It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are the Old and New testament God the same God?

page: 6
1
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


you mean you've verified these bad people are all christians? cause the lady who lives next door is a nice person and she's a christian. my mom was awesome. she lived to the age of 89. she was a christian. my sis has helped my family and other struggling families, many times. she's a christian.

perhaps your yardstick is exceptionally long for christians and shorter for non-christians? i don't see how else a title could suddenly make someone bad.




posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by moocowman
 


evidence? you're saying you can prove God doesn't exist? you realize how impossible that is, of course?


No I didn't say that, I said quite clearly there is no evidence that that this god exists, which there isn't.

Trying to prove something doesn't exist, is a dumb assed proposition , braught about by people who fail to prove their case but need their case to be true.

As with fairies, aliens, leprechauns, ghosts, angels , yetis etc the burden of proof is on the believer.

I am quite happy to discuss the paranormal such as gods, unicorns or ghosts, but they can't e discussed with absolutes as there is no evidence they actually exist.

Unicorns were once mentioned in the bibles, as xtians discuss the existence of yaweh in absolutes why are they not the proponents of the existence of unicorns? there is equally no evidence for either.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 06:22 AM
link   


Originally posted by moocowman

........

evidence? you're saying you can prove God doesn't exist? you realize how impossible that is, of course?


No I didn't say that, I said quite clearly there is no evidence that that this god exists, which there isn't.

Trying to prove something doesn't exist, is a dumb assed proposition , braught about by people who fail to prove their case but need their case to be true.

As with fairies, aliens, leprechauns, ghosts, angels , yetis etc the burden of proof is on the believer.

I am quite happy to discuss the paranormal such as gods, unicorns or ghosts, but they can't e discussed with absolutes as there is no evidence they actually exist.

Unicorns were once mentioned in the bibles, as xtians discuss the existence of yaweh in absolutes why are they not the proponents of the existence of unicorns? there is equally no evidence for either.



Would you like to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God doesnt exist? I mean, everything I have experienced of God, though the bible, through prayer etc lead me to believe that God exists and this idea I set in my mind. I think you will find the same for most christians.

Back on topic, personaly I think that God hasnt changed much over the old and new testiment. God is the same God through out the bible.... we just see a lack of his angry side in much of the new testiment.
For those that wonder why he seems to be angry (sending his people to kill, etc..) in the old testiment its because of the magnitude of which they are beaking his commandments (dont worship false Gods in particular). I mean, if say for example you made a universe and then you made a world and put people on it... and then they just ignored you, made statues and started bowing down to them how would you feel about it? How would you react.... think about that with the idea that you know what will happen will the end of time.

Here is a few verses that I like from the OT showing his loving side (well sorta) - people seem to forget these (new living translation):

Psalm 81

1 Sing praises to God, our strength.
Sing to the God of Jacob.
2 Sing! Beat the tambourine.
Play the sweet lyre and the harp.
3 Blow the ram’s horn at new moon,
and again at full moon to call a festival!
4 For this is required by the decrees of Israel;
it is a regulation of the God of Jacob.
5 He made it a law for Israel
when he attacked Egypt to set us free.

I heard an unknown voice say,
6 “Now I will take the load from your shoulders;
I will free your hands from their heavy tasks.
7 You cried to me in trouble, and I saved you;
I answered out of the thundercloud
and tested your faith when there was no water at Meribah.
Interlude

8 “Listen to me, O my people, while I give you stern warnings.
O Israel, if you would only listen to me!
9 You must never have a foreign god;
you must not bow down before a false god.
10 For it was I, the Lord your God,
who rescued you from the land of Egypt.
Open your mouth wide, and I will fill it with good things.

11 “But no, my people wouldn’t listen.
Israel did not want me around.
12 So I let them follow their own stubborn desires,
living according to their own ideas.
13 Oh, that my people would listen to me!
Oh, that Israel would follow me, walking in my paths!
14 How quickly I would then subdue their enemies!
How soon my hands would be upon their foes!
15 Those who hate the Lord would cringe before him;
they would be doomed forever.
16 But I would feed you with the finest wheat.
I would satisfy you with wild honey from the rock.”


