Bible law exceeds God’s “Eye for an Eye” law.

reply to post by Artanis667


You wrote:

["I appriciate your more constructive input but I think we're seeing here, why, these types of debate go on for ages. Not that either one of us expected otherwise of course. Going from the bottom up"]

Thanks. I'm not ONLY made of vinegar, some theists I get peacefully along with quick. It depends on the level of pushiness in the theist message and on the qualitative level of the argumentation. I don't like being approached, as if I'm a 10-year old imbecile. I don't believe anyone does (apart from those who actually are 10-year old imbeciles).

Quote: ["I don't know what or how to present evidence other than scripture or other ways I have been."]

Those are kind of the 'magic' words. You have a faith.....period. And as a faith is a subjective phenomenon, there's no way to excel it above other faiths. Extremists with elitist and monopoly ambitions disregard this and start to push, invade or even become violent. Consequently giving themselves and what they stand for a bad name.

Non-extremists have a good reason to be wary and present adequate opposition early.

Quote: ["I suppose testimony may be another way but im almost certain that would be considered hearsay. We both know i'm not going to be able to write up a scientific theory based on method and results or present mathematical formulas that say "Jesus was right"."]

Logic, philosophy in general, demonstrable individual and social merits in precise contexts...there are other options than hard science.

Quote: ["What if I were to say "reincarnation is fake" how would you be able to show me otherwise with the type of evidence you want to see from me? How would that look, so I can get an idea of what it is. Maybe that was a bad question, if so, ignore."]

I think it is a good question, but that the answer: "It is a fake" is a bad way of answering it. "It is a fake" is a gnostic (positivistic, absolute) answer without evidence. It's like saying: "There IS NO 'god'".

Concerning incarnation I would say. The evidence is insufficient.

And subjectively and personally I'm sceptical to reincarnation.

Quote: ["I guess what I can say from my experience, the proof I have has been through my life, the real, strong feelings that have shaped my heart, the powerful experiences and realizations that God is in controle of everything. Everything serves it's purpose to God, wether that purpose is known to them or not. Of course the things im talking about are nearly impossible to convay in an equal way they were to me, seeking and seeing God's work within you for yourself is the only way. Ask and you shall recieve"]

Other people have other experiences and have different conclusions, equally valid for them individually and for mankind in general.

Quote: ["If you honestly believe "Lucifer" to be a more sympethetic character than Jehova or the son Jesus, I suggest you look at the nature of Satan."]

It's VERY unlikely, that Satan and Lucifer are the same entity, considered from biblical texts. It always surprises me, how easily christians accept the myths growing inside their own myths (Lilith was e.g. a popular figure in medieval christianity, but hardly mentioned in the bible).

But in any case first a few words of satan. He was a bureaucrat in the divine adminstration, whose job was something between a prosecutor and an agent provocateur. Satan is initially not a name, but a job-description. Rather late in OT he comes at odds with Jahveh, who considers satan over-zealous in the role as provocateur, but this is long after Eden, so the talking snake with legs can't have been satan either (as the snake is presented as the adversary before Jahveh and satan fell out).

Lucifer ('the lightbringer') isn't mentioned much in the bible, and when, mostly for his/her leadership-role in 'the war in heaven', where (s)he appears to have a rather liberal attitude in opposition to self-proclaimed authority.

Any liberal lightbringer is a friend of mine, be he/she/it a fictive character or 'real'. And as to 'reality' in this context I find a 'war in heaven' a reasonable option, only not in a trans-cosmic sense (theories of ancient astronauts, inter-dimensional beings, pseudo-gods etc. give some meaning).

Quote: ["We both know neither buddhists or christians can only talk or only do."]

I believe, I earlier have presented the options I see amongst christians: Faith, law an 'do-good'. My strong criticism is clearly stated to be against the pushy 'faith'ist', and they talk and talk and talk. The unconditionally 'do-gooders' are sympathetic and don't talk too much.

Quote: ["Christians cannot include laws from the OT that are not ment for them."]

Nonetheless many considering themselves christians DO. So who are the true christians?

