Originally posted by robbie carrobieHow dare you to 'apologize' for me, you who design your own dogma and then miraculously find your own translation that >surprise!< happens to fit your dogma.
These people know that faith (and love) IS all you need.
Sigh. . . . I apologise on behalf of all theists for this statement, faith and love is NOT all you need and this type of thinking is a reflection of a Christianity that has lost its way, what Jesus actually advocated was taking in knowledge,
This means everlasting life, their taking in ...[text shortened]... one whom you sent forth Jesus Christ, John chapter 17 verse 3.
Read your Bibles daily people!
"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." -- John 17:3, KJV
Perhaps you should be espousing Rev. 22:18-19.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
1 edit
Originally posted by Suziannesorry its still as clear as mud to me. if jesus removed all sin for all time then how is it possible for people to acquire more sin? also what is the point of jesus removing sin if people still need to be sorry and repent?yes the sin = death. pretty fkng vague though isn't it? is that all sins? or does it depend on which sin? each Christian has a different opinion on what is a sin, you think your man would be a little bit more clearer with his rules considering what's at stake.All this is in the Bible, man. Yes, all sins. No, it doesn't depend on which sin. ...[text shortened]... r hearts and He cannot be fooled. It is unrepentant sin that will trip us up, if anything does.
it would be good to clarify what the effects of sin are on a human and what is actually happening when it is removed. if i commit a sin what happens to me, how am i effected by the sin?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by Suzianneregarding all sins being equal. the bible is full of crazy things that displease the lord such as.yes the sin = death. pretty fkng vague though isn't it? is that all sins? or does it depend on which sin? each Christian has a different opinion on what is a sin, you think your man would be a little bit more clearer with his rules considering what's at stake.All this is in the Bible, man. Yes, all sins. No, it doesn't depend on which sin. ...[text shortened]... r hearts and He cannot be fooled. It is unrepentant sin that will trip us up, if anything does.
wearing clothes made from two materials.
divorce.
man with no testicles going to church
wearing gold
using the withdrawl method during sex
eating shell fish
tattoos
women grabbing mens bits during a fight.
just to name a few. are these sins? or is it just cardinal sins that result in our death at gods hand.
Suzzani, without getting into each of these concepts Stella has mentioned, a good book is by Paul Capon called "Is God a Moral Monter? Making sense of the Old Testament God."
Its a good resource on objections like those raised by skeptics of the Bible.
Without taking time for much study I notice a few things with Stella's list:
regarding all sins being equal. the bible is full of crazy things that displease the lord such as.
The New Testement believers of course are not trying to keep the ordinances of the theocratic nation of Israel in too many of these ritualistic details.
God wanted Israel to be different from the surrounding nations. And some of these matters simply set them apart as unique. Some of the dietary matters probably had some practical purposes which may have been lost to us in the modern world.
wearing clothes made from two materials.
This could have been an injunction aimed at curbing anxiety. God should be trusted to provide the needed material for clothing.
I would have to look it up. It is not so unusual.
divorce.
Stella lists off casually without realizing that God made provision for divorce. And though He tells us that He hates divorce, because of the hardness of the people He allowed it with a certificate. And much of the particulars were designed to protect the woman divorced from abuse.
It is strange that Stella would not bother to examine some of these details.
Anyway God permitted divorce but clearly did not like divorce.
man with no testicles going to church
Stella is probably referring to limitations on those who could be priests or who could enter the temple of God.
Interesting that God promised the eunuchs a name within His house better than sons and daughters -
"For thus says Jehovah, to the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths and choose what pleases Me, and hold fast My covenant,
To them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial and a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an eternal name which will not be cut off." (Isaiah 56:4)
The material temple of the old testament was a typology and allegory of the living and eternal house of God united with man.
And some of those regulations forbidding eunuchs from the temple may also have had to do with preventing God's temple from becoming like so many places of worship of the Gentiles - houses of sacred ritual prostitution.
wearing gold
This doesn't sound familiar.
using the withdrawal method during sex
This sounds like a perversion of the story of Onan. If he was practicing "the withdrawal method" it was in direct disobedience to God's command. He was explicitly TOLD to have a child through his deceased brother's wife.
If Onan had disdain for doing so then he should have just told God he refused to, and not USED the woman under pretense for his lust.
Give Stella a D- on this one.
eating shell fish
Perhaps some practical application that we have lost track of here.
Otherwise it set them apart from the nations.
tattoos
The natural beauty of the God created body, was enough. That is what God probably wanted His theocratic nation to respect.
Today people who write and draw all over themselves, I think, cheapens their appearance. I see like "Made in Japan" written on them. But that is my opinion.
Anyway, I think the prohibition concerns accepting the natural God created beauty of the human body as is.
women grabbing mens bits during a fight.
In the theocratic nation the ability to have children for the passing on of the inheritance of the Good Land was important.
The realization of the blessing of the inheritance of the land should not be superseded by some other quarrel. There was something to going TOO FAR. And destroying the man's ability to have children was going TOO far.
Regard for the promise land and its staying in possession of Israelites was probably the key to this law.
just to name a few. are these sins? or is it just cardinal sins that result in our death at gods hand.
Some instances included the death of someone as an example. It would be foolish to assume every instance of "Onanism" resulted in the immediate death of the man.
And I don't think all of these laws were accompanied by a death sentence.
This is hype on Stella's part.
This is his refering to some handy dandy skeptical infidel's information without careful regard to the details. Good for slander purposes.
Besides, "Christ is the end of the law to everyone who believes."
Our command is to abide in Christ and allow Him to abide in us - John 15.
5 edits
Originally posted by SuzianneNot only do i dare, i do apologise on your behalf. Ive met enough airhead Christians in my time who have not the slightest idea what it is they render worship to because they are all full of love'n'faith, ask them to reason, umm, errr we have our faith, well enough.
How dare you to 'apologize' for me, you who design your own dogma and then miraculously find your own translation that >surprise!< happens to fit your dogma.
"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." -- John 17:3, KJV
Perhaps you should be espousing Rev. 22:18-19.
You have not the slightest idea about translation, do you understand, you don't know ANYTHING about translation and i really do wish that you stopped pretending that you do.
This means everlasting life, their coming to know# you,* the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ - New world translation.
*Or “their taking in knowledge of you.”
# Greek : ginóskó: to come to know, recognize, perceive
1. to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of
http://biblehub.com/greek/1097.htm
If i wanted a lesson in airheadedness I know where to come, or a tambourine solo!
Originally posted by sonshipJapan makes some pretty good products. Many better than what is made in the USA and China.
Suzzani, without getting into each of these concepts Stella has mentioned, a good book is by Paul Capon called [b]"Is God a Moral Monter? Making sense of the Old Testament God."
Its a good resource on objections like those raised by skeptics of the Bible.
Without taking time for much study I notice a few things with Stella's list:
[quo ...[text shortened]... ves." [/b]
Our command is to abide in Christ and allow Him to abide in us - John 15. [/b]
The Moran
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAlmost every time you post, I end up asking myself which side are you on, anyways? You so totally missed my point that you can't even see it, so zealous are you in your own opinion.
Not only do i dare, i do apologise on your behalf. Ive met enough airhead Christians in my time who have not the slightest idea what it is they render worship to because they are all full of love'n'faith, ask them to reason, umm, errr we have our faith, well enough.
You have not the slightest idea about translation, do you understand, you don't k ...[text shortened]... /1097.htm
If i wanted a lesson in airheadedness I know where to come, or a tambourine solo!
