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

reply to post by Greatest I am


I think the bible also says something about giving other cheek and loving your peers (or something like that, I don't know the english version) so, if you think about it, the eye for an eye law was overwritten with the new testament

Originally posted by mbartelsm
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

I think the bible also says something about giving other cheek and loving your peers (or something like that, I don't know the english version) so, if you think about it, the eye for an eye law was overwritten with the new testament

Much of what Jesus said was simplistic rhetoric that does not work in real life.
Turn the other cheek.
I can see the logic of that somewhat if we are talking about treating the thief as a charity case but if you try to apply that saying to rape for instance, what is one to do?
Offer the wife after the daughter has been raped?
See. It does not work the same way as much of Jesus' rhetoric does not work.

Take Jesus in another instance. He promoted that for divorce, let no man put asunder should be the norm, yet today, it seems like the majority of so called Christians are divorced.
Most have good reason for it and Jesus was wrong to promote that unhappy people should refrain from trying to find happiness with a better mate.

Whose law do you follow? Secular law or religious laws?

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
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.

edit on 4-6-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

I agree that the universe is perfect. God would have it no other way.

Do you also recognize, as I do, that all within that universe is perfect and that so are we all?
I call us evolving perfection.

Just so you know, your God is not my God as my God id natural and not supernatural but the fact that the universe is perfect stands but I give credit to the anthropic principle and evolution.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Vicky32

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!

Typical theist. Can't refute a premise so go for the personal and name calling. How droll.

Show your better side and show where Jesus endorsed anything but let no man put asunder.

Regards
DL

reply to post by Vicky32

That's quite an admission! I refuse to hate you or call you enemy, but you won't let that pass

LOL

Detesting Theism doesn't mean i deteste individual members, although, as part of Theism, they are my INTELLECTUAL enemy. I wouldn't be so unintelligent to start an ACTUAL war, like some religious fools.

that you despise us and want us removed from 'civilisation'.

I want organised religion, and fascist dictatorships based on monotheism removed from society. It's nothing but a hinderance to soldarity and progression of ideas, because of idiotic prejudice being preached, pretending it's the word of God, when it's the word of PRIMITIVE man.

That's quite an admission! I refuse to hate you or call you enemy, but you won't let that pass

Good, i refuse to hate you, i refuse to call you enemy. I'll continue to hate Theism and call it my enemy, becuse it is an enemy to civilisation, it's ruining it.

Belief in God won't ruin our civilisation, religion will, sinister dogma will. Deism isn't my enemy, Theism is.

I am keeping this and it will be quoted to anyone who accuses me of being the unloving one!

LOL, i'm saving this thread too! It's pure gold.

reply to post by Vicky32

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.

Ok, we've been through this - Are you going to explain why i am wrong? Or are you going tell me i'm wrong?

I'm anxious to correct my own ignorance; please demonstrate why Mormonism is, in no way, a "reformation" of the original Christian doctrine.

THANKS!

The CofE has altered no doctrines of Christianity, none.

The English Reformation was the series of events in 16th-century England by which the Church of England broke away from the authority of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church.

The Church of England IS a reformation, again, as i've ALREADY EXPLAINED; King Henry VIII disagreed with the Roman Catholic Church!

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

LOL, i've said nothing ignorant so far, which shows you are a lazy researcher, a lazy reader and a slanderer. Deal with it.

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Show your better side and show where Jesus endorsed anything but let no man put asunder.

Regards
DL

When he made an exception for cases where one partner had been unfaithful, obviously!
Vicky

reply to post by Greatest I am


You wrote:

["Just so you know, your God is not my God as my God id natural and not supernatural but the fact that the universe is perfect stands but I give credit to the anthropic principle and evolution."]

How much importance to put on this addition?

Personally I would say, that the (STRONG) anthropic principle is a rather central point in the present three-sided debate (four-sided if my position as a methaphysicist/mystic is included: Theism, deism, agnostic atheism and metaphysics/'mysticism').