Besides the laws per se are just an extention of the whims of Jahveh, who from a position of self-proclaimed authority sees fit to change them according to the 'political situation' (as usual I'm talking about the character in the bible, not 'reality').

Quote: ["Could you explain what you mean about Melchizedek? As far as I know, he's only in Genesis 14 for a short time."]

He turns up a couple of times in OT, and is what Paulus eventually falls back on, to establish his (Paulus') own 'authority' on the Jesus-interpretation. (I've forgotten the exact place, but it's easy to find for anyone interested).

Quote: ["Have you loved someone and they asked you to do something you may or may not felt like doing, but you did it anyway because you love them? Do you see this as obedience?"]

I don't react the way your example suggests. I make a personal choice, in the context of how much 'freedom' is present. When 'authority' is implied to some extent, I can't make choices, I'm forced.

If YOU 'love' the 'god' you've decided on, and thus choose from this, fine with me.

But even if this 'god' of yours existed, I wouldn't 'love' him, nor would I accept his authority. Back to square one: A subjective position, on par with other similar positions, PUSHED on mankind.

Sorry, a little irony: "I repeat this message once again, which you in spite of having heard some tens-of-thousand times before and in spite of its simplicity, you STILL may not understand".

It's an insult to suggest, that opposers of the message are so dumb, that number 20.000 presentation of it should make a difference. The fact is, that you guys hope to break down resistance by droning on and on and on; and through sheer indoctrinary repetitive steam-rolling tactics brainwash people. I regret to say it, but you use this on me, sending out the identical postulate in allegory form in every post.

Quote: ["I don't see how science or logic concerning the cosmos relates to values."]

Science/logic relate to cosmos, and do it well. 'Outside' cosmos (if there is an outside) science/logic do not have the same degree of 'truth' as 'inside'.

Quote: ["Really the only conclusion you can come to is that if you ask for it, God will open your heart."]

If that's, what you believe subjectively, no problems. If you want to make it a general, universal truth for everybody: Validate it.

Telling stories, constructing allegories or using circle-arguments is NOT validating, in the for reciprocial communication necessary use of 'objectivity' (something not based on subjective values).

Quote: ["It's fine however you read the bible, but don't read it to "see what all this nonsense is about". If you come with an expecting mind, that's how you'll see it."]

That would disqualify me from reading any ideological texts at all. And if bible-reading is only for the elect or for those with predetermined opinions on it, why push the bible on mankind?

Quote: ["Pray, ask God, who IS there and will hear you, to lead you, give you discernment."]

All religions and ideologies have the same: The approved method leads to the approved answers. Examining methods are frowned on, because they don't lead to the pre-determined answer.

(PS It may be relevant to ask you: Do you understand the concepts 'subjective' and 'objective' and the use of them. I'm not asking if you agree on anything, only if you know these concepts).

What is missed here is that even if you do not believe in 'God', It still Is.
I could say i do not believe in gravity, or life but saying it or believing in it will not negate it.

This is.
What ever it is.
It is.
What it is, we don't know.
God only Knows.

We can assume the responsibility of owning our life. It is then a drain, a struggle, like any possession it has to be maintained and cared for. The struggle for survival. This is the belief!!

Or we can realize that we don't possess life, we are life.
Life sustains itself.
Life is god.
This is faith.

Take life apart to see how it works and it will be dead.
The universe is perfection.
One song.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


You wrote:

["What is missed here is that even if you do not believe in 'God', It still Is."]

A postulate.

Quote: ["I could say i do not believe in gravity, or life but saying it or believing in it will not negate it."]

Gravity can be demonstrated to such a degree of axiomatic certainty, that it's a workable 'truth' in cosmic contexts.

reply to post by bogomil


Are you here?
What are you?
What is life?

The obvious fact that we are here-( and in your own words) 'can be demonstrated to such a degree of axiomatic certainty, that it's a workable 'truth' in cosmic contexts'. Even if we don't understand it, it works remarkably well.

It is the great mystery.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bogomil

 

Are you here?
What are you?
What is life?

