Deuteronomy?

Originally posted by JS357
I am coming at this as a non-theist trying to make as much sense of things as is reasonable. It makes sense (to me) that Jesus and the early writers had some changes in mind, but WRT slavery, did not want to upset the applecart too much. So following the golden rule and not exercising lordship were admonitions for personal conduct among the Jews of Palestine, ...[text shortened]... structure. This also fits in with Jesus' claim not to be changing one jot or tittle of the law.

Well that might be right but that is the thinking of man and not of gods.

If the bible is supposed to be the word of god, his prophets and his son, then it could contain
anything god wanted.
God has unlimited power and could have given such to his son at any point.

God could have commanded that slavery be abolished with absolutely no fear of reprisals
or of upsetting the apple-cart at any time. JC likewise.

Your arguments do not apply to gods.

They do very much apply to people.

However 'if' the bible was written by a bunch of peasant mystics thousands of years ago then it
doesn't matter what it says we can just ignore it (or simply treat it as any other historical artefact).

It only has any relevance or meaning if it was inspired by a deity.

In which instance your augments/excuses don't hold.


Of course it was written by peasant mystics, but Christians believe it to be inspired by god so any excuses
for its content must be excuses that work for a god and not just for men...

And there are no excuses for a god.

The bible does not prohibit slavery, in fact it encourages it.

Originally posted by galveston75
Sorry if I sounded rude. But it appears by your answer that you don't understand why the laws existed and then abolished and why Jesus's coming to earth fulfilled those laws. Am I correct? If not I apologize.

Apology accepted.

However I don't care what the proposed explanation is for the existence of the mosaic laws
and then there replacement with new ones. (I have heard many differing ones although possibly
not your take on it)

The point I was making is that they are both abominable.
And both are supposedly inspired by god.

And there is no context by which you can excuse the contents of the bible, either new or old testaments
if they are divinely inspired.

Now if they are the work of men then of course the context of their historical setting explains their
views.

But you want to believe that the bible was inspired by god and so I analyse it as such.

And so I point out abominations in the bible and say, "hey this is what your god is like".

The contents of the bible are irrelevant to me, and I could otherwise not care less what it says.
But other people do care what it says and thus I care only for the purposes of talking to and
debating with those that do believe in the bible (same applies to any other holy book).

Originally posted by googlefudge
I didn't think you believed in god, I thought you believed in some new age alieny thing.


Given sin is going against the commands of (or just upsetting) a god or gods,
Sin is a meaningless and irrelevant (and frankly offensive) concept for anyone and everyone
who doesn't have a belief in a god or gods...


Sin doesn't exist.
And the concept of original sin is offensive, as is the idea that we all need to be 'saved' from it.

I had a much more lengthy response that somehow did not post 😕 (very frustrating)


Basically I dont believe in any christian notion of sin or God.

I believe everyone has their own dharma, every person has their unique path in life to
"find God" .

I can argue from either point of view, ie that God exists or that God doesn't exist, for God is everywhere , known and unknown. IT is the "force of animation" that gives life to everyone.
And a whole lot more than that.
But, for practical reasons "God" is just a dam good word, perhaps the most important word, for expressing ourselves.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I had a much more lengthy response that somehow did not post 😕 (very frustrating)

I tend to copy the contents of my posts onto the clipboard before posting to cope with such frustrations.
(doesn't always work because sometimes I forget, but it's saved quite a few long posts before)



Otherwise...

So you go with the 'god IS the universe' style of thing?

Basically everyone (whatever their dharma) needs a holistic approach for understanding God, life whatever.

The constant separation in words (which are borne in the mind), creates the reality you are faced with.

'Man and god' is one of the most prevelant ones .

When we start to see that the Extra-Terrestrials ("good aliens" to dummies) are nothing but us in the future. That Jesus is not out of sync with buddha and all the other separations we make with our minds constantly create our realities, we will keep finding the affirmations of "god" or anything positive a hit and miss affair.

