if I remember right) God's commands, in the other I was talking about them being responsible for sin. Unless I made the charge that following God's commands is sin, it is not a contradiction.
I'm abbreviating for ease of writing and processing your statements. Is that a problem? I understand your position. I'm stating what that is in my own words, on my own terms. If that means I'm putting words in your mouth, then you have sorely misunderstood the point of such statements.
You said that, and I acknowledged it. And I said good for you. I'm happy you're not completely hostile towards something you don't agree with. However, if you'll read my above point...
Oh, that's far too drastic. Many nonchristians have very good ideas and points, some do not. To call stereotype the lot is not something I do. If I've given you that impression, I apologize.
Yes, and I was simply giving you an example of what I considered a miracle of what God's done in my life rather than physically done in my life.
I never made such a claim. I simply stated an example of a physical miracle in my life. Do I think He might? He might. Do I think He will? I wouldn't expect it, but that's just me. It's fully possible. But if you've ever read Ecclesiastes 3, you know that God has His own timing.
Well, I'm sorry your dad's having a rough time. I'll keep him in my prayers as well.
Well, I'm sure you know this, but the alcoholic bit is a choice on her part, and part of that is recognizing that she has a problem. But I'll pray for her too.
I tend to look at it a bit differently. My job, my passion is to tell people about Him. If that included defending the faith, I will. But my main goal is not to convince people. My goal is to present the information in a clear and concise way so that what I say is clearly understood, so the facts are presented. And anything else, any fruits of that is up to God and that person, not me- though I'll pray for them. Of course, many Christians might disagree with that stance, unfortunately...
So do I. Which is why I, as a Christian, defend the God I know and distance myself from those people. Yes, I pray. But not much is gained by associating with such people. And Paul commands us not to, anyway.
Oh, I'm simply pointing out that each person 3 and 4:
- Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
- A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
- The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
- A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
- A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
I'd grant you that point, except most of the summaries I've heard or read about is backed up by the religions themselves. You have a good point here, though not complete as it doesn't completely apply.
Note how I worded what I said. I'm not saying that having an open mind is bad. I'm saying that IF having an open mind means that nothing can be ruled out THEN having an open mind is bad. I'm saying things can and should be ruled out.
I didn't say that giving the facts is mind control, I said that presenting them in a way to make people believe would be. There's plenty already, imo, though perhaps not enough to convince you. There's also plenty of choice, as far as I can see, to reject the facts and explain them away, or rationalize them, or accept the facts.
Nothing. However, as you know, only so much should be written. If all mysteries were revealed, why would we strive towards the goal of heaven? If we already knew everything, what would be the point of a relationship with God? I'm only suggesting that God wants to leave enough ambiguity to let people choose, but enough facts for them to be able to- not that He controls what we think.
You're welcome, my pleasure.
The point of those is to point out that there is extrabiblical evidence supporting what was written in the Bible. The quotes verify that Jesus indeed was crucified, that Jesus did have a brother (half brother) named James, as the Bible says. It's not offensive to claim that Jesus had a brother, it's fact. Half brothers were considered just plain brothers then. Many assume Joseph and Mary got busy after Jesus was in the picture.
[FONT="] [/FONT]
The part of heaven it refers to in the NT verse is the Throne- God's dwelling place. Angels can't sit on the Throne. Humans certainly can't. It's not a difference between sky and heaven, it's a difference between where God sits and where man is to be.
Upvote
0
I said I don't have a problem with beliefs unless does something like kill a child.
Faith.
I've posted my reasonings. The OT preaches hatred and destruction of those who are different from you. The NT preaches love and mercy. There are tons of little snipped contradicts that you may be clever enough to explain away, but there is still the problem that the very cores of each half of the bible are opposed. They present complete different themes and ideas on God.
I've presented my argument.
That's exactly how the Jews feel about Christianity. They believe God having a Son contradicts Jewish scriptures.
So you are saying some insane people can't write coherently?
I can't say he was insane or not insane, but he's just one of like 20398239408234 people over the course of history to claim a revelation from some type of deity. I see no reason to believe him over the others.
They aren't eyewitnesses. It's the author SAYING there were eyewitnesses. Of course they aren't going to contradict if one guy is writing about them.
If it's so direct, why is it through a priest?
So God won't give me a sign to believe unless I already believe?
There are tons of people who were in bad situations without faith who claim that God came in and directly helped them.
