Thank U IamsSon for standing up. Its a small flock, and as you know, many will not find the straight and narrow path.

You have not read the story.

Lot did not leave his married daughters. Lots daughters came with him as did Lot's wife. Each of them were told NOT TO LOOK BACK. Lot's wife disobeyed and was killed.

To break it down for you to understand....

Leonardo don't go into the burning building. You go into the burning buidling and it collapes right on your head. You have just committed suicide, why? You were told NOT TO go into the burning building, you didn't listen. Thus your death is your fault and your fault alone.

The Father (whom u call g-d) is not to blame, you are for your disobedience.

The answers you seek can only be given, from the one that knows all of the questions...and the answers.


Ask and it shall be given to you....

Seek and you shall find...

Glow, well here we have it the spew of 'hatred' and righteousness son was speaking of....Hmmm* It may be that you haven't looked at this before outside the dogma box......Anytime i can be of assistatnce let me know

PS this is a skeptics participation forum , sometimes it gets raw and we llook at things very intensely, it was for me at first but you will learn alot and grow. and become a better person in the process....,there are some amazing folks on here including the ones you hate right now, the ones taht rattle us the most often make us think the most........Its not personal.....

Who on eath knows "the father"? Sure, you got a billion or so who CLAIM to know God, but does anybody? No. If anyone did, do you not think they would stand out among regular people? The fact that you do not murder certain petty offenders makes Jehovah desire your death. So in what sense do you know this "father"?

Again, I quote Hebrews 10

10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance [belongeth] unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

That is a very frightening image of a "loving god". Basically saying.. everyone on this earth except certain psycopaths should be murdered without mercy and anyone less than Christian is deserving of much worse. Gee, what a loving God.

Ok - the Matthew and Mark ones you quoted are both of the same event, so I shall discuss them simultaneously. Neither passage advocates putting to death anyone who curses their parents. It uses this passage as an example of how the Pharisees have subverted the old testament law, which they repeatedly did. As for Acts, I'm not entirely sure what you find violent about this passage - it simply refers to being "cut off", not of being killed/murdered. I'd give you a deeper analysis of the passages, but right now it's *checks clock* 3:30am, and I'm falling asleep right here.

A fair point of view. Though the Bible never makes such a distinction between sins. Sin is sin is sin is sin. To be angry with your brother is the same as murder, according to the Bible. Looking at pornography is the same as adultery. THere's no ranking of sins, and just because we may disagree with the punishment does not make it any less the case. A murderer may feel they were justified in their murder and feel that life in prison is unfair, but they are still put there.

Read Romans 9. You may not like the answer, but that's the answer the Bible gives.

Anger may not be the right word. God cares about us. God loves us and wants us to be in relationship with him. WHen we reject him, it pains him, because there are consequences. I don't see it as a matter of anger, but a matter of justice. Nothing in the Bible is done on a whim. There is always the issue of sin behind it.

Your placing your own idea of what GOd is like and saying that God would act like this. What is this based on? Yes, I know I'm doing the same thing, but then again, I believe that we have a text that tells us what God is like and what God wants. You do not, I'm just wondering where you get your idea of how God would act? edit: just read your recent response, you even quote Who on eath knows "the father"? Sure, you got a billion or so who CLAIM to know God, but does anybody? No. Yet you write here as if you know how God would act in this situation. Just a thought

Like my earlier comment - read Romans 9

I guess that depends on what hell actually is. I guess nobody knows until we get there, but I take a different interpretation than that of eternal punishment.

I assure you, you ahve never received such a response from me. I have taken pains, even argued with other Christians, to point out that Jesus did indeed fulfil the law. Of course, the discussion then turns as to exactly what it means to have "fulfilled" the law, which is quite another discussion, I think.

Good night, folks.

LOL! Supra Sheri, you a such DELIGHT!

May the Father keep you, and bless you, May His face Shine upon you. May He give you and yours His Peace, TRUTH and Understanding.

I don't believe the bible as there is no evidence for any of it to be believed as true. And at this point many Christians will say, "well it must be true, its in the bible and thats the word of God". But the proof of a piece of text's reliability cannot be the existance of the text in the first place, thats completely illogical.

The whole thing is riddled with contradictions, it contains too much from other cultures' myths to be percieved as a unique "word of God", and its basis is ruined by the fact that the Catholic church (for example) can change elements of their belief (like purgatory for unbaptised children) when they see fit.

How is that the infallible word of God?

Ok - the Matthew and Mark ones you quoted are both of the same event, so I shall discuss them simultaneously. Neither passage advocates putting to death anyone who curses their parents. It uses this passage as an example of how the Pharisees have subverted the old testament law, which they repeatedly did. As for Acts, I'm not entirely sure what you find violent about this passage - it simply refers to being "cut off", not of being killed/murdered. I'd give you a deeper analysis of the passages, but right now it's *checks clock* 3:30am, and I'm falling asleep right here.

I think it's the height of ignorance and denial to say that the Matthew/Mark verses are not advocating murder. It is so amazingly straightforward:
15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
That also is backed up by the OT laws: Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:19, Deuteronomy 21:18-21

A fair point of view. Though the Bible never makes such a distinction between sins. Sin is sin is sin is sin. To be angry with your brother is the same as murder, according to the Bible. Looking at pornography is the same as adultery. THere's no ranking of sins, and just because we may disagree with the punishment does not make it any less the case. A murderer may feel they were justified in their murder and feel that life in prison is unfair, but they are still put there.

