kctan

This is of course the best as it tells you just how heaven is like.

Hbr 12:29

VeraciousMaven

Queen of Swords:

1J48

God is love. What's your point?

Can't be any more against nature than Ma2230.

Not against nature, but above it. Supernatural if you will. Ma22:29-32.

John 1:18.

Gen32:24

Slaughter enemies. Love enemies. Perhaps you could love them while killing them?

If you read the parable you quoted in Matthew in its entirety, you would see that Jesus is speaking of not wasting your spiritual gift. Not of slaughtering people.

1 Peter, 2:18 - 20.

Even as a slave, glorify God?

[1pe4:10]Irrelevant again

No, it was to support the conjecture that your spiritual gift should be used, not squandered.

but why does Chapter 3 verse 2 require women to fear?

1Pe3:2 "when they see the purity and reverence of your lives" ... what are you talking about?

1J4:18

Fear as in Terror. Not fear as in awe, respect, humility, and obedience.

So if there's something absurd, sexist or illogical in Paul's letters, he didn't really mean to put it there?

It means just what it says, that they are hard to understand and the ignorant and unstable will distort them. He ment for them to be there. He didn't mean for your interpretation of them to be their truth.

"Let all things be done decently and in order"? Irrelevance, again

No. This proves that all people should be orderly and decent, not just women. They were also trying to maintain some form of order during their services. If women (or anyone) were to randomly shout out their ideals, this would create havoc and strife.

1Sa15:3

See: <a href="http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html" target="_blank">http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html</a> It's rather informative on such matters.

Jo521

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.

5:17-18

Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law. Your point?

5:32

Don't divorce except due to adultry. Your point?

5:48

God is perfect and we should stive to be like him. Your point?

9:5-6

Jesus has the authority to forgive sins. Your point?

10:34

Matthew 10:37. This should shed some light on what the intent of 34 was.

12:31-32

Blasphemy is unforgivable. Your point?

18:19

Your wishes will be fulfiled in heaven. Your point?

24:34

"I tell you the truth this GENERATION will not pass away until all these things have happened." The Greek word that is used here also means RACE.

Indeed.

Indeed.

Queen of Swords

Why would a love god do Ge45, Ex11:5 and Ex21:21?

Not above nature, but against it. Antinatural, if you will.

Jacob wrestles, the bible contradicts itself. Your point?

If you read the last verse, it clearly states, "But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27) And Jesus is not speaking about slaughtering people? Perhaps he means "slay" as in "beat them about the head and shoulders with a wet chicken".

No, as a slave, take whatever punishment your masters give you - beatings, rapes, death - and don't complain, seek redress or try to escape.

You might have to explain in more detail how those slaves who escaped from their masters (Harriet Tubman, for example) made baby Jesus cry.

Unfortunately, we were talking about slaughtering enemies, rather than spiritual gifts. Or did you mean that the abilioty to slay Jesus's enemies was a spiritual gift?

New King James version : "When they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear."

If they meant terror, why didn't they say terror, rather than using an ambiguous word? Where's your evidence that different words are used?

He wanted to be deliberately unclear? Well, I can see why. After all, Nostradamus did the same thing.

What a pity that it is

"Things" means "people"? Another creative translation of English. Evidence that "things" actually mean "people"?

Then why did Paul not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man (note that there is no context given here)? Unless you believe that female teachers randomly shout out their ideals?

Please select a counter-argument or paraphrase it, and post it in this thread.

That the god of the Old Testament is a mass murderer and people try to justify it. What else?

If Jesus did not destroy the law of the Old testament, does it still apply today?

So if your husband beats you or abuses your children, you should not divorce him?

No, it doesn't say "strive". It says, "Be ye therefore perfect". It is not possible for human beings to be perfect - this is an order that no one can live up to.

Sorry, typo. I meant 10:5 -6, where Jesus shows his racist side.

I'm curious as to why Jesus is called the Pirnce of Peace, in light of this verse (34). Perhaps he should be called the Prince of Swords, except that people might confuse him with my son. However, in another gospel, he rewords the command given in verse 27 to include the word "hate". This doesn't sound like a family value.

Why is it unforgivable? Why should blasphemy be a worse crime than mass murder or the rape of a child? If I commit blasphemy, will I ever be allowed to repent?

Where does it say that your wishes will be fulfilled in heaven? Does this mean that if I pray for a new car now, god will give me a Ferrari in heaven?

Evidence, such as the words? I'd like a little more than your say-so. And if it means "race", why was the word "generation" used instead?

My point is that the bible is a house of cards. Inerrantists (correct me if you are not one) have to bend over backwards to justify the inconsistencies and absurdities in it - just as you have done.