If there are no contradictions, why are there so many denominations who disagree with each other, and all of them can point out verses supporting their view?
I think if anything, it proves God is not an equal opportunity employer.
Perhaps what you meant and what you wrote were two different things.This is your idea of a contradiction?
I'm very confused as to how this contradicts, unless I pointed out that they were responsible for killing the infants, which I did not and will not.
Two different contexts. One, I was talking about how they looked at (if I remember right) God's commands, in the other I was talking about them being responsible for sin. Unless I made the charge that following God's commands is sin, it is not a contradiction.
If you feel the need to rephrase things to fit into your idea of what things were actually said, then go for it.
Well I'm glad you're not one of those narrow-minded Christians. There are a lot though that will completely disregard some else's comments if they are a different religion. I've seen it on these forums plenty of times.
Yes, and I was simply giving you an example of what I considered a miracle of what God's done in my life rather than physically done in my life.
If you say so.
Thanks.
Yes- however, as I said, she is also mentally disturbed. She has made bad choices, but it's also true that something in her head isn't right. Maybe you think it's a demon; I think it's a chemical problem.
Sounds good.
You're using this to show that atheism and agnosticism are religions?
Perhaps point 4 applies to extremely strong atheists, but not to weaker atheists and agnostics.
First of all, you're saying this from a biased perspective because you already believe in them. To me, from a barely religious standpoint, the case for Christianity being true is really no different from the case for Islam being true, from Buddhism being true, etc. I look for things to stand out, but it just doesn't stand out to me.
Second of all, how is presenting something in a way to make people believe mind control? If God loves people, he would want them to believe to be saved. He can just shout down from heaven (like he apparently used to do all the time) to tell people who he is and what their choices are. He can show them that he is real. They can still make a choice to do whatever they want though.
How are ambiguity and mystery good if they lead people to Hell? I didn't say people had to know everything, but it would certainly help to find out if there is a God and which one.
I don't have very much doubt that there was a person that the idea of Jesus was based on and that he was crucified. It's possible that he didn't exist, but I tend to believe he at least existed. It's good that there are a couple extrabiblical sources pointing out that he exists, but that's all they do- point out that he exists.
So what do you believe when Elijah was sent up to the skies on a whirlwind? Was he admitted to heaven, or did he die?
Upvote
0
CShephard53
Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!
So it has to specifically be a child? It can harm adults, but not kids? The reason I'm pressing you on this is because you're being so broad with your statement.
Faith is based on fact. [BIBLE]Hebrews 11:1[/BIBLE]
What about the part in Acts, Ananias and Saphira? Lied to the Holy Spirit and died? What about the commands to love your neighbor and love God in the books of the law? What about the common sense relational stuff in Proverbs that goes with the idea of grace and mercy?
By now I hope you realize that I totally disagree. When you take the entirety of the OT, you get the idea that God cares. If He didn't care, he wouldn't discipline sin. Perhaps you could expand your statement? I've said this before, when you look at the context of the text, it is nearly impossible to the the idea of a hateful, merciless God. I'm talking OT there, not NT.
There's a major difference between the two. Nothing in the NT contradicts anything in the OT. The Quran, however, contradicts both.
Psychologists have examined the writings of the NT and OT and determined that the people writing them were not insane or mentally disturbed in any way. My point is that what they wrote is reliable at least in its historic content.
Lest you forget, up to Deuteronomy was written by Moses. He's an eyewitness. And don't forget Revelation, written by John, who had the revelation. There were multiple authors of the Bible who never contradicted each other.
You don't get what I'm saying. Before Jesus came and died, people had to go through priests to have a relationship with God because their sins had to be atoned for through animal sacrifices. After Christ, that need was nullified because Christ's death atoned for the sins of all mankind. It is no longer though a priest. Now it is more direct. Before it was less direct.
That's not what I said. I said 'you cannot expect to hear God without faith'. You've been talking about relational things with God- prayer and seeing results of prayer. I'm saying that generally doesn't happen without faith. That's backed by Jesus, who states, "if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, anything you ask will be given." If, then.
God knows who is really seeking the truth and who is not and acts accordingly.
Doesn't matter, that's a moot point given the meaning of my statement.
Why? Sin blinds them. That's the simple answer, and I'm sure you knew it was coming. Am I saying I'm without sin? In God's eyes, yes. Otherwise, no. I still sin, but it's covered.