That's laughable. If the Bible doesn't rank sin, why not the "10^∞" commandments? Or the "7 billion deadly sins"?

Read Romans 9. You may not like the answer, but that's the answer the Bible gives.

"14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."[f] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[g] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden."

Basically saying... God's right, you're wrong. You can't call him unjust, you fool. Nothing you can do can change his opinion of you ,He'll do what he wants because nobody can judge him.
Really good answer, it makes God look like such a compassionate entity .

Anger may not be the right word. God cares about us. God loves us and wants us to be in relationship with him. WHen we reject him, it pains him, because there are consequences. I don't see it as a matter of anger, but a matter of justice. Nothing in the Bible is done on a whim. There is always the issue of sin behind it.

God cares about us. He loves us. Yes, because everyone sends the people they love to eternal damnation and torment. You really believe something like that is justified? Come on, I don't think you do.

Your placing your own idea of what GOd is like and saying that God would act like this. What is this based on? Yes, I know I'm doing the same thing, but then again, I believe that we have a text that tells us what God is like and what God wants. You do not, I'm just wondering where you get your idea of how God would act? edit: just read your recent response, you even quote [b]Who on eath knows "the father"? Sure, you got a billion or so who CLAIM to know God, but does anybody? No. Yet you write here as if you know how God would act in this situation. Just a thought
[/b]
I never said I KNOW God, let's not forget, I don't believe God exists. I'm theorizing as to how a super-intelligent and powerful being would think. Riddle me this. If you were somehow given the powers and knowledge of a God, what would you do? Would you help people, and sculpt a great and enjoyable world? Or would you torment people from afar, judging even their thoughts.. and torturing them should they step out of line?

Here's my beef with the God theory. If God made people, he purposefully made them who they are. That means he wanted people to be sinners. Don't even begin to bring up free will, because God decides what free will is. Free will is a human concept, God decides what we would be more naturally drawn to. For example, lust. If God created humans, God created lust. But lust is a sin, right? Well, for that you have God to blame. God doesn't want you to have sex before marriage, right? Then why did he make the desire for sex in humans begin around age 9-13? He would only make puberty start so early if he WANTED people to think about sex at a young age.

I guess that depends on what hell actually is. I guess nobody knows until we get there, but I take a different interpretation than that of eternal punishment.

Matthew 25:46 is pretty straight forward: "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."

I assure you, you ahve never received such a response from me. I have taken pains, even argued with other Christians, to point out that Jesus did indeed fulfil the law. Of course, the discussion then turns as to exactly what it means to have "fulfilled" the law, which is quite another discussion, I think.

ful·fill also ful·fil (fʊl-fĭl') pronunciation
tr.v., -filled, -fill·ing, -fills also -fils.

1. To bring into actuality; effect: fulfilled their promises.

I think the general meaning of "fulfill" also paired with the fact that he said NOT to destroy, and that not a stroke of the pen shall be lifted from the law, and then the fact that he quotes the law as correct in the new testament, is proof positive that "fulfill" meant something like.. bring to fruition.

KBA you never cease to delight me with your insight every time i read a post of yours i am struck by your insight and maturity, i can't beleive you are so young....


You would know very well now wouldn't you as you have lived a christain life and really beleived this stuff at one time or really wanted to correct, and came to this awareness and actually for you it woudl jsut be easier to deny it yet you don't and the price is high for you ?????? It takes incredible courage and bravery to stand up as you do to questiion and to see the blatant contradictions and admit it, not alot can do it kiddo....For some to make an authority wrong is far more terrifiing, sometimes the worst many, many parents and 'elders shun and take away love and approval to be right.....alot of folks can't handle being the unpopular one, it may be a gift for those that can...
What i find is a lot of time is wasted on making sense of things that have no place in any civilized society let alone modern day.....

For me it was a back-and-forth kind of process for a while. I started having my doubts and they were becoming just a little too much to simply explain away. But it was definitely a frightening step to make.. Kind of giving up a sense of security.. walking into the unkown. For a long period I was just "an extremely doubtful Christian", which put me in the right position to correctly evaluate Christianity. When you are Christian, the Bible becomes an absolute.. everything it says must be right and it's definitely the word of God. (At least when you're as devoted of a Christian as I would say I was.. the, church twice a week... prayer and quiet times every night, try to give people the good news, constantly worrying about purity type of Christian). I would blatantly state all the time that the Bible had zero contradictions or errors, and when someone showed me them I'd deny them and accuse the person of nitpicking. I then went from calling myself a Christian when I was really an atheist, to finally being a full-on atheist.

I wanted to make a topic regarding that sometime soon.. about how faith often is code for fear.



Yeah.. when a book is so highly in contradiction with reality (miracles, virgin births, a flat earth that the sun revolves around, Omnipotent beings talking out of the clouds, one man building a boat half as big as the titanic, etc.) I think it's really time it stop being taught as fact.

How can I believe in something that says the world was created in only 7 days?

sheesh.

Not that I mean to change your mind, as I do not believe in the bible myself really, but I don't think people take that 7days literally usually. 7 days to God could be thousands or millions of years. Or it could be some sort of metaphore.

That's the point. What about the other teachings in the Bible? How can we discern if they are also metaphors or things that should be taken literally?