[ December 16, 2001: Message edited by: QueenofSwords ]

[ December 16, 2001: Message edited by: QueenofSwords ]</p>

99Percent

<a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=MATTHEW+24%3A34&version=KJV&showfn=y es&showxref=yes&language=english" target="_blank">Matthew 24:34</a> is one of those parts recited endlessly by doomsayers because it gives gravity to the supposed prophecies. This verse seems to claim that all things are going to occur in this lifetime. Thing is, a hundred generations have passed already and Jesus is nowhere to be seen.

VeraciousMaven: Have you taken a look at this site -
<a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com" target="_blank">The Skeptic's Annotated Bible</a>?

[ December 16, 2001: Message edited by: 99Percent ]</p>

VeraciousMaven

Queen of Swords:

Why would a love god do Ge45, Ex11:5 and Ex21:21?

Ge45. Is that Genesis 4:5 or the entire Chapter of Genesis 45?

Genesis 4:5
- Cain's offering was insufficient. Cain is "downcast"

Genesis 45
- Joseph is reunited with his family.

What's the point (another typo?)?

Exodus 11:5
This should help you out some: <a href="http://www.christian-thinktank.com/canon03.html" target="_blank">http://www.christian-thinktank.com/canon03.html</a>

Exodus 21:21

Exodus 21:20
- You also have to understand that slavery at that time was much different than slavery in the 18th century/19th century.


Not above nature, but against it. Antinatural, if you will.

I fail to see your logic. Explain this to me please.

Jacob wrestles, the bible contradicts itself. Your point?

Jacob wrestles God in the form of a man. The bible would only be contradicting itself if Jacob wrestled the very essence of God, which is what no man has looked upon.

If you read the last verse, it clearly states, "But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me."

Yes I did read that part. You are still failing ot read it in context. It's a parable. Every word is not to be taken literaly, only the over all message.

No, as a slave, take whatever punishment your masters give you - beatings, rapes, death - and don't complain, seek redress or try to escape.

Correct.

You might have to explain in more detail how those slaves who escaped from their masters (Harriet Tubman, for example) made baby Jesus cry.

As I said, the slavery in biblical times was MUCH different than Harriet Tubman's era. I doubt it make 'baby Jesus' cry.

Unfortunately, we were talking about slaughtering enemies, rather than spiritual gifts. Or did you mean that the abilioty to slay Jesus's enemies was a spiritual gift?

As I said, you misunderstood/interpreted the passage.

If they meant terror, why didn't they say terror, rather than using an ambiguous word? Where's your evidence that different words are used?

It's a translation. I wish I knew the original language, but you'll have to use the context in which it was written to discover its meaning.

He wanted to be deliberately unclear? Well, I can see why. After all, Nostradamus did the same thing.

You can't be serious, can you? It obviously didn't say that. You're a smart person, look. 2Peter 3:16 "He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." Where in there does it say that he purposely made it difficult to understand?

"Things" means "people"? Another creative translation of English. Evidence that "things" actually mean "people"?

"Things" is an action in this context. Actions are acomplished by "people". Thus, people's actions should be decent and orderly.

Then why did Paul not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man (note that there is no context given here)?

His letters are sometimes 'hard to understand' and it is for this reason (along with the fact that women --in the early church-- did hold positions of authority) that I am willing to bet that it is not meant to be taken completely literally.

Please select a counter-argument or paraphrase it, and post it in this thread.

Why? This isn't a formal debate, I'm trying to help you out. If you haven't looked, take a peek <a href="http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html" target="_blank">http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html</a>

That the god of the Old Testament is a mass murderer and people try to justify it. What else?

I've given you a few answers already as the the so-called 'mass murder'. but John 5:21?

If Jesus did not destroy the law of the Old testament, does it still apply today?

An interesting question. Jesus's fulfilment of 'the Law' cuts out a lot of the OT sacrafice, ritual, and ceramony. Care to bring up a few laws so that we could discuss them?

So if your husband beats you or abuses your children, you should not divorce him?

I said adultry, but the actual passage was "marital unfaithfulness" (my bad). Is your husband still being faithful to you at that point?

No, it doesn't say "strive". It says, "Be ye therefore perfect". It is not possible for human beings to be perfect - this is an order that no one can live up to.

We can't live up to it, so all we cant do is try. After all -- it is by grace that we are saved, not by works.

Sorry, typo. I meant 10:5 -6, where Jesus shows his racist side.

Seems pretty racist huh? But I'd say that he was only talking to the disciples, and only telling them to stay away for a TEMPORARY amount of time. My reason? John 3:16 of course!