This is not just a whim or a fancy, it is not to be taken lightly , it is the hardcore conviction that laypeople must make in their minds before they can become Zen monks.
There is no this and that. there is no dualism. That is why "non-dualist" is the most effective description I have heard on here for people that actually try to put their approach into words. Black Beetle and vistesd spring to mind. But there have been a few others ...

Originally posted by googlefudge
I tend to copy the contents of my posts onto the clipboard before posting to cope with such frustrations.
(doesn't always work because sometimes I forget, but it's saved quite a few long posts before)



Otherwise...

So you go with the 'god IS the universe' style of thing?

I'll go with a lot of descriptions.

It's upto you which path you would like to take.

But I tell you there is no God which is separate from anything created.
There is absolutely nothing in and of itself that can be called "God" (with a big 'g' )

Once you have that firmly established in your mind , then we can go deeper.
But if we cant keep it light hearted and "smooth" then it will be another annoying dead- end.

What say ye?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I'll go with a lot of descriptions.

It's upto you which path you would like to take.

But I tell you there is no God which is separate from anything created.
There is absolutely nothing in and of itself that can be called "God" (with a big 'g' )

Once you have that firmly established in your mind , then we can go deeper.
But if we cant keep ...[text shortened]... light hearted and "smooth" then it will be another annoying dead- end.

What say ye?

If you have evidence (that you can 'show' me externally in the real world) that demonstrates what
you claim is true then I am all ears.
(and JREF will give you $1 million USD)

However if you can't demonstrate it with external evidence then I am not interested.

I am a rationalist and skeptic and need hard evidence.
Without it its just so many words.


However if you claim that whatever it is you call god is part of the universe then it is accessible (or will be
at some point) to scientific enquiry and investigation and so we will discover or refute your ideas at some point.

Till then I remain skeptical and an atheist.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Thank you.

I hope you can see that I am a defender of truth and not of particular people.
Remember I have defended rajk from you and robbie before. But it was not rajk who I was defending, it was my perceived truth in the said matter.

We can let this rest now, unless you have something significant further to add . 🙂

Nope, that's all.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Apology accepted.

However I don't care what the proposed explanation is for the existence of the mosaic laws
and then there replacement with new ones. (I have heard many differing ones although possibly
not your take on it)

The point I was making is that they are both abominable.
And both are supposedly inspired by god.

And there is no cont ...[text shortened]... and
debating with those that do believe in the bible (same applies to any other holy book).

Which were abominable laws? Anything specific or just all of them?

Originally posted by googlefudge
1 Chronicles 16:15
Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations ...
[b]an everlasting covenant.


It is either everlasting or it isn't.


If there is a new covenant that replaces the old one then the above was wrong.

which means the bible is contradictory and is not inerrant.


If the abov an I can't find other
stuff that is abominable. (and without any trouble whatsoever)[/b]

1 Chronicles 16:15
Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations ...
an everlasting covenant.

That is the covenant He made with Abraham. See verse 16-18.

"Remember His covenant forever, The word that He commanded to a thousand generations, [the covenant] that He made with ABRAHAM, And His oath unto Isaac. And He confirmed it unto Jacob as a statute, Unto Israel as an eternal covenant.

Saying, To you I will give the land of Canaan ..."

It is either everlasting or it isn't.

First of all the reference of 1 Chron. 16 seems to be His covenant and oath to Abraham.

If there is a new covenant that replaces the old one then the above was wrong.

First Chron. speaks of the covenant and oath to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob before the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai.

This is not the best verse for the argument you are attempting. I can think of some better ones for that particular argument. Though none of them I would count strong enough to make me have to take a pair of scissors and cut Jeremiah 31:33 out of the Old Testament.

Proper students of the Bible learn not only what the Bible says, but what ELSE the Bible says.

which means the bible is contradictory and is not inerrant.

That is another debate. Copyist's errors trasmitted in the copies reveal some errors. None of much significance.

And the promise of a new covenant is not a contradiction. Rather it is Jesus Christ coming to fulfill the demands of the law which no other man could fulfill. So regarding the law of Moses forever does not stop Christ from finally fulfilling its demands for all men in a new covenant.

Once and for all Christ satisfied the demand of the law of God on behalf of all men. So we may still regard it forever with a thankful heart that Christ met its demands forever FOR the believers.