I think it's the height of ignorance and denial to say that the Matthew/Mark verses are not advocating murder. It is so amazingly straightforward:
15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
That also is backed up by the OT laws: Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:19, Deuteronomy 21:18-21

But in context, he's quoting them as examples for the Pharisees, he's not saying "Now, follow this law". He's quoting the law and saying "your legalistic righteousness has corrupted this law - you hypocrite".

That's laughable. If the Bible doesn't rank sin, why not the "10^∞" commandments? Or the "7 billion deadly sins"?

The ten commandments are not the "top 10" so to speak. They are ten that have been given to live a godly life. The other laws are no less important.

"14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."[f] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[g] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden."

Basically saying... God's right, you're wrong. You can't call him unjust, you fool. Nothing you can do can change his opinion of you ,He'll do what he wants because nobody can judge him.
Really good answer, it makes God look like such a compassionate entity .

I told you you wouldn't like the answer, but nevertheless, that was the answer given. There's more in Romans 9 about this, with Paul postulating why if God hardens who he wants to harden then what is the point.

I never said I KNOW God, let's not forget, I don't believe God exists. I'm theorizing as to how a super-intelligent and powerful being would think. Riddle me this. If you were somehow given the powers and knowledge of a God, what would you do? Would you help people, and sculpt a great and enjoyable world? Or would you torment people from afar, judging even their thoughts.. and torturing them should they step out of line?

Here's my beef with the God theory. If God made people, he purposefully made them who they are. That means he wanted people to be sinners. Don't even begin to bring up free will, because God decides what free will is. Free will is a human concept, God decides what we would be more naturally drawn to. For example, lust. If God created humans, God created lust. But lust is a sin, right? Well, for that you have God to blame. God doesn't want you to have sex before marriage, right? Then why did he make the desire for sex in humans begin around age 9-13? He would only make puberty start so early if he WANTED people to think about sex at a young age.

Don't worry, I'm not going to scream free will. I don't believe in free will. But I think it is folly to think "ok, if I were God, what would I do", because my earthly perspective is so much smaller than God's perspective. If I were God what I would do would be different to what you would do and different to what everyone else would do. God has access to more information than we do. To use an example, when the Enigma Code was broken in WW2, allowing the allies to know every movement of the Germans, they heard wind of a planned strike on one of their towns (sorry, can't recall which town). They could defend the town, beef up defences, empty the citizens, but it would let the Germans know that they had broken the code. For this reason, the allies sat back and watched while their town was attacked.

Looking at this, we know 1 - that the allies knew about this attack, and 2 - they did nothing about it, therefore 3 - this makes them evil. But if we add in 4 - the Germans would have known about their code being broken, thus the allies losing one of their biggest advantages, then was it really so evil?

I believe absolutely no one knows the answer to that

That one little word that seems to cause so much strife on these boards - context

But in context, he's quoting them as examples for the Pharisees, he's not saying "Now, follow this law". He's quoting the law and saying "your legalistic righteousness has corrupted this law - you hypocrite".

How so? Seems to me he's angry at them for not obeying the law correctly. He refers to it as the commandment of God.

3Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, 'Honor your father and mother'[a] and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'[ 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' 6he is not to 'honor his father[c]' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

The ten commandments are not the "top 10" so to speak. They are ten that have been given to live a godly life. The other laws are no less important.

I still think you're mostly on your own in that belief. If they were all equal, there would only be one commandment and one law.... Do not sin. If none is any worse or better, the only necessary law is to avoid sin in its entirety.

I told you you wouldn't like the answer, but nevertheless, that was the answer given. There's more in Romans 9 about this, with Paul postulating why if God hardens who he wants to harden then what is the point.

It's not a matter of like and dislike, it's a ridiculous use of power, and only a being so greedy as a human would dream up a God like that.

Don't worry, I'm not going to scream free will. I don't believe in free will. But I think it is folly to think "ok, if I were God, what would I do", because my earthly perspective is so much smaller than God's perspective. If I were God what I would do would be different to what you would do and different to what everyone else would do. God has access to more information than we do. To use an example, when the Enigma Code was broken in WW2, allowing the allies to know every movement of the Germans, they heard wind of a planned strike on one of their towns (sorry, can't recall which town). They could defend the town, beef up defences, empty the citizens, but it would let the Germans know that they had broken the code. For this reason, the allies sat back and watched while their town was attacked.

You know what's funny? When I try to guess at decisions I would make if I were God, it's not that simple, he isn't human. Yet the Biblical God acts in a very human way. There's no new wisdom in the Bible, no astonishing ideas.. It's hardly an awe-inspiring text. The God in the Bible rules much like a dictator. You're with me or you're against me.. I'm always correct, don't dare challenge me or suffer the consequences... I'm above my own laws.

Looking at this, we know 1 - that the allies knew about this attack, and 2 - they did nothing about it, therefore 3 - this makes them evil. But if we add in 4 - the Germans would have known about their code being broken, thus the allies losing one of their biggest advantages, then was it really so evil?

Problem there is that a God doesn't have enemies who can actually harm him at all. He is the only one who can do any harm in the so-called battle. Doesn't matter how anti-God a human becomes, they're still defenseless and powerless against a God. God has the battle plans, he has them bugged, he can read their thoughts, he can see their future, and it doesn't matter if they know that he can. The only reason God has to judge people is to show them that he is powerful enough to do so. Say a blade of grass becomes conscious and can talk and starts making fun of you. Do you reach over and pluck it out of the ground? If you do so, it's only to show the blade of grass who's boss. The blade of grass can't harm you whether it opposes you or not.