I'm curious as to why Jesus is called the Pirnce of Peace, in light of this verse (34).

I already explained it.

However, in another gospel, he rewords the command given in verse 27 to include the word "hate". This doesn't sound like a family value.

Again, in light of Matthew 10:37, the intent is shown.

Why is it unforgivable? Why should blasphemy be a worse crime than mass murder or the rape of a child? If I commit blasphemy, will I ever be allowed to repent?

Glad you asked. Many people think that blasphemy is something they can 'accidentally' commit, and be screwed for all of eternity. Blasphemy is the act of activly defying God. As long as you are commiting this act, it is unforgivable. You can repent, because blasphemy is the act of NOT repenting.

Where does it say that your wishes will be fulfilled in heaven? Does this mean that if I pray for a new car now, god will give me a Ferrari in heaven?

'fraid not. Matthew 6:10 "your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." Christians are instructed to pray, not for their own will, but for God's will.

Evidence, such as the words? I'd like a little more than your say-so. And if it means "race", why was the word "generation" used instead?

Show evidence that it is NOT so. You started it sugah. And I already explained how the meaning of words are difficult to grasp when not reading from the original language.

My point is that the bible is a house of cards. Inerrantists (correct me if you are not one) have to bend over backwards to justify the inconsistencies and absurdities in it - just as you have done.

My point is that the bible is ment to be looked at critically, not skeptically. People have bend over backwards to find errors -- just as you have done.

1J48

[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: VeraciousMaven ]</p>

Mad Kally

Hey Roarke,
Why are you using two different names? Are you pretending to be two people or is that supposed to be funny?

calvaryson

Matthew 10:34 is of course talking about His sword of truth. If a person takes up with Jesus, the "sword" of truth, it will cause all kinds of strife in his family, with friends. People will turn against you for proclaiming your faith, for trying to be Christ like. This was spoken so long ago and just look around. 2001 and Christians being persecuted, ostracized, ignored, made fun of, called names etc... as to Matthew 5:48 "Be perfect, therefore as your heavenly Father is perfect", is telling us to perfect in our love for others, love all people.

Queen of Swords

Where does god give specifications of what offerings are sufficient and what are not?

Again, please paraphrase the relevant answer and post it in this thread as your reply.

Please explain how a slave dying at once is different from a slave dying in a day or two.

What is natural about never having a spouse/soulmate/lover, especially if you had one that you loved very much on earth?

So did Jacob see god or not? If not, why did he say, "For I have seen God face to face"? Either the bible is contradicting itself, or Jacob is deluded.

So when it says "slay my enemies", what does it really mean? Spank my enemies?

This is a hideous code of behavior. Please explain why a god of love would want slaves to suffer in this way, without once trying to better their situations.

But you just said that it was good for slaves to take whatever punishment their masters handed out without trying to escape. Therefore, by being part of the Underground Railroad, Tubman did something very wrong. She probably broke god's heart, according to the code of "ethics" that you support.

So tell me the correct interpretation. Where it says "slay them", it actually means.... ?

I discover its meaning to be fear, the same fear we are supposed to feel for god, yet love is supposed to drive out fear. Another contradiction in the bible.

Of course I'm serious. When you are deliberately unclear, it's much easier for your supporters to claim you meant X, when many other people believe Y.

Perhaps he should try to make them easy to understand. After all, the eternity of people might depend on it some day. If god can do anything, why couldn't he inspire Paul to write in a way that explained matters?

In other words, if you come up with a different interpretation from mine, you're wrong, stupid, mentally unstable and you'll burn in hell. Way to destroy the opposition.

Who else would make it difficult to understand? God? The devil? And if he "accidentally" made it difficult to understand, couldn't God have corrected that mistake?

Pkease explain why "things" means "actions" in this context. I usually define "things" as objects; you'll have to show why this definition is wrong (in this context). And if actions are accomplished by people, and a hurricane blows down a house, did people destroy the house or create the hurricane?

I get it. He's covering his ass, yes?

Then why did he state that a woman could not teach or have authority over a man?

So, when he says "woman", does he actually mean "baby"?

By the way, if there's something in the bible that I don't like, can I also bet that it should not be taken literally? Let's see, I never liked hell, so now that's a metaphor. And there wasn't really a serpent in the garden, that's all literal now...

Redefining the bible is fun!

Are you incapable of selecting a counter-argument or paraphrasing one and posting it in this thread?

I'm not interested in argumentun ad website. If you have something to say in reply, please say it.

No, you have not touched on the orders of this god, for example, in Joshua 6:21. He has more blood on his hands than Idi Amin does.

