luvluv

I've read that somewhere before...

Hondo

From the mind of luvluv

If the OT writers are not correct on this point, on what other points might they be wrong? Could one possibly conclude that the whole OT is wrong?
Either the entire book is correct, point by point, word for word, or the whole book spirals headlong into the giant pile of manure that I personally belive it is.

I have often argued with xtians that they would have been better of without the Led Zeppelin OT attached to their precious NT. Without the OT where would all of your miraculous phrophecy be?

If you claim that the OT writers may have been mistaken, then I concur completely. THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES.

Hondo

[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: Hondo ]</p>

Hondo

More from the church of luvluv

You posted this very recently on the "Is God the Biggest Mass Murderer of All Time", thread.

Are you really a xtian? IMHO you seem to be a spiritual person looking for a place to hang your hat. Unfortunately, you cannot have it both ways. Either the bible is totaly inerrant, or it becomes just another ancient religious text. The Gospel writers obviously felt compelled to compose their stories based upon the writings of the OT. Can you say midrashic expression? You can't have one (NT) without the other (OT). Maybe you need to re-evaluate your beliefs.

I've asked other xtians this question on numerous occasions. How are we supposed to decifer, or garner the truths encased in a work full of errors or untruths?

Could there be a reality out there that has yet to be exposed?

Hondo

Koyaanisqatsi

luvlu, you're obviously not listening to any of us, so what's the point?

BUT YOU CAN'T JUST EXCISE THINGS YOU DON'T LIKE THAT ARE IN THE BIBLE!

THAT'S what we're talking about here; your personal decision to just remove what is already in there!

F*ckin hell!

This will most likely be my last post to you regarding this stupidity, primarily because there is literally something fundamentally skewed with your thinking. You just aren't capable of comprehending either what any of us are posting or even what you, yourself are posting as the above abundantly proves.

You keep saying that the justification for your personal cult is based on christians being able to believe what is not in the Bible and we have all been talking about what is in the bible.

You provided a whole list of "FEAR NOT's" from the Bible, not comprehending the fact that God having to say "FEAR NOT" proves that everyone fears him!.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

If no one feared God then he would never have to say "FEAR NOT", you frickaina;lkn;;dlafnke;lkej;lakj;l!



You have demonstrated conclusively that you just aren't capable of applying any kind of critical analysis; that you just blithely ignore all of the "icky" parts and/or simply declare that Hell is Heaven, rather than recognizing the obvious, which is that such contradictory nonsense proves the mythology nothing more than a blatant fraud.

You are wrong. There's just no other way to say it.

Wrong.

For once in my life I really wish there were a God so that such an obvious and undeniable declaration such as the one you've reduced me to making had objective weight behind it, but there is no such creature so it can't.

This fact, by the way, will be entirely missed by you, as you will think that this is only my opinion, ironically also proving that no "objective-mandating" creature factually exists.

The cult of luvluv; blind, deaf and dumb.

luvluv

Koya, if anything I am telling you gets you THAT upset, you probably should stop talking to me. I'm just a guy with an opinion, my friend. You're blowing it way out of proportion.

As show of goodwill, I offer you the universal greeting: Ba weep grannup weep nini baum.

Beyond that, the "sola scriptura" crowd only represents a small fragment of Christianity, namely fundamental, (mostly southern) American Christians. I'd guestimate the "Bible Alone" crowd only makes up about a quarter of the Christians in the world and that is probably being extremely generous. Most other Christian churches, the other 75%, do allow speculation and study into the Bible, including entertaining the idea that some of what was in it is not true. The Christian religion has a rich tradition of this type of debate. I really don't see how you can decide that you can determine my religion for me just because my religion as it is resists your arguments. There is nothing logically contradictory about me believing some things in the Bible and disbelieving others. The notion that everything in the Bible must be true or none of it is true is a FUNDAMENTALIST NOTION popularized by FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS. The MAJORITY of Christians do not believe that. I am sorry if that fact is unfortunate to your position, but it is the truth. Real Christians do speculate about certain passages in the Bible.

Again, I don't know what I have done to get you so upset. If I have deliberately insulted you, then I apologize. If my beliefs insult you, that is unfortunate. I do hear what you are saying, but in this issue you are simply wrong.