Thanks for sharing my adopted son I think it is so poignant and honest and real, You should start a thread on 'fear funny hyper and i to have been tossing around ideas on a fear thread, i think it would be interresting...

I know even though i was athiest at 7 i too would say things like its not that bad, the path you have chosen calls upon one to rise above alot, in that though you just flower into a wonderful person, getting beyond needing others approval is so freeing almost like giving yourself permission to be the greatest person you can envsison, its really natural to be your best whatever that means to you,... a kid that is raised natural you see this they self correct they self advocate they make parenting a delight they are naturally all the things you would want for them the difference is you didn't limit them with pouring in garbage making things so much harder for them, its just who they are, not for any other reason., i think for those that dare to walk this path thats the thing that is so delightful that the constructs are in error religon has no clue on human nature ...... .. truthfully i can't wait to see you at 20...

One of the best and most thought-provoking responses I've ever seen on this issue!!


Can we take it one step further and ask another question? That question is, if humans have dealt ourselves this hand, do you reject human nature as well? And if you do, there's an out: Jesus Christ provides a way for you to shed your polluted human nature and follow righteousness and blessings.

The difference being that nature doesn't claim to be all-good. Nature obviously exists.

I can believe that God exists, but I reject his rule, beliefs, and ideas.

Can you prove it wasn't? Do you always outright reject anything that challenges you to think outside the box and give up preconceived notions?

Can you prove that it was? Do you always outright reject anything that challenges you to think outside the box and give up preconceived notions?

It's not. The Catholic Church has no business changing, adding to, or taking away from the Word of God. And honestly, I get very annoyed when I see how many people take some people or groups' wrong actions as negating the truth of what was right in the first place. How does the fact that the Catholic Church has perverted the Bible give you means to dismiss the whole thing altogether?

Because you have to wonder if the Bible we are reading today is authentic. Many books are not included in the official canon of the Bible. The authenticity of the
authors have bin questioned. The Bible in its self is a mix of metaphor and interpretation. Technically the entire Bible could just be a story not unlike Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. At any given time the Bible could have bin rewritten, edited, mistranslated, etc.

The Catholic Church and any offshoots of are the people who print the Bible. Way back when someone could have altered the texts of the bible without anybody giving much notice.

I believe that the bible is the inspired word of God and not the literal words of God. If one were to take the bible literally -you would go crazy.
It is obvious it was written with a slant towards many of the popular opinions of the times as well as being written hundreds of years after the actual events took place. Even the written books had to be pieced together due to the fact that the material they were written on had disintegrated and in many cases were missing large chunks of the original writing. It is hard for any free thinking individual to take a book like that literally.
I am sure that no one in this life time will ever have the answer in it's complete truth.

And this is the crux of religion. The 'my way is right and all others are wrong' attitude.

The bible was written, you say, by people who were divinely inspired. Still the word had to be interpreted by people before it was written. What if those in the CC were also divinely inspired and realised some of the original interpretation was incorrect? Would you say they were wrong? Who are you to say those who have altered the bible have not done so under the inspiration of God?

Before you cast stones, take a look at what your house is made of.

The bible is said to be inspired by god. i.e. god spoke to the scribes of the time. And in that we read horrific accounts of gods disrespect for life, equality, freedom and peace. Now, when someone commits a horrific evil act against humanity and claim god inspired the act, they're declared insane or delusional. Maybe it's because mortal actions like unto those god inspired in the ancient times, are now considered immoral and wrong. But in the pews of the faithful, those acts committed by mortals, inspired by god, are called the old testament!

So, in effect, those that worship the same god as that which inspired the old T, are worshiping a god that by mortal standards would be considered a serial killer and psychopath, today. And indeed there have been numerous representations of those inspired by that godly example, in the history of the 20th century. Jim Jones, David Koresh, etc... So, if one believes in the bible, which isn't hard to do since it's a tangible object, but they do believe the bible is the word of god, they have to recognize, in the context of the 21st century, they're first admiring what has become of man created in gods image. Deviance,oppression, terrorism and intolerance of others not considered "chosen" or member of that "elite", that are the only one's that god is believed to be speaking to, (as is testified to later by jesus) when he offers salvation in the new testament from earthly trials and travails, to ascend to the god that wrought all that is evil in 39 books/accounts, by ordering believers to destroy everyone else god created, in gods name.

KBA writes:
How so? Seems to me he's angry at them for not obeying the law correctly. He refers to it as the commandment of God.

3Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, 'Honor your father and mother'[a] and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'[ 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' 6he is not to 'honor his father[c]' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

Ok, now that I have some time on my hands, and can answer with more than a one sentence reply, I'll provide a more indepth look at this. When that passage starts with the phrase "Jesus replied" (verse 3).... what was it he was replying to exactly? The question he was answering is important in answering this. He replied to the question asked to him - Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!" (Matthew 15:1-2).

This is when Jesus replies with this statement that you have quoted. The Pharisees were criticising Jesus for not keeping what they perceived as the Law, so Jesus throws the question back at them and their legalistic (false) righteousness. According to the letter of the Law, they were not obeying it either. WHat hypocrites they are, he says. But since Jesus did not obey this part of the law either, he was showing a more important aspect - the Spirit of the Law, the underlying tone of Love your neighbour, that the Pharisees had forgotten (they would not provide aid for a sick/injured/dying person on the Sabbath because it would be considered "work".