The strong anthropic principle actually demonstrates the DYS-functionality of cosmos. It's a patchwork answer to a patchwork universe, in the form of negative enthropy, giving cosmos some extra time LOCALLY here and there (negative enthropy in its overall effect will HASTEN enthropy).

Such speculations can relate directly to the initial conditions of cosmos and to idealistic cosmogony, but need to be more in the deductive department than the inductive (where it started. I believe by the cat-guy Schroedinger as the author of a book called: 'What is life?' in the late forties.)

Including such an approach is not just parading worthless information, it's a way of (tentatively) bringing an element of potential objectivity into the whole situation.

Sofar on this thread the pro-theist side have presented faith-arguments (fair enough, if played with true colours and non-invasively) or uselessly concentrating on character analyses (to the exclusion of factual arguments: I would still like to hear how the shyster Melchizedek can arrange contracts on the behalf of all mankind).

An inclusion of 'evidence' (however hypothetical) can't be all bad. Mankind has on pragmatic grounds decided positively for 'evidence'; pushers of ideology have to relate to that, whether they like it or not.

PS Anybody understood a word of what I'm saying? I often have problems with translating such concepts to normalese.

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Show your better side and show where Jesus endorsed anything but let no man put asunder.

Regards
DL

When he made an exception for cases where one partner had been unfaithful, obviously!
Vicky

He chastised Moses for doing just that.
Try again. Bring a reference because I know you will not find one.
Lie to yourself but do not do so to me.

Regards
DL

reply to post by bogomil


I put absolutely no importance to the Godhead I know.
It has evolved from what it was just as I have.
Since it demands nothing, there is no reason for me to give it anything.
I will say I was pleased to discover it and thankful for the advise given, to think more demographically but that is all.

And yes, you should practice speaking human.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Vicky32

 

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.

Ok, we've been through this - Are you going to explain why i am wrong? Or are you going tell me i'm wrong?

I'm anxious to correct my own ignorance; please demonstrate why Mormonism is, in no way, a "reformation" of the original Christian doctrine.

THANKS!

The CofE has altered no doctrines of Christianity, none.

The English Reformation was the series of events in 16th-century England by which the Church of England broke away from the authority of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church.

The Church of England IS a reformation, again, as i've ALREADY EXPLAINED; King Henry VIII disagreed with the Roman Catholic Church!

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

LOL, i've said nothing ignorant so far, which shows you are a lazy researcher, a lazy reader and a slanderer. Deal with it.

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

Originally posted by Greatest I am
reply to post by bogomil

 

I put absolutely no importance to the Godhead I know.
It has evolved from what it was just as I have.
Since it demands nothing, there is no reason for me to give it anything.
I will say I was pleased to discover it and thankful for the advise given, to think more demographically but that is all.

And yes, you should practice speaking human.

Regards
DL

My post to you actually centered on your own inclusion of the anthropic principle, which is one of the potential meetingpoints between science and metaphysics. Sorry if I didn't get across.

Having car-mechanickiry hidden amongst my various kinds of knowledge, I couldn't even explain some of the simpler functions on a car in 'normalese'. 'All and everything' is an even greater challenge to my linguistic skills, however they are.

But I appreciate your witticism. "Suppose they wanted to start a war and everybody laughed".

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by Greatest I am
reply to post by bogomil

 

I put absolutely no importance to the Godhead I know.
It has evolved from what it was just as I have.
Since it demands nothing, there is no reason for me to give it anything.
I will say I was pleased to discover it and thankful for the advise given, to think more demographically but that is all.

And yes, you should practice speaking human.

Regards
DL

My post to you actually centered on your own inclusion of the anthropic principle, which is one of the potential meetingpoints between science and metaphysics. Sorry if I didn't get across.

Having car-mechanickiry hidden amongst my various kinds of knowledge, I couldn't even explain some of the simpler functions on a car in 'normalese'. 'All and everything' is an even greater challenge to my linguistic skills, however they are.

But I appreciate your witticism. "Suppose they wanted to start a war and everybody laughed".

edit on 10-6-2011 by bogomil because: punctuation

If one is to kill, one may as well laugh.

Regards
DL