Okay, Which one is correct then?

a reply to: Plotus

Thank you.

a reply to: forthelove

First if you are going to study the Bible you need to know who was originally written too and why. the eye for an eye teaching was for Israel in the land. which pretty much ended in 70AD.

the turn the other cheek is for Israel, the Jews in preparation of them coming into the kingdom. This does not apply to Christians today because under the church teaching we are told, as much as it layeth with us we are to live peaceably with all men.

So that would mean if need be we can defend ourselves if under attack because obviously we cannot live peaceably with someone who is attacking us.

to explain the turn the other cheek and how it works in the kingdom it goes like this. Jesus Christ will be sitting on the throne, being God he sees all that is going on in his kingdom. If someone slaps you are to turn to him the other and if he is doing it unjustly, before he can strike the other cheek Christ will judge him immediately. Judgment comes swiftly in the kingdom.

Learning to rightly divide the word of truth is a commandment to the Church today.

One other things is an unsaved person trying to study the Bile is futile because the Holy Ghost is the instructor

originally posted by: In4ormant
a reply to: DaathSader

YOU said it didn't stand up to scrutiny. I asked you to elaborate YOUR stated position. I didn't demand anything.

You seem to just enjoy denouncing religion.

I already said everything that I have to say to you and am not going to get in an internet fight about religion which I do not enjoy denouncing.

I just enjoy telling it like it is. I am not your mentor and if you are already a Christian then you don't need me to ruin it for you.

But that you don't know what you are asking me to tell you is your job to scrutinize yourself which I have been doing for years and have had a million of these interactions.

It just is not history. It's mythology told as history called religion. No proof is required either way because anyone who understands knows the story is allegory based in part on some history.

If you think it is history then I have no desire to talk about it with you. I don't see it that way.

originally posted by: DaathSader

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: DaathSader

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: forthelove
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

And which version is supposed to be correct? That is my point, it is all a crock.

If you believe that then why are you wasting your time with it?

Are you just wanting to belittle the beliefs of others?

You don't like free speech?

I don't find what the op is doing to be belittling anyone.

Is pointing out something contradictory in a religion that swears it is the one true religion on earth belittling?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and the proof is towards the negative for Christianity so they hate scrutiny because they know it doesn't add up.

Not the op's fault. You are even trying to belittle someone FOR belittling someone and don't even notice how silly it is to do such a thing with such a superior attitude.

lol.

Who is they?
What scrutiny?

I am a Christian and not sure why you believe I have to provide proof of anything.

Scrutiny is when you examine something to determine if it is true. When you scrutinize Christianity from an unbiased perspective it doesn't stand up (to scrutiny).

I didn't ask you to prove anything I am saying that the proof doesn't exist.

I guarantee you would ask me to prove how it ISN'T true if I didn't type this though.

called it.

THEY always do (Christians), and offer as proof a book that has no corroboration.

And many contradictions.

If your going to make blanket statements about a subject and refuse to elaborate on why you deem your position to be fact then you need to find a new site.

The "it's right because I said it" viewpoint just paints you into a corner.

originally posted by: DaathSader

originally posted by: Plotus
Your purpose to come here was never for illumination but to sew division and mock wasn't it now. I can scarcely see any other reason for your OP. Being the author of "All religion is fake" bears witness of your disdain of God or religion. I suggest you proclaim any answer you want and head on down the road a Victor.

Why so hostile? It is a legitimate contradiction and if it is making you mad enough to respond with accusations my guess is that you don't understand and are equally confused about the contradiction and even more mad that you can't properly answer.

That's just it. It's not a "legitimate contradiction." Pointing out the two and saying, well, the Bible contradicts itself, therefore it is wrong, is simplistic and naive. The answer to that particular "contradiction" is easily apparent even if you know little of the Bible itself. Two different books. Two different peoples. Two different stories. Each within the context of their stories is perfectly consistent. The New testament came out of the teachings of Christianity and was written, in all its parts, well after the death of Jesus. The Old Testament, the story of a group of desert tribes, an amalgamation of stories going back millennia with some religion, some history, some mythology. The god of the Old Testament was one mean dude. The god of the New Testament is all sweetness and light. Man makes God in his own image--always has.

WHAT contradiction? There's no argument here.

And it's not as if it's never been discussed in an erudite manner by theologians, no less, as well as noted philosophers. If you REALLY want to become enlightened by the contradictions in the Bible, read Bertrand Russell's "Why I am not a Christian." He makes these sandbox tiffs look like the childish arguments they are. And read some theology, because you know what? It's surprisingly educated. If you were to actually visit and take part in discussions in seminaries around the world you would discover something amazing.