Taking the question that Jesus was replying to in consideration, was Jesus saying they should keep every tenant of Law, like the hypocritical Pharisees claimed to?

I still think you're mostly on your own in that belief. If they were all equal, there would only be one commandment and one law.... Do not sin. If none is any worse or better, the only necessary law is to avoid sin in its entirety.

Not at all, there is even scriptural evidence to back this up - Matthew 5:19 - Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven..

You break one, you're sinning! End of story, even the least of the sins. I vaguely remember even a passage where Jesus tells someone "go, and sin no more", though I can't recall exactly where.

It's not a matter of like and dislike, it's a ridiculous use of power, and only a being so greedy as a human would dream up a God like that.

You don't seem to like the answer very much

Problem there is that a God doesn't have enemies who can actually harm him at all. He is the only one who can do any harm in the so-called battle. Doesn't matter how anti-God a human becomes, they're still defenseless and powerless against a God. God has the battle plans, he has them bugged, he can read their thoughts, he can see their future, and it doesn't matter if they know that he can. The only reason God has to judge people is to show them that he is powerful enough to do so. Say a blade of grass becomes conscious and can talk and starts making fun of you. Do you reach over and pluck it out of the ground? If you do so, it's only to show the blade of grass who's boss. The blade of grass can't harm you whether it opposes you or not.


I was using this as an analogy/example. I was not meaning to convey that we are at war and God is/are the allies, working to win a war. I was just using it as an example to show that God is privy to more information than we are. There need not be an enemy that God needs to keep information from. What I'm trying to say is that my reason for making that analogy was to simply show that God's decisions are made with a level of understanding/information that we just don't know/have, and never will know/have (at least, not in this life).

All the best

Regards, PA

Perhaps it would help the discussion if you alluded to whom you were speaking, PA. All the best. Do we pay Irish in beer, for stealing his exit line!?

Sorry GW, I guess I can see how it can be confusing. It's become a sort of little habit KBA and I have developed when responding to each other. As for the exit line, it seemed appropriate. I guess I'll have to owe Irish a Guiness for the royalties.

Guinness. Now that's proper payback.

Yes, it can be confusing, given how so many posts can come between you and the one to whom you are speaking. That's why I asked, so as not to interject something into that what's none of my business. Especially when a post appears directly beneath mine, sometimes it can appear to be speaking to me when it's not. Oddly enough, there's probably a medication for that one.

Ok, now that I have some time on my hands, and can answer with more than a one sentence reply, I'll provide a more indepth look at this. When that passage starts and "Jesus replied" (verse 3).... what was it he was replying to exactly? The question he was answering is important in answering this. He replied to the question asked to him - Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!" (Matthew 15:1-2).

This is when Jesus replies with this statement that you have quoted. The Pharisees were criticising Jesus for not keeping what they perceived as the Law, so Jesus throws the question back at them and their legalistic (false) righteousness. According to the letter of the Law, they were not obeying it either. WHat hypocrites they are, he says. But since Jesus did not obey this part of the law either, he was showing a more important aspect - the Spirit of the Law, the underlying tone of Love your neighbour, that the Pharisees had forgotten (they would not provide aid for a sick/injured/dying person on the Sabbath because it would be considered "work".

I don't know where you're getting "the love your neighbour spirit" from a verse where Jesus is saying "God says you deserve death if you disobey your mother and father". And washing your hands is not mentioned as a law, but a tradition. It seems more to me like he shifts the blame from himself to accuse them... and he's clearly criticizing them for not correctly following the law that God made for them to follow. I'm kind of surprised that isn't apparent to you... I dunno how more plain it can be.. I mean, he says honor your father and mother, if not you deserve to die, you've incorrectly followed that law. He just states that if you dishonor them you deserve to die, his real message has to do with the honor your father and mother part, but in calling up that alw as the righteous word of God, my point is that he shows that the laws were intended to be kept even with the New testament, and it just also happens to advocate murder of rebellious children.

Taking the question that Jesus was replying to in consideration, was Jesus saying they should keep every tenant of Law, like the hypocritical Pharisees claimed to?

Yes. He was. Besides, he's not saying that the law is in any way correct or invalid. Even if he is saying that there are situations where there's an alternative to strictly obeying the law, it's not like he thought for one second that if you didn't have a good reason (In the Pharisee's case, honoring God instead of their fathers and mothers), you didn't deserve death. Again, the scripture advocates the death of those who do not honor father and mother... whether he's trying to make a point in advocating it or not, he never changes the fact that God wants those people to be killed.

Not at all, there is even scriptural evidence to back this up - Matthew 5:19 - Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven..

Just for fun, I want to use the same argument I get when I quote that scripture: Jesus fulfilled the law so that verse doesn't apply anymore. Hop back two verses there, and again you and I both know how Jesus validates the OT law, "these commandments" meaning the law. So what is that verse to you? Valid or invalid? Is he fulfilling or removing? If you still consider it valid, which would make sense since you're using it to support your position, then you have to acknowledge that the commandments you're talking about do include all that murder, etc. And again, if that passage is true, everybody on earth will be called the least in heaven.

