True belief in god (or Christ)

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
there is no error nor any contradiction, for they are part of the same whole, the same purpose, simply different episodes at different epochs of time, different constituent parts of the same whole. you argument is hyper balderdash!

Nope...Bible says God doesn't change, then Bible says it changed!!! 🙄 - implies either the Bible is not true or one of the three explanations I offered :]

Originally posted by Agerg
Nope...Bible says God doesn't change, then Bible says it changed!!! 🙄 - implies either the Bible is not true or one of the three explanations I offered :]

yes that is true, God does not change, nor does his purposes, these are simply different events in the unfolding of that purpose, implies nothing, proves nothing, infers nothing.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes that is true, God does not change, nor does his purposes, these are simply different events in the unfolding of that purpose, implies nothing, proves nothing, infers nothing.

God laying down the Mosaic laws then nullifying them later is a change; but we've established God does not change!!! 😵

There is no way to dig yourself out of this one, no matter how cryptic and obfuscated be your responses, or how often you repeat them and/or assert my arguments are straw/baseless assertions/ balder dash/ [insert standard Robbie response]

Don't blame me, blame the thousands of years dead authors :]

Originally posted by Agerg
God laying down the Mosaic laws then nullifying them later is a change; but we've established God does not change!!! 😵

There is no way to dig yourself out of this one, no matter how cryptic and obfuscated be your responses, or how often you assert my arguments are straw/baseless assertions/ balder dash/ [insert standard Robbie response]

God is one thing, the Mosiac law another, i dont need to dig anywhere, it has been clearly demonstrated that it was to be of a temporary nature, it is not I that needs to dig, but you that is up the swany without a paddle

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
God is one thing, the Mosiac law another, i dont need to dig anywhere, it has been clearly demonstrated that it was to be of a temporary nature, it is not I that needs to dig, but you that is up the swany without a paddle

Nope...it's been clearly demonstrated that after statements were made that god does not change, changes were patched in.


You defend the inadequacies of your Bible like Bush/Blair defend their reason for the *war on terror* and *hunt for nukes in Iraq*

Indeed! perhaps you should be a politician! 😵

Originally posted by Agerg
Nope...it's been clearly demonstrated that [b]after statements were made that god does not change, changes were patched in.[/b]

nope it has been nothing of the sort, indeed Jeremiah foretold that Gods purpose would incorporate a different law, he even went into specifics stating that it would be different, a law based on conscience, 700 years prior to its actual inauguration, patched in Agers, id start paddling if i was you mate!

Politician, are you kidding mate, look how they react to wikileaks when presented with truth, drum up charges of rape in Sweden, arrest Julian Assanges assets, arrest him and refuse bail, i loath politics with a vengeance!!!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
nope it has been nothing of the sort, indeed Jeremiah foretold that Gods purpose would incorporate a different law, he even went into specifics stating that it would be different, a law based on conscience, 700 years prior to its actual inauguration, patched in Agers, id start paddling if i was you mate!

Politician, are you kidding mate, look h ...[text shortened]... e in Sweden, arrest his assets, arrest him and refuse bail, i loath politics with a vengeance!!!

The statement about God not changing was made in Ecclesiastes - it predates the book of Jeremiah

http://ichthys.com/mail-Bible%20chrono.htm

Originally posted by Agerg
The statement about God not changing was made in Ecclesiastes - it predates te book of Jeremiah

http://ichthys.com/mail-Bible%20chrono.htm

God is one thing Agers, the Mosaic law quite another, please tell me how you understand that it was not to be of a temporary nature, on what basis are you trying to assert that this was not the case???

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
God is one thing Agers, the Mosaic law quite another, please tell me how you understand that it was not to be of a temporary nature, on what basis are you trying to assert that this was not the case???

The passage:
"If your brother, your mother's son, or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods', you shall not yield to him or listen to him; and your eye shall not pity him, nor shall you spare or conceal him. But you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall stone him to death because he has sought to seduce you from the LORD your God."