God does not blind people. He gives them a choice, to respond or not to respond. If people seek real truth, truth is what they get. Sin, the choice to sin, determines the unequal distribution of believers. Not God. To blame people's decisions on God is to say that God has mind control, and I've already been over that with you.
That could be the case.
Will do.
Well, if it means anything to you, I am deeply disturbed and sorry for their behavior.
I know only the basics on demonic possession, but I'm not about to judge all mental illnesses as demonic possession, some are indeed chemical. But what people do with that is different, as you well know.
I'm saying that every person in the world, to some degree (weak or strong), is religious.
I'm sure you'd agree that it would be far better to evaluate things as a whole, how things contradict or make sense- critical analysis of the ideas. Not on what stands out. Of course, we might be saying the same thing two different ways.
Is my perspective biased? Of course. Everyone's is. That doesn't mean it's useless.
In fact, if I were to only look at Christianity through the eyes of faith, I would not have much of an open mind. If I were to look at it in different lights, I would, and I do. But I certainly don't sell myself out to such perspectives.
Unless such interaction would be useless in getting people's attention. If God loves people, He does not interfere in their lives in a harmful way. Hurtful, sure (short term). But not harmful (long term- eternal). God wants genuinely interested people. Not forced belief, or manipulated belief. They have to be seeking. Make sense?
Ambiguity and mystery are good as they provide people with the opportunity to seek or not to seek, to know or not to know, to believe or not to believe. The choice is theirs to do with what they choose the information that is given to them or available. If their own choices lead them to hell, I'd doubt if more clarity would mean much.
It is intellectually dishonest to say that Jesus did not exist. It is equally intellectually dishonest to deny that He was crucified.
Those sources agree with the fact that Jesus had a brother, something the Bible claims, as well as Jesus being crucified. They verify the Bible's claims to some degree. Not just point to His existence.
I don't think you're understanding me. The throne is God's. No one but God can be on it or in it. That is what the NT passage talked about.
So yes, he was admitted into heaven.
By the way, this is an interesting debate. I've learned quite a bit. And you've brought up some good points.
Upvote
0
cyberlizard
the electric lizard returns
- Jul 5, 2007
- 6,268
- 569
- 56
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Married
when Jesus returns and judges the world, many will be thrown into the outer darkness where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth (hell).
this will make the death and destruction of the old testament look like absolute kindness in comparision.
this will make the death and destruction of the old testament look like absolute kindness in comparision.
Upvote
0
CShephard53
Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!
I would like to make it very clear that I am not supportive of such a statement, I am quite certain that it's talking about the same place between the OT and NT.
Upvote
0
cyberlizard
the electric lizard returns
- Jul 5, 2007
- 6,268
- 569
- 56
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Married
my posts are always in response to the original question/statement unless specified otherwise
Upvote
0
CShephard53
Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!
You should state that then. Usually when someone jumps in and responds to the op, they say that they are. And in regards to your claim. You have nothing to back your statement besides your own opinion.
Upvote
0
cyberlizard
the electric lizard returns
- Jul 5, 2007
- 6,268
- 569
- 56
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Married
err Matthews gospel...the final judgement. If people being finally excluded forever from God's presence does not make the acts of the old testament pale in comparison nothing ever will.
Upvote
0
CShephard53
Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!
Do you read Proverbs? Ezekiel? Psalms? Daniel?
Some to any degree talk about God punishing sinners.
Here's an example:
Dan 12:1 "Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued.
Dan 12:2 "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.
Dan 12:3 "Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.
I don't know where you're getting your ideas, but it's not from the Bible.
Upvote
0
Fire and brimstone messages don't work. That has been proven by the Israelites' constant disobedience in the OT. Those messages may get people thinking (which is why the info should be disseminated), but they don't make you love God or have a relationship with him. If anything LOVE for God displayed in our commitment to him and love for people disaplayed daily are what will draw people as shown repeatedly in the NT.(To the OP) The OT lays the foundation for the NT, they do not contradict. In fact, if you carefully read Leviticus and Dueteronomy, and flip over to the NT and read all the words in RED, you'll have a full understanding of the relationship between old and new. Throw the entire book of Hebrews in with that.
Upvote
0
CShephard53
Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!
No, fire and brimstone messages NEVER ever work. That's a generalization for one thing. And for another proof to the contrary is sitting right in front of you typing on his computer.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