The obvious fact that we are here-( and in your own words) 'can be demonstrated to such a degree of axiomatic certainty, that it's a workable 'truth' in cosmic contexts'. Even if we don't understand it, it works remarkably well.

It is the great mystery.

And great mysteries can not be 'explained' by self-proclaimed overall 'absolute truths'.

Smaller bit of the great mystery can be explained well in a context of 'relative reality'. Nothing strange about that, and it functions.

Originally posted by Greatest I am


Much of what Jesus said was simplistic rhetoric that does not work in real life.
Turn the other cheek.

Regards
DL

I beg to differ....
In a serious application , not a sexist moronic analogy using rape (hint - your wife and your daughter are people, not your posessions to "give", dickwad) turning the other cheek works fine.
Also, you ignore that Jesus was less critical of divorce than you seem to think... It's nice to see all the angry-atheists come out to play, like flies to a cake left to cool on the bench!
Hi, Bog, Madness and Awake and Ignore...
Yes, I said ignore, as you guys have deliberately ignored once again someone's pointing out to the different between Old and New testamants and the purpose of the new.
When I see threads like this I feel like saying "Why not take it up with the Jews? (But of course you don't want the #-storm that would descend on your heads if you were seen or thought to be attacking Jews!

Originally posted by Artanis667

I appriciate your more constructive input but I think we're seeing here, why, these types of debate go on for ages. Not that either one of us expected otherwise of course. Going from the bottom up

The trouble with this man, Artanis, is that he's a troll! I wasted days answering everything he asked, only to be asked the same thing worded slightly differently... He's a leech, he'll suck all your energy, you'll go insane trying to reason with him - and then if you're really lucky, the Gabby woman will come along and make like a Rottweiler telling you how 'unloving' you are, because you don't have infinite time, infinite patience and infinite naivete...
Vicky
(I've been through the whole cycle, and I sing along with Pete Townshend - "Won't get fooled again!"

reply to post by Vicky32

In a serious application , not a sexist moronic analogy using rape (hint - your wife and your daughter are people, not your posessions to "give", dickwad

Feminist detected. "Feminist angry, feminist smash!!"

I'm for the equality that's been promoted for quite a few decades now.

Oh by the way, one of the Jewish prayers states ""Thank you for not making me a woman"

"Why not take it up with the Jews?

i just did But i wasn't attacking them, just highlighting their ignorant dogma.

The Bible's quite sexist actually; the father, the SON (and something about a ghost)

Also, you ignore that Jesus was less critical of divorce than you seem to think...

He was less critical of slavery too; the truth being that he wasn't critical of it at all.

It's nice to see all the angry-atheists come out to play, like flies to a cake left to cool on the bench!

Nice similie. like the Papa Roach song, Angels and Insects; "us damn immoral, pesky, annoying atheists".

Yes, I said ignore, as you guys have deliberately ignored once again someone's pointing out to the different between Old and New testamants and the purpose of the new.

Let's forget the document which founded the Faith, let's forget Volume 1, and how the prophecies were fullilled in the New? I don't think so.

Christianity encompasses the Old and the New. The Westboro baptists beliefs are more consistent with the doctrine than most alledged "moderates".

He's some of Jesus "perfect" preaching. Passages numbers are there for verification. (do research!)

Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. Matthew 5:17

[Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn’t care for his preaching. Matthew 11:20

Abandon your wife and children for Jesus and he’ll give your a big reward. Jesus asks that his followers abandon their children to follow him. To leave your child is abuse, it’s called neglect, pure and simple. Matthew 19:29

Maybe Jesus was a martyr for his time, maybe his ethics and morals highly progressive for the time.

I'll even grant you the virgin birth, the ressurection, and the miracles; but it still doesn't prove

a) Jesus was the the son of God,

or

b)That thereby, his moral and ethical teaching was the best.

Maybe he was a real man, maybe we'll write a bible about Ghandi or Martin Luther King in a few hundred years; I hope not, probably get just as dogmatic and nonsensical and preachy.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

He was less critical of slavery too; the truth being that he wasn't critical of it at all.