The overall opinion is that Jesus was a charismatic man with a message.

That's it. All this "ascending into heaven" stuff is mythology for the illiterate masses, half of which have an IQ 100 or below. It isn't the point. It's just to entice you to get there.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Out of curiosity, how does a person "rightly divide the word of truth."

And who commanded that? I have never heard of this before.

Please explain what dividing the word of truth means.

And who gets what part of the word of truth when it is divided?

originally posted by: DaathSader
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Out of curiosity, how does a person "rightly divide the word of truth."

And who commanded that? I have never heard of this before.

Please explain what dividing the word of truth means.

And who gets what part of the word of truth when it is divided?

They have to explain those statements and you don't yours?

What set of rules are you playing by?

a reply to: schuyler

I actually do have a great deal of knowledge of the contents in the Bible which is why I only take it as allegory, because the writers weren't writing history that was how people taught back then.

Mythology was something that united people and gave them incentive to learn and grow.

The trouble starts when people consider it history because it no longer makes sense in that form.

originally posted by: DaathSader
a reply to: schuyler

I actually do have a great deal of knowledge of the contents in the Bible which is why I only take it as allegory, because the writers weren't writing history that was how people taught back then.

Mythology was something that united people and gave them incentive to learn and grow.

The trouble starts when people consider it history because it no longer makes sense in that form.

Why do you doubt they were writing history? Where did you get this information?

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: DaathSader
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Out of curiosity, how does a person "rightly divide the word of truth."

And who commanded that? I have never heard of this before.

Please explain what dividing the word of truth means.

And who gets what part of the word of truth when it is divided?

They have to explain those statements and you don't yours?

What set of rules are you playing by?

I already did explain you are just trying to bug me now. You have my answer already.

Rules? I am allergic.

a reply to: DaathSader

I thro not that you have that much familiarity with scriptures or you wouldn't have tried to pass you opinion over as truth. [snipped]

originally posted by: DaathSader

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: DaathSader
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Out of curiosity, how does a person "rightly divide the word of truth."

And who commanded that? I have never heard of this before.

Please explain what dividing the word of truth means.

And who gets what part of the word of truth when it is divided?

They have to explain those statements and you don't yours?

What set of rules are you playing by?

I already did explain you are just trying to bug me now. You have my answer already.

Rules? I am allergic.

And to debate obviously.

The bible is full of historically accurate information on egyptians, Israel etc. It also has historically accurate information on geography.

Again, you make blanket statements on myths and allegory and offer up your opinion as the proof.

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: DaathSader
a reply to: schuyler

I actually do have a great deal of knowledge of the contents in the Bible which is why I only take it as allegory, because the writers weren't writing history that was how people taught back then.

Mythology was something that united people and gave them incentive to learn and grow.

The trouble starts when people consider it history because it no longer makes sense in that form.

Why do you doubt they were writing history? Where did you get this information?

I read the Bible. It's not history. Go to any library or book store and go to the history section.

No Bibles. Because religion is not history. There is one true history but thousands of religions. I doubt any of them are history.

originally posted by: DaathSader

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: DaathSader
a reply to: schuyler

I actually do have a great deal of knowledge of the contents in the Bible which is why I only take it as allegory, because the writers weren't writing history that was how people taught back then.

Mythology was something that united people and gave them incentive to learn and grow.

The trouble starts when people consider it history because it no longer makes sense in that form.

Why do you doubt they were writing history? Where did you get this information?

I read the Bible. It's not history. Go to any library or book store and go to the history section.

No Bibles. Because religion is not history. There is one true history but thousands of religions. I doubt any of them are history.

You read the Bible and it's not history. What is the definition of history?
I'm glad you came here to enlighten everyone.

We can all go home now people, this person has spoken.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: DaathSader

The way that God rightly divides about people groups 1Cor 10:32, by using the who, what, when, where, why, which and how questions. Historical context must be kept in its own context.

That doesn't make sense. Who is being divided? Is it a race thing? Because I am pretty sure that the NT eliminated the Jew vs not Jew distinction and I can't see what you could possibly mean by dividing the word of truth.

Is one part only true for certain people, and not true for the rest?

a reply to: DaathSader

Quote the verses if you can. where races were done away with.

1 Corinthians 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

I guess God didn't get your memo that the race issue was solved already.

Try reading Paul's inspiration to the church in his writings.

a reply to: In4ormant

Ok I get it, you don't like my thoughts.

Nothing personal dude, I get my thoughts and you get yours. No need to be an instigator you ask questions and insult when answered, or if not answered.

So I think we are done.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Paul who?