Does this mean that all the people and animals killed by the Israelites will be brought back to life? Will they go to heaven or hell? And does the act of bringing them back to life justify their murder?

Deuteronomy 22:13-29. Does all this apply today?

Yes. He's a faithful abuser. He breaks your bones, but he doesn't want to be married to anyone else. He beats your children, but he only wants to have sex with you. Are you allowed to divorce him?

Please comment on the logic of giving an order that no one is capable of obeying.

You mean he didn't realize that his words would be taken down and be read by everyong, including non-Jews? Oh, I see why he was so frank.

Could you please find a verse where Jesus says something like, "It's not that I favor the Jews over the Gentiles. You can go to the Gentiles and the Samaritans eventually - just stay away from them for a TEMPORARY period of time. I love the Gentiles as much as I love the Jews".

Jesus also refers to Gentiles as "dogs". It doesn't get much more racist than that.

No you didn't. You brushed it off with a "that's not meant to be taken literally". That doesn't explain anything, unless you're saying that Jesus, like Paul, decided to be deliberately unclear?

This does not explain Jesus's use of the strong word "hate". Unless you're trying to show that the bible has more misinterpretations than I originally thought it did?

Dictionary definition of blasphemy, from <a href="http://www.m-w.com" target="_blank">www.m-w.com</a>

1 a : the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God b : the act of claiming the attributes of deity
2 : irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable

You seem to have selected one definition of blasphemy out of the several given here. Could you provide evidence that your definition of blasphemy is the correct one?

Then the bible contradicts itself, because Jesus said he would given them whatever they asked for. Also, how are christians supposed to know god's will? And won't he do what he wants anyway, without them praying for it? What is the point of prayer if all it accomplishes is to make god do what he was going to do in the first place?

The burden of evidence is on the person making a claim. You claim it's "race", show evidence that it's "race". I have all the evidence I need for my side, here in my KJV which says "generation". Ball's in your court, loverbug.

Then perhaps the writers should have been more clear. You'd think a god would keep better watch over his book.

Really? Where's your evidence that it was meant to be looked at in one way but not in another? And if it can't stand up to a little skepticism, that says volumes about the bible, doesn't it?

Hardly. This was just scratching the surface. You should take a look at the Skeptics' Annotated Bible or Donald Morgan's lists of bibilical inconsistencies/absurdities if you think I did anything special.

[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: QueenofSwords ]</p>

Queen of Swords

Unoriginally posted by calvaryson:

<strong>blah blah poor poor christians blah </strong>

DNFTT

VeraciousMaven

Queen of Swords:

Where does god give specifications of what offerings are sufficient and what are not?

I found it somewhat obvious that Cain gave God the skimpy offering, not because he couldn't do better, but because he didn't.

Again, please paraphrase the relevant answer and post it in this thread as your reply.

Again, why?

Please explain how a slave dying at once is different from a slave dying in a day or two.

Who said a slave dying in a day or two was a good thing? And what does that have to do with the difference between slavery in 18th/19th century and biblical times?

What is natural about never having a spouse/soulmate/lover, especially if you had one that you loved very much on earth?

Quote to me the exact verse again. Hopefully by the time you have copied it, you will have grasped my point.

So did Jacob see god or not? If not, why did he say, "For I have seen God face to face"? Either the bible is contradicting itself, or Jacob is deluded.

Face to face. Man to man. Not God to man. God in man's form, not God in God's form.

So when it says "slay my enemies", what does it really mean? Spank my enemies?

Tisk, tisk, now you're doing it on purpose.

This is a hideous code of behavior. Please explain why a god of love would want slaves to suffer in this way, without once trying to better their situations.

Paul and Silas in prison. Did not God make good from that?

But you just said that it was good for slaves to take whatever punishment their masters handed out without trying to escape. Therefore, by being part of the Underground Railroad, Tubman did something very wrong. She probably broke god's heart, according to the code of "ethics" that you support.

Again you ignore that slavery changed dramatically.

So tell me the correct interpretation. Where it says "slay them", it actually means.... ?

Enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them -- bring them here and kill them in front of me. Did you consider that this would be the people who rejected God?

Of course I'm serious. When you are deliberately unclear, it's much easier for your supporters to claim you meant X, when many other people believe Y.

Why would a struggling religion be deliberately unclear? How did they know that their religion would be a major religion years and years to come?

Perhaps he should try to make them easy to understand. After all, the eternity of people might depend on it some day. If god can do anything, why couldn't he inspire Paul to write in a way that explained matters?

Paul was sending a letter to a church. Maybe all the "errors" in the bible, are only their to make us read more deeply into it, as we are meant to do.