Which, because it suits you, you (pretend) to take to mean that he was in favour of slavery. But your argument is absurd. This particular argument from silence is even more illegitimate than most uses of that technique.

Originally posted by awake_and_awareLet's forget the document which founded the Faith, let's forget Volume 1, and how the prophecies were fullilled in the New? I don't think so.

Christianity encompasses the Old and the New. The Westboro baptists beliefs are more consistent with the doctrine than most alledged "moderates".

So what have the Westboro baptists got to do with me, or with the 85% of Christians who are not American? You guys will never stop hammering away at the OT, it's too good of an argument. But you've happened to come up against someone me) who has very little knowledge of or interest in the Old Testament. I happen to feel there's enough excitement and positivity in the New.
As for your further attacks, I will let someone else deal with them, because at the moment I have other things to do. Arguing with Internet Atheists is like bringing up a rather nasty 3 year old with Global Developmental Delay. You teach him how to toilet himself, tomorrow he's "forgotten".
You explain that the cat doesn't like being drop-kicked, he 'forgets' and she mauls him, and patiently you put antiseptic on his wounds.
He twines his hands in your hair, pulling and twisting, until you scream with pain. For the millionth time you patiently explain that "that hurts Mummy, please, don't do it".
Then he says "Mummy is a bitch, a sadistic bitch. Daddy said that, and Daddy wishes you would go away".
Then you say "To heck with it, go live with Daddy then, I have run out of patience".
At least you do if you're me. I've had 7 years of Internet Atheists, and I know all the tricks.

reply to post by Vicky32


You wrote:

["Hi, Bog, Madness and Awake and Ignore...
Yes, I said ignore, as you guys have deliberately ignored once again someone's pointing out to the different between Old and New testamants and the purpose of the new."]

No blame, if you're not familar with the whole extent of my position. But I can assure you, that the OT and NT connection is not a white spot on my map.

You are undoubtly much better informed on many specific points concerning the bible, but my knowledge of the major bible-interpretation and doctrinal points is sufficient for me to form opinions. Not least because many such religious positions basically presents a limited amount of possibilities.

Ofcourse there are some differences between OT and NT, but seen from the perspective of what I consider the most unattractive about the christianities, these differences are cosmetic. It's still the same hierarchial system expecting a grovelling mankind to worship and say 'thank you for having the blame on a dysfunctional universe put on us'.

You probably don't like this attitude I have, but original sin and redemption are entangled, and to this day I've never heard any rational explanation of the Eden scenario. Only endless embellishments of a 'loving parent' freaking out because of thwarted authority-ambitions or that 'god' made the rules, so the rules are 'good' (a circle-argument, if I ever saw one).

Whether you and other theists like it or not, the overall game isn't played by your rules anymore. It's actually centuries ago that stopped.

And character defamations, painting opposition into corners and other similar efforts of silencing criticism/opposition are a couple of centuries to late.

So: Try to give me an explanation of genesis 2, presented in such a way that it's digestable to a contemporary, educated liberal.

I can believe in six impossible things before breakfast, but not because a fairytale is thrown my way.

reply to post by Vicky32

Which, because it suits you, you (pretend) to take to mean that he was in favour of slavery

Did i didn't "pretend" anything. I never stated he was in favour of it. But if he's so righteous in terms of his preaching (or has been sent by "GOD" almighty) surely that would be a start. Would have certainly saved many slaves owned by Christians many years of misery if Jesus stated blacks should not be owned, people should not be owned.

It just shows that it was because of the beliefs of men at the time, the cultural norms. If God exists ,is perfect, and omnipotent, then the word of God should be eternal and absolute. As you can see, it's the premature beliefs of our ancenstors which have long since died out; homophobia and geological superstition are just some of the few prejudices that SOME Christians have outgrown.

Unfortunately some still believe the scripture is the "word of God".

Arguing with Internet Atheists is like bringing up a rather nasty 3 year old with Global Developmental Delay.