You don't seem to like the answer very much

Of course not, because it doesn't make any sense. It's saying God can do whatever he wants, including evil, and nobody is fit to judge him for that. Well, that sounds very much like a human God, once again.

I was using this as an analogy/example. I was not meaning to convey that we are at war and God is/are the allies, working to win a war. I was just using it as an example to show that God is privy to more information than we are. There need not be an enemy that God needs to keep information from. What I'm trying to say is that my reason for making that analogy was to simply show that God's decisions are made with a level of understanding/information that we just don't know/have, and never will know/have (at least, not in this life).

Well yeah, that's a great thing to say when the nature of God is under siege. Fact is he still does act like a human (and a very angry one to boot). He requires vengeance when someone defies him, he rewards his followers, he's unable to forgive without sacrafice.. etc. Although I have one request... that you apply your own argument when talking about your God. Don't call your God a loving one, because:

What I'm trying to say is that my reason for making that analogy was to simply show that God's decisions are made with a level of understanding/information that we just don't know/have, and never will know/have (at least, not in this life).

And one problem with waiting until the next life for certain information, is that no matter how faithful you are, the next life is not a guarantee... that's why it's called faith. We have to judge what we can about the things being presented in this life while in this life. Let whatever comes after unfold how it may. But for now, when there are prophets saying God wants these people dead and 2 billion people support their teachings, I think that's very Good justification to be inquisitive.

-KBA

I don't know where you're getting "the love your neighbour spirit" from a verse where Jesus is saying "God says you deserve death if you disobey your mother and father". And washing your hands is not mentioned as a law, but a tradition. It seems more to me like he shifts the blame from himself to accuse them... and he's clearly criticizing them for not correctly following the law that God made for them to follow. I'm kind of surprised that isn't apparent to you... I dunno how more plain it can be.. I mean, he says honor your father and mother, if not you deserve to die, you've incorrectly followed that law. He just states that if you dishonor them you deserve to die, his real message has to do with the honor your father and mother part, but in calling up that alw as the righteous word of God, my point is that he shows that the laws were intended to be kept even with the New testament, and it just also happens to advocate murder of rebellious children.

In Matthew 15, the Pharisees accused Jesus of breaking the law, right? (verses 1-2). In verse 3, Jesus turns this around on them and argues that they are doing the same. If Jesus is attempting to show in this discussion that the law should be followed, what does that say about the law that he and his disciples broke? I maintain that there is no mention and no indication that this law should be followed, it was only quoted as an example of how the Pharisees also did not obey the Letter of the Law.

P.S - that bit on "love your neighbour, spirit of the law" section was a bit of extra commentary by me. The Pharisees were condemned on many occassions for their legalism (this account we're discussing being only one of them). Jesus repeatedly reminds them that god doesn't care about legalistic righteousness, he cares about how we treat God and how we treat our neighbours. I was just expanding on that sentiment.

Just for fun, I want to use the same argument I get when I quote that scripture: Jesus fulfilled the law so that verse doesn't apply anymore. Hop back two verses there, and again you and I both know how Jesus validates the OT law, "these commandments" meaning the law. So what is that verse to you? Valid or invalid? Is he fulfilling or removing? If you still consider it valid, which would make sense since you're using it to support your position, then you have to acknowledge that the commandments you're talking about do include all that murder, etc. And again, if that passage is true, everybody on earth will be called the least in heaven.

I guess i'll take your word on that one. I've never said anything about this verse not applying. I believe the law has been fulfilled, not a single law has been done away with. Therefore, in that sense, they are all "valid". However, as I said, the law has been fulfilled. That is to say, the law may not work quite the same way it did in the past.

Although I have one request... that you apply your own argument when talking about your God. Don't call your God a loving one, because:

What I'm trying to say is that my reason for making that analogy was to simply show that God's decisions are made with a level of understanding/information that we just don't know/have, and never will know/have (at least, not in this life).

I agree to an extent, KBA. However, there is a slight difference in our stances, I think. You are projecting your opinion of how you would behave, assuming you were God. This is why I brought up the analogy in the first place, to show that we as humans do not have the required information to be able to choose to act as God does (this is assuming God exists). I have not made this argument. I have not said at any point, "If I were God, I would act like this.....". My arguments come only with what God actually did do, according to the Bible, not how I might act if I were God. That is the difference in our positions.

Regards, PA

In Matthew 15, the Pharisees accused Jesus of breaking the law, right? (verses 1-2). In verse 3, Jesus turns this around on them and argues that they are doing the same. If Jesus is attempting to show in this discussion that the law should be followed, what does that say about the law that he and his disciples broke? I maintain that there is no mention and no indication that this law should be followed, it was only quoted as an example of how the Pharisees also did not obey the Letter of the Law.


He refers to it as the word of God, and it is originally written as such. I think that infers that it should be followed. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that those laws are not to be followed, but it does quote them as laws, even in the NT. I think the only way you can say they were not intended to apply in later society by the authors of the Bible is by constantly adding a second meaning to scriptures that they themselves never said they had.

Just for fun, I want to use the same argument I get when I quote that scripture: Jesus fulfilled the law so that verse doesn't apply anymore. Hop back two verses there, and again you and I both know how Jesus validates the OT law, "these commandments" meaning the law. So what is that verse to you? Valid or invalid? Is he fulfilling or removing? If you still consider it valid, which would make sense since you're using it to support your position, then you have to acknowledge that the commandments you're talking about do include all that murder, etc. And again, if that passage is true, everybody on earth will be called the least in heaven.