If the above is right, then the old covenant still applies and any talk of a new covenant is wrong.

The morality of the old covenant Christ hightened and made more penetrating. The ritual ordinances of the law He went out of His way many times to nullify.

Ie. His healing on the Sabbath. So it is not that simple of a matter. And I will not discuss it extensively in this one post. But I have written to the point before.

Which means the bible is contradictory and is not inerrant.

I don't worship the doctrine of inerancy. It is sufficient to point out that it is adaquately without error. It is agreed by most that obvious inconsquential copyist errors have crept into some of the many thousands of manuscripts. And no one has an autograph.

The Bible does contain some paradoxes. I might say it contains some apparent contradictions. Many can be reconciled with some futher examination. And many can be reconciled with encreased experience with the living God.

The new covenant promised by the prophet not like the old covenant is not a contradiction. And even if some things were said about regarding the old covenant forever, since no man was able to do so, Christ's keeping it on our behalf forever, does not contradict this high regard we are to have for it.

And also to my main point which you don't address...

Maybe I did not respond to every point. I wanted to respond to your neglect of a crucial passage which negates your attempt portray the old covenant as the only one in existence to all seekers of God.

When you use the Bible to argue for Atheism, it is consistent.
When I use it to show how it teaches about God, you complain that it is contradictory.

You view of the logic of the Bible depends on how you wish to use it, to argue for Atheism or for the existence of the God it speaks of.

Also the laws of the OT are supposed to be the laws handed down by your god and/or his prophet which make them
relevant to any discussion of the nature of your god and religion.

And the establishment of a new covenant is also relevant to the discussion.

Here again Christ speaks of the new covenant:

"And similarly the cup ... This cup is the new covenant [established] in My blood, which is being poured out for you." (Luke 22:20) And the pouring out of His blood is for the forgiveness of sins of all who have broken the law of God and have believed in Christ:

"For this is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." (Matt. 26:28)

The NEW COVENANT in the blood of Christ atones for the sinner who was guilty under the old covenant. And the promise of the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:33 included these words:

" ... for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." (Jer. 31:34)

So in the new covenant Christ redeems sinners out from under the curse of the law.

"Christ has redeemed us out of the curse of the law, having become a curse on our behalf; because it is written, 'Cursed is every one hanging on a tree.' " (Galatians 3:13)

So the old covenant law had even within itself the provision for Christ to become the reality of all the offerings, atoning man from his offenses against that law.

Surely then we regard it highly forever. But we regard Jesus Christ higher for He fulfilled its demands forever for all the world. Subtstitution of Christ in OUR place occurs when we believe into Christ, receiving Him as our Lord and Savior.

Then the Holy Spirit, according to Jeremiah's prophecy, can began to inscribe the law of God's life and nature into our being. He can write it in our hearts as a living part of our being.

There is no contradicton.

I don't care if your (imaginary) god created a 'new covenant' or not.

I don't care for your lying to yourself about your atheism.

It is still the same (imaginary) god that made the 'old covenant'.

You are a deceived man. By the way, if assertions is all you want to trade, I of course can match each assertion of your self deception with an assertion of the truth of the Bible.

There is no question in my mind whatsover that you are a deceived man.

So in looking at what your god is like it is completely valid and reasonable to look at the contents of
the old covenant.

I never said it wasn't.

I just completed a issue that you only wish to biasly present in a partial manner.

Also I would point out that there are many Christian denominations, some of which still claim that the OT
still holds.

Some denominations under some legalistic bondage doesn't demonstrate anything except that they could be better informed, better taught.

The churches in Galatia as recipients of Paul's letter of Galatians did not render the new covenant non-existent. So some believers are in need of much love and shepherding and better teaching, that is all. We, their brothers (if they are indeed Christians) have much labor in the Lord to carry out. Nothing more is proved by this.

So while YOU and YOUR denomination may have made your mind up about these issues, Christianity as a
whole is divided on this, and many other issues.

I do not meet in a denomination.

And you are jumping around like a grasshopper in a hen house.