Oh please, put the handbags down, stop throwing the mud. Comments like this just show you're ignorance of Atheism, and the ease at which you stereotype all Atheists yet it is only about a simple lack of belief in a deity.

What an Atheist thinks about religion is up to the individual. THere's no "dogma" attached to Atheism that says you have to attack religion.

So what have the Westboro baptists got to do with me, or with the 85% of Christians who are not American?

Your religious position in correlation to the founding scriptures of Christianity, and how it compares to other people's religious positions. There are many reformations of Christianity such as Mormonism, or the Church of England.

It just shows that people are willing to update the word of God, reform it, cherry pick it, twist it, claim that it's simply metaphorical.

As for your further attacks, I will let someone else deal with them, because at the moment I have other things to do

Attacks? Please go ahead and report my "attacks" to the mod. Highlight my ad hominems.

This is a debate, cricisim of religious dogma, or religious philosophy is not an "attack". It's like you expect me to agree, or not refute any of your points or arguments.

I thought, being religious n' all, you'd be a bit more mature than that?

Also, Jesus promoted attack rather than offense;

"I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" (Gospel of Matthew 10:34

I'm sure he offended quite a few, including the Roman establishment.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Your religious position in correlation to the founding scriptures of Christianity, and how it compares to other people's religious positions. There are many reformations of Christianity such as Mormonism, or the Church of England.

Man, you Americans make me cry! The church of England predates Bugtussle Baptist by centuries. The American inventiion Mormonism isn't Christian.
In fact a good case can be made for the Church of England (my church) being the original, inasmuch as it's Catholicism in all but name, and the Catholic church, whether y'all, you Elmer T Roscoe the Third thickos like it or not, is the original...
You picked on the wrong person there.. Do go away, I am fed up with debating you.

reply to post by Vicky32

Man, you Americans make me cry!

LOL. Guess you didn't check my location.

The American inventiion Mormonism isn't Christian.

Mormonism believes Jesus and Satan, like Christians, were spirit brothers and sons of God before the spirit of Jesus was given a body by Mary in Bethlehem.

Sounds remarkably similar to Christian dogma. We'll discount it though, as it's an "American Invention" - We'll pretend that it wasn't influenced by Christian scripture.

In fact a good case can be made for the Church of England (my church) being the original, inasmuch as it's Catholicism in all but name, and the Catholic church, whether y'all, you Elmer T Roscoe the Third thickos like it or not, is the original...

No, no it's not. King Henry VII formed The Church of England when the Roman Catholic Church wouldn't allow him a divorce.

You picked on the wrong person there.. Do go away, I am fed up with debating you.

Pleasant speaking with you too, Vicky.

Peace.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

LOL. Guess you didn't check my location.

No, I didn't - but then I didn't expect such ignorance from someone in the UK, about the Church of England! My guess is therefore, American in the UK, Irish or Scotsman.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Mormonism believes Jesus and Satan, like Christians, were spirit brothers and sons of God before the spirit of Jesus was given a body by Mary in Bethlehem.

Sounds remarkably similar to Christian dogma

It's not remotely similar! I expect woeful ignorance of Christian doctrine from men like you, but you've quite taken my breath away.

You're being particularly nasty and grating tonight, it's 02.12 and I am getting tired. You're getting on my last nerve, frankly. Debating the angry-atheists is like housework, it's no sooner over, than it's all got to be done again, and again, and again, going over the same ground...
Alister McGrath referred to the men who now spend their weekend summer afternoons shouting spite against women and Christians on the internet, as the same kind of eccentric old git my word not his) who would sit in the library writing angry letters to the editor in green ink, and barking at other library users to shut up,. because they disturbed his concentration.
Got nothing better to do with a summer afternoon?

reply to post by Vicky32

No, I didn't - but then I didn't expect such ignorance from someone in the UK, about the Church of England!

Please, highlight and correct my ignorance so i may have a chance to refute it. Thanks Vicky!

Do go away, I am fed up with debating you

You've already said this.

And now you're saying this:-

Got nothing better to do with a summer afternoon?