In other words, if you come up with a different interpretation from mine, you're wrong, stupid, mentally unstable and you'll burn in hell. Way to destroy the opposition.

You can come up with a different idea, but when you purposely twist and ignore the words ....

Who else would make it difficult to understand? God? The devil? And if he "accidentally" made it difficult to understand, couldn't God have corrected that mistake?

Why should He, when the mistakes allow for such great critical thinking into the Bible?

Pkease explain why "things" means "actions" in this context. I usually define "things" as objects; you'll have to show why this definition is wrong (in this context). And if actions are accomplished by people, and a hurricane blows down a house, did people destroy the house or create the hurricane?

"Let all things be done ..." Let all actions be done? Let all objects be done? Which fits?

By the way, if there's something in the bible that I don't like, can I also bet that it should not be taken literally?

Provide proof that the author's intent was directed elsewhere, then yes.

Are you incapable of selecting a counter-argument or paraphrasing one and posting it in this thread?

Are you incapable of clicking a link and saving us both time?

No, you have not touched on the orders of this god, for example, in Joshua 6:21. He has more blood on his hands than Idi Amin does.

It's there ... only a press of the mouse button away.

Does this mean that all the people and animals killed by the Israelites will be brought back to life? Will they go to heaven or hell? And does the act of bringing them back to life justify their murder?

John 5:21 "For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whome he is pleased to give it." So, if He wants to, he'll do.

Deuteronomy 22:13-29. Does all this apply today?

Does it? What does Jesus say about Marriage?

Yes. He's a faithful abuser. He breaks your bones, but he doesn't want to be married to anyone else. He beats your children, but he only wants to have sex with you. Are you allowed to divorce him?

Tough isn't it? But Christian marriage is the union of two people to be as one flesh. You found a scenerio where it is unlikely that both mother and father are Christian, and impossible that their marriage is the union of two people to be as one. Question being, were they ever truely married (by Christian standards, in which the bible would hold sway over their lifes)?

Please comment on the logic of giving an order that no one is capable of obeying.

Coach: Be the best kid, give 110%, NEVER give up!

Could you please find a verse where Jesus says something like, "It's not that I favor the Jews over the Gentiles. You can go to the Gentiles and the Samaritans eventually - just stay away from them for a TEMPORARY period of time. I love the Gentiles as much as I love the Jews".

I found it pretty obvious that it was temporary as he told them to go witness to all peoples later.

No you didn't. You brushed it off with a "that's not meant to be taken literally". That doesn't explain anything, unless you're saying that Jesus, like Paul, decided to be deliberately unclear?

Did you even read 37? "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me"

This does not explain Jesus's use of the strong word "hate". Unless you're trying to show that the bible has more misinterpretations than I originally thought it did?

You can't accept the fact that God wants you to love Him more than your family?

You seem to have selected one definition of blasphemy out of the several given here. Could you provide evidence that your definition of blasphemy is the correct one?

If it were not, then the bible would be unable to make other statements concerning redemption.

Then the bible contradicts itself, because Jesus said he would given them whatever they asked for. Also, how are christians supposed to know god's will? And won't he do what he wants anyway, without them praying for it? What is the point of prayer if all it accomplishes is to make god do what he was going to do in the first place?

First of all, God does make his will known. Secondly, Christians knowing God's will is part of the active walk with Christ. Lastly, you cannot truly ask in Jesus' name and be selfish at the same time.

The burden of evidence is on the person making a claim. You claim it's "race", show evidence that it's "race". I have all the evidence I need for my side, here in my KJV which says "generation". Ball's in your court, loverbug.

You're the one trying to disprove the bible. Thus it is YOU who is making the initial claim. Nothin' but luv to ya.

Then perhaps the writers should have been more clear. You'd think a god would keep better watch over his book.

So say you. Oh, great and mighty human.

Really? Where's your evidence that it was meant to be looked at in one way but not in another? And if it can't stand up to a little skepticism, that says volumes about the bible, doesn't it?

Evidence? Is it not obvious? In order to get anything out of almost any form of literature you must think critically. And a hundred or so years of standing up to skepticism says volumes about the bible doesn't it?

Hardly. This was just scratching the surface. You should take a look at the Skeptics' Annotated Bible or Donald Morgan's lists of bibilical inconsistencies/absurdities if you think I did anything special.

I dunno, I'm brand new here, and am NO expert by any means. This discussion is actually quite informative because you really are a very smart person--misguided--but smart, and I think that our little talks here help stregthen me for other times I don't have my bible handy.

Oh, and I checked out that site. It seems to be a nice bundle of misconceptions/misinterpretations in one nifty site. Maybe you should check the site out that I posted eh?

1J48