[edit on 6/2/2009 by funky monk]

[edit on 6/2/2009 by funky monk]

[edit on 6/2/2009 by funky monk]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by funky monk
 





Originally posted by moocowman ........ evidence? you're saying you can prove God doesn't exist? you realize how impossible that is, of course? No I didn't say that, I said quite clearly there is no evidence that that this god exists, which there isn't. Trying to prove something doesn't exist, is a dumb assed proposition , braught about by people who fail to prove their case but need their case to be true. As with fairies, aliens, leprechauns, ghosts, angels , yetis etc the burden of proof is on the believer. I am quite happy to discuss the paranormal such as gods, unicorns or ghosts, but they can't e discussed with absolutes as there is no evidence they actually exist. Unicorns were once mentioned in the bibles, as xtians discuss the existence of yaweh in absolutes why are they not the proponents of the existence of unicorns? there is equally no evidence for either. Would you like to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God doesnt exist? I mean, everything I have experienced of God, though the bible, through prayer etc lead me to believe that God exists and this idea I set in my mind. I think you will find the same for most christians.


Why is it you choose to twist my words ?Once again from the top the burden of proof for the supernatural entity that apparently sometimes goes by the name of yaweh, is upon you.


If you believe that Yahweh, the character that appears in the bible is real. Then one would assume you believe that unicorns are real as they also appear in bibles.

If you claim there's a unicorn in your attic then it's up to you to prove it, hoof prints in your bathroom do not prove there's a unicorn in your attic, it's not down to me to prove there isn't as you made the claim.

As both Yahweh and unicorns that appear in bibles have not been proven, then they are both equally supernatural.

If the god of the old testament goes by the name of Yahweh and acts in a certain way, yet the god of the new testament has a different name and acts in a different way. The even a child can figure out there are 2 different gods or one has change its persona.

Either way there can be no right or wrong as it has yet to be proven that Yahweh is real, therefore Yahweh and the unicorn are equally unreal unless you believe so without absolute proof.

If no absolute proof is required by someone who belies that Yahweh is real then one can only conclude that this person believes , that unicorns are real.

If this person does not believe unicorns are real, then why not? they are equally as unproven as Yahweh and appear in the same books that are used to make the claim of the reality of Yaweh.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Ichabod
 


...all I have is measure for truth in my heart, the reason and logic and emotion which guides me.



There are three sources of "bad" things: Satan, the world, and yourself. Sin entered the world through man responding to the temptation of Satan. Kids dying, getting cancer, being abused and all the rest does not change the equation. Why aren't you praising God for taking children to heaven? Jesus said it himself, heaven is full of them.

Anyway, your approach won't work. What you really mean is that in your rebellion to God you'll let your own preferences blow you around like the wind. Emotions and feelings are untrustworthy guides in this life. Ah, but you're going to apply powerful *reasoning* to this problem of "finding God". But when that fails you're going to rely on emotions that are swayed by everything from the weather, to how people react to you during the day to what you had for dinner last night.

And when you find this God "not of the bible" and you notice that all these supposed injustices are continuing, will you paint that God with the same broad brush of insolent recrimination that you level at the God of the bible?

Nah, you reject the God of the bible because you're in rebellion. It's your right, so enjoy it.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
You mean you've verified these bad people are all christians? cause the lady who lives next door is a nice person and she's a christian. my mom was awesome. she lived to the age of 89. she was a christian. my sis has helped my family and other struggling families, many times. she's a christian.

perhaps your yardstick is exceptionally long for christians and shorter for non-christians? i don't see how else a title could suddenly make someone bad.


Undo,maybe this quotes got some truth to it:

There were honest people long before there were Christians and there are, God be praised, still honest people where there are no Christians. It could therefore easily be possible that people are Christians because true Christianity corresponds to what they would have been even if Christianity did not exist.
G.C. Lichtenberg



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


and what is that "way they would be", precisely, in your estimation? like, i get up in the morning, i pet my dogs, i feed them. i make coffee, i get some breakfast, i read, i pray, i listen to some music, i surf the net, i talk to my kids, i feed them, i joke with them, i encourage them, etc, i post on ats, i greet my husband, i feed him (or he feeds me), i joke with him, i watch tv with him, i encourage him, eventually, i go to sleep, and get up the next day and do that all over again.

what precisely have i done wrong? (not saying i never do anything wrong, because that would be a lie, but what part of my day to day life sounds like the epitome of evil to you?)