I could say the same to you, stop being such a hypocrite. Add to the debate instead of personal attacks. You sound like a really bitter Christian, you certainly don't act like Christ.

You certainly are doing a poor job of responding to a position with you mock with such ease.

Again, i'd appreciate if you could highlight my ignorance instead of trying to demean me by querying what i do with my time.

Thanks,

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

Please, highlight and correct my ignorance so i may have a chance to refute it. Thanks Vicky!

You said this: "There are many reformations of Christianity such as Mormonism, or the Church of England. "
Calling either of those things a "reformation" of Christianity is where you err...
The CofE has altered no doctrines of Christianity, none.
The Mormon thing is not Christian. I've already stated this, you're being asinine making me say it again and again...
You're very wrong if you think we're having a summer afternoon here - it's the middle of the night, so I haven't got anything else to do. You should have.

reply to post by Vicky32

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (abbreviated as the LDS Church and colloquially referred to as the Mormon Church) is a nontrinitarian restorationist Christian religion and the largest denomination originating from the Latter Day Saint movement founded by Joseph Smith, Jr. in Upstate New York in 1830.

In 1856-1858, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints underwent what is commonly called the Mormon Reformation

Like it or not, Jesus Christ is the founding for Christianity. Whether they believe the same dogma or not, it's still a reformation.

You're just arguing because you don't like Atheists, not because you have an argument, and not because you think i'm wrong. That much is evident.

Your posts highlight that you'd rather go after my person, than my argument. That much is evident too.

Start acting a little more Christ-like Vicky. I don't expect you to "love thy enemy" (Atheist) as Jesus taught, but it would be nice if you could demonstrate some manners and decorum.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (abbreviated as the LDS Church and colloquially referred to as the Mormon Church) is a nontrinitarian restorationist Christian religion and the largest denomination originating from the Latter Day Saint movement founded by Joseph Smith, Jr. in Upstate New York in 1830.

In 1856-1858, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints underwent what is commonly called the Mormon Reformation

Like it or not, Jesus Christ is the founding for Christianity. Whether they believe the same dogma or not, it's still a reformation.

edit on 5/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

You've got a cheek quoting "love thy (sic, it should be thine, sure you're not in the USA?) at me!
You're not important enough to be my enemy... Did you get that technique from Gabby the Canadian Rottweiler? Guilt trip the Christian, and if they dare to not be a doormat, accuse them of being 'unloving'...
Mormons can say they're Christian til; the cows come home, but they're clearly not. I am not going to keep repeating that until one of us dies, though you love the attention and like a nasty little schoolboy keep shouting "Teacher/Mummy ' (choose one) "Look at me, poo, bum, #," until you're told off, and then starting it all again. Some kids are so starved for attention, they'd rather get a caning than be made to feel insignificant.
I notice you've given up your asinine claim about the CofE...

reply to post by Vicky32

You're not important enough to be my enemy..

You don't understand what an enemy is. I AM your enemy. Theism is my enemy, i deteste it and i see it as a direct threat to the stability of civilisation.

You've spent all this time, just making personal attacks, you're showing how pathetic your arguments are, and how pointless your words are if they are to be spent making ad hominems and comments about how "no one picks on the Jews" - Boo hoo Vicky, boo hoo.

You've already declared:-

a) You're too important

and

B) You have better things to do.

So good riddance! Au revoir! Auf Wiedersehen!

I'd rather be spending time resonding to people who can share perspectives with manners, and civility.

I'll expect a reply, as you clearly want the last word despite how rude and ignorant it might be.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

You don't understand what an enemy is. I AM your enemy. Theism is my enemy, i deteste it and i see it as a direct threat to the stability of civilisation.

Wow. Just wow! I said "you're not my enemy", which is the same as saying "Christians don't hate atheists", and your reply is " I AM your enemy, I deteste (sic) theism"..
That's quite an admission! I refuse to hate you or call you enemy, but you won't let that pass - you have to make it plain that you hate me that peacefulness is not an option, that you despise us and want us removed from 'civilisation'.
I am keeping this and it will be quoted to anyone who accuses me of being the unloving one!
V