Its that you have to stone women.
No, its that you are bound by the law of Moses forever.
No, its that there is contradiction.
No, the Bible is not inerant.
No, its that some denominations are legalistic.
No, its that Christians are all divided.

No. we are not ALL in division.

None of these arguments that you're grasping at are strong enough to cause many of us to discount our having encountered the resurrected and living Lord Jesus - according to the Bible's teaching.

Also I have no trouble finding a multitude of objectionable things in the new testament without any reference
to the OT.

Objectionable things in the Old Testament or New Testament are not strong enough to be a devastating counter weight to the splended life and testimony of Jesus Christ.

And since Christ is the center of the Bible and its main point, why should we get sidetracked on side issues as excuses to turn away from this Wonderful One?

Not least of which is your gods still being a petty egomaniac who threatens to torture anyone who doesn't bow
and scrape before him to an eternity of fiery torment (or whatever).

Yada, yada, yada. Another Richard Dawkins wannabe.

Now if you don't have anything else to say. I'll move on.
I see you offer nothing remotely as precious, as of value, of superlative worth as the Son of God.

Originally posted by jaywill

1 Chronicles 16:15
Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations ...
an everlasting covenant.

That is the covenant He made with Abraham. See verse 16-18.

[b]"Remember His covenant forever, The word that He commanded to a thousand generations, [the covenant] that He made with ABRAH ...[text shortened]... precious, as of value, of superlative worth as the Son of God.

On another thread googlefudge claims to be logical, rationial, and unbiased.
What do you think about that? I have admitted that I am biased toward a
Christian world view. But he claims I am illogical and irrationial. Do
you count me as irrational and illogical? If so, could you explain.

Originally posted by googlefudge
If you have evidence (that you can 'show' me externally in the real world) that demonstrates what
you claim is true then I am all ears.
(and JREF will give you $1 million USD)

However if you can't demonstrate it with external evidence then I am not interested.

I am a rationalist and skeptic and need hard evidence.
Without it its just so many wo ...[text shortened]... discover or refute your ideas at some point.

Till then I remain skeptical and an atheist.

It is clear that you are not capable of getting into the spirit of my post. That is 100% OK with me.

"I am a rationalist and skeptic and need hard evidence."

I think that pretty much sums it up. "hard" .
It is impossible for me to talk about holistic stuff if you remain unwilling to meet me halfway.

If it's any consellation (i didn't mean that to sound condesending) , I would say that I'm someone who resonates with the good, (a bit from all religions), who likes to tell stories and let the listener make up their mind, and , for the most part, whenever I hear of people claiming to know god, or things along those lines, usually take a skeptical approach like yourself.
I claim to be spiritual/religious, but I still like the atheists posts and line of thought on MOST things .

Thank you .

Originally posted by karoly aczel
It is clear that you are not capable of getting into the spirit of my post. That is 100% OK with me.

"I am a rationalist and skeptic and need hard evidence."

I think that pretty much sums it up. "hard" .
It is impossible for me to talk about holistic stuff if you remain unwilling to meet me halfway.

If it's any consellation (i didn't mean t ...[text shortened]... , but I still like the atheists posts and line of thought on MOST things .

Thank you .

He knows no one can give "hard evidence or proof" over the internet. That is
just his way of saying, " I don't give a damn what you believe if it is different
from me."

Originally posted by RJHinds
He knows no one can give "hard evidence or proof" over the internet. That is
just his way of saying, " I don't give a damn what you believe if it is different
from me."

well, not exactly. He gave "a damn" up until a point.
Thing is, when you are "touched by Spirit" irreversibly,like I have been, it is hard to go anywhere but to follow your own beliefs/insights/understandings.
The fact that we all have a unique dharma, not to mention the problems of being only words and not your full communication (as you pointed out, and as I have read that your body language is something like 70% of your total communication), it is indeed difficult.
Thing is I'm not really trying to convert anyone. I am just expressing myself, and whether I get a thumbs up or thumbs down really doesn't matter.
I think you will find some exchanges between me and black beetle have shown that you can communicate spiritual insights over the net - although I admit it is rarer than in person 🙂