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


No you misunderstand-I think the quote is just saying they would have been nice people even if they hadn't been introduced to christianity.
In other words moral integrity is a human attribute and not a religious one.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Civil definitions of morality are useless because they're relative. Most people today wouldn't consider poorly dressed cheerleaders to be immoral. But they're leading others to sin because they're specifically marketed to arose the lust of the eyes - they encourage others to commit adultery. This is how we've been deadened to sin by the sinful - to call their immorality moral. And I'm not just aiming this at the tools of sin, but the people leading others into sin also, i.e. the marketers who encourage sin simply to make a buck. Woe to them and their love of money.

That's why the bible uses absolute words like 'fornicators' or 'idolaters' or 'adulterers' to define sin. Not only that, even our attempts at goodness can have unintended side effects for which we are still responsible. That's why the sacrifices were aimed at unintentional sins. Few probably appreciate this, but Jesus declared on the cross that our sins were unintentional, as our intercessor, specifically so a sacrifice could be offered. Without that first statement from the court of the cross, where would we be in our intentional and repetitive sin?

To the issue of love demonstrated by Jesus, I think it's interesting how casually people bandy this about to suit their own purposes. They don't want to admit that the greatest commandment wasn't just to love, it was to love the Lord your God...and if you love him, you'll keep his commandments. You can't love Jesus and hate the law.

Jesus released the woman caught in adultery but he told her to go and sin no more. Why? Proportionality. If they were going to start enforcing the law that day, then they needed to address it uniformly. Where was the man caught in adultery with this woman? For all of you saying that OT and NT God are different, what do you think Jesus meant by "go and sin no more?" Did he mean go love everyone, because that's the new way of doing things? No, he meant don't commit any more adultery. By *not* committing adultery, she would be, in fact, loving her neighbor as herself and keeping the second greatest commandment, which is the back half of the 10 commandments.

So, no free passes. In God's mercy, the wrath of judgment has been suspended for some time now. The hour is late and the harvest is ripe. Who is going to turn from their sin and seek forgiveness from God? He says many times that he is quick to forgive. Is 55:6-7. Or are we just going to keep playing games with our sin, twisting the bible to suit our perversions, and playing word games until the clock runs out?



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Ichabod
 


On morality:


"Religion is no more the parent of morality than an incubator is the mother of a chicken.”
Lemuel K. Washburn

“One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion".
Arthur C Clarke

A man would follow, today, the teachings of the Old Testament, he would be a criminal. If he would follow strictly the teachings of the New, he would be insane.
Robert G. Ingersoll


On taking the bible literaly:

If the passage is historically and scientifically accurate, then it is to be read literally, but if the passage is obviously wrong, then the passage is to be taken allegorically. "This "catch-all" non-argument is rigged. It allows the literalist to pick and choose which passages are symbolic or literal depending upon twentieth-century knowledge. The catch-all has also shown unabashed hypocrisy over the years as literalists shift and change their position regarding the Bible as knowledge has advanced which necessitates this "waffling." A literal interpretation is also a dangerous game, because on dozens of occasions over the past 400 years, contemporary discoveries or scientific advances have contradicted orthodoxy and literal interpretations of the Bible. Whether or not the literalist wants to admit it, their position has moved more perhaps than the allegorist as, over the centuries, so-called "literal truths "turn out to be little more than ever-changing dogmatic disagreements, scientific impossibilities corrected, and ideological shifts in aesthetics. Hence, the literalist's understanding of a passage is not so much "what," but "which" of the several throughout time you choose to believe at any given time since a literalist has no choice but to understand a passage within the limitations of his own time and place. Ironically then, Allegorists are Literalists who are tired of playing this game and desire more stability in their understanding of the scriptures.



[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Not sure what you want me to take from this. Your quotes are opinions no different than mine unless ACC has been resurrected from the dead. He wrote some fun fiction. Fiction. Get it?

The bible, both OT and NT are written using all the elements of language. That includes everything from historical accounting to hyperbole and parables. It uses the word "like" quite a few times also. Since it uses language to its fullest, am I supposed to discard it?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join