Deuteronomy 13:6-10
made prior to the statement in Ecclesiastes about gods unchanging nature, which predates Jeremiah says nothing about it being temporary - there is no way one can infer it was temporary without inferring with the same validity it's favourite number is 43 and likes the colour turquoise.

Originally posted by Agerg
The passage:
"If your brother, your mother's son, or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods', you shall not yield to him or listen to him; and your eye shall not pity him, nor shall you spare or conceal him. But you shall surely kill him; your hand ferring with the same validity it's favourite number is 43 and likes the colour turquoise.

i just showed incontrovertible biblical evidence which clearly demonstrated that it was of a temporary nature and nothing in your post leads me to believe otherwise, its late Agers, good night to you my, i was going to say friend, but your more of an adversary, anyway, its late and i am wasted, goodnight.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i just showed incontrovertible biblical evidence which clearly demonstrated that it was of a temporary nature and nothing in your post leads me to believe otherwise, its late Agers, good night to you my, i was going to say friend, but your more of an adversary, anyway, its late and i am wasted, goodnight.

Humour me (when you've woken up), where in that Deuteronomy passage is there any implication of temporary?

Any other books you reference must predate or be concurrent with Deuteronomy. Any general statements about god changing referenced after statements that he does not change are inadmissable. (since they would establish, directly, the Bible is false Reveal Hidden Content)

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
nope it has been nothing of the sort, indeed Jeremiah foretold that Gods purpose would incorporate a different law, he even went into specifics stating that it would be different, a law based on conscience, 700 years prior to its actual inauguration, patched in Agers, id start paddling if i was you mate!

Politician, are you kidding mate, look h ...[text shortened]... arrest Julian Assanges assets, arrest him and refuse bail, i loath politics with a vengeance!!!

I'd vote for him)

Originally posted by Agerg
Humour me (when you've woken up), where in that Deuteronomy passage is there any implication of temporary?

Any other books you reference must predate or be concurrent with Deuteronomy. Any general statements about god changing referenced after statements that he does not change are inadmissable. (since they would establish, directly, the Bible is false [hi ...[text shortened]... folllowed later by God doesn't change... but I needn't appeal to that one just yet)[/hidden])

I gave you three passages which clearly stated that it was understood that the ordinances of the Mosaic Law were to be a temporary nature, that they were not contained in the book of Deuteronomy is hardly important nor telling, you just make up stuff when faced with certain incontrovertible evidences. That there is no longer a temple in Jerusalem, that the Hebrews do not offer up sacrifices, that the Levitical priesthood no longer operates, ringing any bells?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I'd vote for him)

Agers is about to be grannied, cause i know scripture and he doesn't (not that it makes me in any way better, its just a fact, i study them, he doesn't), therefore he must keep adding , clauses and provisos and conditions, to sustain his now tattered and thoroughly pathetic argument, if he was a man at all he would admit defeat and fall upon his own sword, but to linger on, is simply pitiful, undignified for a man of his character.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]============================
If we take the musings out of your posts centered around the usual 'your an atheist, what do you know about morals?' canard we're not really left with much. In fact, you didn't even answer my questions.
==============================

When theists and atheists get on the subject of morality I find that usually ...[text shortened]... s. The Christian New Testament contains no instructions on stoning.[/b]

This is what you wrote in a previous post with my emphasis added in bold.

The second thing I consider is that these were not God's crimes, but all of God's acts are righteous.

As you are well aware there are a list of 'crimes' in the OT that are punishable by death, stoning being the preferred method of execution and in a few instances, the lovely scenario of being burned alive. You've claimed, as i've demonstrated above, that all of Gods acts are righteous, so how does condemning someone to death by stoning and burning, in your eyes, fulfill the criteria for being righteous?

As for me maneuvering you into a certain position, i've done nothing of the sort, you walked into this position on your own accord.