I guess i'll take your word on that one. I've never said anything about this verse not applying. I believe the law has been fulfilled, not a single law has been done away with. Therefore, in that sense, they are all "valid". However, as I said, the law has been fulfilled. That is to say, the law may not work quite the same way it did in the past.

What does "fulfilled" mean to you in this case then? If they are all valid, they are the word of God, and they are written to be followed. You can't pick and choose. As Jesus himself said, the one who breaks even the least of the laws and encourages others to do so will be called least in heaven. It's just the fact that modern society has gotten a little sick of religious murder that that it's unacceptable today really, this is one reason I would hate to imagine living in a theocracy, because verses like them would give them justification among the people to do horrendous things. Whether you believe all the scripture is open to interpretation or not, the fact is that most will interpret it like it's written, and it cleary says ".... shall be put to death". While the amount is few those words in the Bible still cause murder today... (Although, it would appear that's what Jehovah wants. But it isn't MURDER if God wants it right? Only judgement?)

I agree to an extent, KBA. However, there is a slight difference in our stances, I think. You are projecting your opinion of how you would behave, assuming you were God. This is why I brought up the analogy in the first place, to show that we as humans do not have the required information to be able to choose to act as God does (this is assuming God exists). I have not made this argument. I have not said at any point, "If I were God, I would act like this.....". My arguments come only with what God actually did do, according to the Bible, not how I might act if I were God. That is the difference in our positions.

Fair enough.. then I will leave my assumptions to the Bible's God is an evil being.

-KBA

What does "fulfilled" mean to you in this case then? If they are all valid, they are the word of God, and they are written to be followed. You can't pick and choose. As Jesus himself said, the one who breaks even the least of the laws and encourages others to do so will be called least in heaven. It's just the fact that modern society has gotten a little sick of religious murder that that it's unacceptable today really, this is one reason I would hate to imagine living in a theocracy, because verses like them would give them justification among the people to do horrendous things. Whether you believe all the scripture is open to interpretation or not, the fact is that most will interpret it like it's written, and it cleary says ".... shall be put to death". While the amount is few those words in the Bible still cause murder today... (Although, it would appear that's what Jehovah wants. But it isn't MURDER if God wants it right? Only judgement?)

As with my last post, I may be able to give you a more indepth post later if you need it. For now, it's after 4am, and I'll consign myself to the short version (my mind's wandering in...... interesting directions, right now, lol). I take this law to be applicable only to the Hebrews at that time. That law was given to a nomadic society where family disharmony can literally result in the demise of the entire tribe. In order for the good of society, these laws were necessary at the time. Jesus fulfilled this law with a blanket statement concerning the Spirit of the Law - Love God, Love your neighbour, all the law rests on these two commands. Taking that into consideration, I take this law as to mean we are to honour our father and our mother, but in fulfillment of the law, as we are no longer a nomadic society, we need not kill/extradite those who do happen to curse their parents. Note that "cursing" someone is a very harsh term, not something someone would do everyday (it's not relatable to our modern idea of cursing as simply swearing at someone, for example).

Fair enough.. then I will leave my assumptions to the Bible's God is an evil being.

I guess I can accept that answer, if not agree with it. Thanks for taking the time to debate this, it's been one of the more enjoyable discussions i've had in recent times.

Regards,

As with my last post, I may be able to give you a more indepth post later if you need it. For now, it's after 4am, and I'll consign myself to the short version (my mind's wandering in...... interesting directions, right now, lol). I take this law to be applicable only to the Hebrews at that time. That law was given to a nomadic society where family disharmony can literally result in the demise of the entire tribe. In order for the good of society, these laws were necessary at the time. Jesus fulfilled this law with a blanket statement concerning the Spirit of the Law - Love God, Love your neighbour, all the law rests on these two commands. Taking that into consideration, I take this law as to mean we are to honour our father and our mother, but in fulfillment of the law, as we are no longer a nomadic society, we need not kill/extradite those who do happen to curse their parents.

I guess you could look at it that way, but I can't help but wonder why laws for nomads ended up in the Bible as commands from God? (They are nearly the sole causes of persecution of homosexuals over here in America).

I guess I can accept that answer, if not agree with it. Thanks for taking the time to debate this, it's been one of the more enjoyable discussions i've had in recent times.


Yes, interesting as always

-KBA

Nope, since if you look at the facts you'll find that much of the Bible was lifted from other religions, in addition you find strong evidence that most of the NT canonical works were not written by eye witnesses, were heavily edited and none were written during the supposed lifetime of Christ.

Where do you get this action on the father's part is approved of? Just because a story is told doesn't mean the storyteller is tellling you this was a good thing that happened. Why do people think that every story in the Bible is an approval of every action of every character. These are stories to learn from, stories about humans who sometimes did wicked things and sometimes did good things. Who told you people everything you read in the Bible is rubber-stamped and approved as ideal behavior? Have you no discernment?

Very mature. Did you learn that at daycare? I actually believe the universe is billions of years old like the rest of civilized society does. My point is that you seem to reject Christianity without examining it. Sure, you have all standardized objections, but have you ever studied it? You give the impression of criticizing it without actually having any content to your arguments rather than your opinions, which are commonly held and sustain themselves as people pass them around to each other.

Well gee, maybe because the bible gives no negative report on the actions of the "heros"?