Koyaanisqatsi

It's not personal, just endlessly frustrating. I apologize in kind if you mistook my passion for a personal attack.

As others here can attest, I blur that line all too often and it is a failing in my character.

The point is, however, that it is also not a question of what you wish to believe or not regarding the clear cut declaratives of the same people who told you about Jesus and God to begin with. You have simply decided of your own personal volition to pick and choose what it is you are going to believe, directly contradicting the express written words of (allegedly) God, while at the same time declaring indirectly that Paul and Luke and Matthew, etc., were wrong.

HOw do you reconcile that they can be wrong about one thing and right about others? Where does it end? For that matter, where does it begin?

But most importantly, what's the point?

These aren't just copyist errors or misjudgements in translations, these are, to use that word, fundamental doctrines that simply cannot be divorced from the whole without destroying the whole.

God is to be feared (aka, you are to be afraid of him) precisely because of his power to inflict the most unimaginable torment in all recorded history. This is a defining characteristic of the God of the Bible (both Old and New), so for you to simply state, "Well, I just don't believe that," is to dismiss arguably half of that defining feature, which is, obviously, your right to do as a freethinker, but why not simply understand what it is you are actually doing?

You are actually stating, "I don't believe this, because it makes no sense."

How then are you different from any of us?

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

luvluv

"HOw do you reconcile that they can be wrong about one thing and right about others?"

They're human.

"These aren't just copyist errors or misjudgements in translations, these are, to use that word, fundamental doctrines that simply cannot be divorced from the whole without destroying the whole."

Which doctrine was that? Hell? Free will? Fearing God? I really don't see how anything I said on these issues "destroys the whole".

"God is to be feared (aka, you are to be afraid of him) precisely because of his power to inflict the most unimaginable torment in all recorded history. This is a defining characteristic of the God of the Bible (both Old and New)"

God is not simply to be feared, as I said most Christians throughout all time have interpreted the word fear as respect. Go to some Christian sites around the web or any serious book on Christian doctrine and it will tell you that. If that's how you want to interpret it, it is your right. But if you want to assert that that interpretation is the only one that can be considered Christian, you are way off. There are numerous passages in the Old and New Testament which clear states that God wants to be loved, not feared, and as the quote I stated from 3 John attests, Christians think that perfect love for God would not constitute any "fear" because fear "hath torment". You are characterizing Christianity from the position of someone who is against it, so it is understandable that you would want to adopt this view in an argument for convinience sake. But I can categorically tell you that to interpret those passages saying "fear God" as implying "be terrified into submission" is not only outside traditional Christian doctrine, it is unsupportable in the context even of the specific scriptures you quote. Besides that, how can you say that the fear of God is better established than God's repeated admonishments NOT to fear Him? If both uses of the word fear were the same, the prepondarance of passages reccomending that we both fear God AND not fear Him would make no sense. But they are not the same. One is admonishing us to respect God and to revere Him as we would an earthly Father, the other is admonishing us to not be terrified of him. That's as clear as night and day from an overall view of the Bible. I don't know how familiar you are with the surronding text of the scriptures you quoted but you might want to take a look at them.

As far as Hell goes, as I said much of what I said was speculative but it had all been speculated before by various Christian thinkers. It is within the realm of Christian thought. There is nothing in the Bible to absolutely refute anything I said about the possibility of Hell and the Lake of Fire being two different places (there is actually Biblical support for this) and about the torment of Hell being largely self-inflicted, and about the Lake of Fire representing an end to those afflicitions. There is nothing "unChristian" about any of those statements, and I got a lot of my ideas about them from other well-known Christian thinkers.

Besides all that, for you to argue my position as saying that it is unscriptural is kind of an odd tactic for an atheist. If it defied logic, it would seem that would be the track you would take in your critique. I can see why another Christian might attack my beliefs on the basis that they were unscriptural, but why would an atheist want me to "stick to the Bible" when they don't believe in the Bible?

The Other Michael

Hi luvluv,

You might want to ask Jonathan Edwards about that, since he said:

I'd guess he probably was considered a pretty traditional Christian at that time.

good luck,
Michael