It says in the story that Lot is the only 'good' man in the city, why else does god decide to spare him? Yet..... no mention is made that his actions were regarded as sinful, nor shameful.

Without any negative commentary, one must assume that the audience of the time thought this was good & proper behavior, no?

Really? No bad reports on the Bible's heroes?

So, David lusting after a married woman, sending her husband out to the front lines so he could die and then marrying her is a positive action?

And of course, telling about how Abraham was so cowardly that he asked his wife to say she was his sister so that he wouldn't be killed so the king could have her is such a great event in the history of Bible heroes.

And then there's the time that Peter, who the Catholics think was the first Pope lied to deny he knew Jesus.

And of course there's Paul, who was basically murdering Christians before he met Jesus on the road.

Come on JM, do you really need to be told, "Don't go offering your virgin daughters to lust-filled men to protect ANGELS sent by GOD, since God can't protect His own messengers?"

As I stated Iams..... FOR THE AUDIENCE OF THE TIME

Show me in the bible where it states Abraham was considered cowardly.

And Paul? If I remeber correctly, was cast as a villian, before his conversion.......

Peter was fulfilling your messiahs prediction, no? Thus demonstrating his power.

David, of the examples you listed, was the only one that god abandoned after his transgressions.


Even Isaac was considered "good & just" for following his gods instructions to sacrifice his own son on the altar.


How about it? If you recieved a vision from your god to take your son out and sacrifice him........ would you? Assuming as a given that it was your god, and not a "demon" or psychosis that you were listening to.

So, you lack the ability to decide on your own when someone's actions are not good?

You really think the audience of the time was so stupid they could not tell that some guy asking his wife to say she was his sister because he feared being killed was cowardly?

They were too dumb to tell that David lusting after Bathsheeba and sending her husband to the front and then having the army pull back so he could be left there alone to die was a bad thing?

If anything the Bible shows it's heroes being average, maybe even below average, guys, who only achieved the things they did because they allowed God to work through them.

To me that is what is so inspirational about the Bible, because I can look at any Biblical "hero" and see that I'm at least as good as any of them, if not better, and if God was able to use them to accomplish His work, then there is definitely hope He can use me.

Iams, when Moses had a breach of faith, and struck the rock twice, he was punished for this mighty sin, by being denied entrance to the promised land.

What terrible fate befell Abraham, Lot, Paul & Peter? Since the bible was big on listing the punishments, why weren't these guys punished?

Well, let's see, Abraham waited almost all of his life before God fulfilled His promise to give him descendants and because Abraham and his wife tried to take matters into their own hands, Abraham's descendants are still fighting and killing each other to this day.

Lot ended up basically being raped by the daughters he tried to offer to the men of Soddom and Gomorrah.

Peter was jailed, stoned, and eventually crucified for preaching the message of the guy he denied because he was afraid of being jailed or killed if he admitted knowing Him.

Paul was stoned, shipwrecked, and repeatedly jailed, and most likely died as a prisoner.

I believe in 80% of the bible. But it do believe that the bible has been cut up pulled aparted and glued together to suit the society at the time. I believe in God I do but there are some things in the bible i cant wrap my head around either im to early to understand them or they just dont work. I dont know

Son, time out my friend, this is the first time you have ever acknowledeged that Lot was a creep , a few pages ago you were telling me how hateful i was for suggesting Lot was not a good father, Joey was right with me saying Lot wasn't a very good guy too.....Now you are inferring how its common knowledge that the bible is full of humans that were downright heinous and calling themselves inspired by god to do these things for god ,this is what god would want....It seems you see the flaws too HMMM....

there is no need to jump on Joey scroll back he was the first to point out that this is no happy story, that maybe it should be looked at again.... You had this whole explanation were High fiving glow ...Hmmmm.... I see an apology in your near future....

I got this paragraph from the book "Secrets of the matrix" written by David Icke.

Jesus, the historical character

Outside of the New Testament texts there is no sign or record of Jesus whatsoever. A mention in the works of the "Hebrew" historian Josephus is an obvious later addition in the priesthood's desperation to cross-reference their meal ticket. More than 40 writers are known to have chronicled the events in Israel/Palestine at the alleged time of "Jesus" and not one of them mentions him. The writer Philo lived throughout the "life" of Jesus and wrote a history of the Judeans, which covered this whole period. Philo lived in or near Jerusalem at the time that Jesus was supposed to have been born to a virgin mother, made his triumphant entry into Jerusalem on a donkey, and was crucified and rose again. In this same period, King Herod is also claimed to have killed all those children trying to eliminate the "saviour" . What does Philo say about these amazing events? Nothing, zilch, the big round circle. It is the same with the Roman records and the work of every contemporary author. There is a simple explanation for this. These events never happened because there was no "Jesus".

Page 207 chapter God save us from religion

Let us all build a brave new world!

No, no Supra, I was pointing out that you had quoted a post about Lot to launch an attack on God, the Father and priests and who knows what else and never actually addressed Lot. You may want to go back and read your own post.

Of course I see the flaws... they're right there for anyone to read. The Bible makes it very obvious that they were HUMAN, just like me and you, the only reason they did anything good was because they chose to follow God, there was nothing particularly special about them by themselves


I'm not "jumping" on him about the story of Lot. I'm addressing this post:



Which as you have just agreed is quite false since the Bible does a good job of showing the mere humanity of it's heroes.