any christians here in this entire site please stand up
POSTED BY: leelu7777
UPDATED: Monday, September 22, 2025 14:45
VIEWED: 32293
PAGE 11 of 23
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And yet Jesus preached against existing religion based on the OT.
You will not be defiled by what goes into your mouth, rather by what comes out of it ... there are only two important commandments, love god with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself ...
Jesus was not contradicting or preaching against the Old Testament, but against how the religious leaders of His day had distorted God's word by adding to it things which God had never intended, and taking away from it by dismissing things God had intended.
The two "important commandments" you referred to are also found in the Old Testament, and a summary of the whole of the Law. If you love God with your whole heart, soul, mind and strength, and your neighbor as yourself, that by extension you wouldn't be blaspheming God, commiting adultery, stealing, murdering, etc. He wasn't doing away with those laws (as He clearly said elsewhere He had not come to do away with even the tiniest point of punctuation of the Law).
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
It seems pretty clear to me - you must follow him. No one else.
Precisely, "No one comes to the Father except through Me." No argument there. As He said multitudinously, He was the fulfillment of the promises of God for the redemption of sinners -- Jesus was the "seed" promised in the garden who would crush the head of the devil -- the "lamb" God Himself would provide as the sacrifice which God promised to Abraham on Mt. Moriah -- the son of David who would sit eternally on David's throne, etc. The Hebrew scriptures speak of His coming throughout. Again, none of this is a contradiction of the Hebrew scriptures, but a fulfillment of them.
As I said, though, I don't want to fill this thread with detailed theological discussion. I'm sure most people here aren't in the least interested. If you'd like to discuss this with me, I will freely do so in private message.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
dear ______ (insert deity of your choice) protect me from your followers......
...and we all shine on...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
here are only two important commandments, love god with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself ...
That is not abolition, that is fulfillment...those two commandments contain all ten commandments. You break one of the 10 then you can't fulfill one or both of the two Jesus ask's you live by.
Quote:
The scent of burning flesh wafting to heaven was meant to propitiate this fearsome (but appraently bribable) entity.
You have got to be kidding!! I believe you missed the entire point...some can say it was a demand of absolute faith (read Kirkegaard) others, and I believe more truthfully say, that it was a parable or event that happened to show where everything came from: GOD. God, gave Abraham the child when he could have none, God gave him everything! It wasn't a sacrifice of worth it was seeing if Abraham knew that what he has, what he loves, only came from God. That he wouldn't be attached to things as if he (Abraham) created it. Not even his child.
You're points are absurdly construed as having no sense of religious writing or understandings. They are very literal to the point of blindness. There are plenty of misinformation and insinuation that isn't correct.
Quote:
In fact, it was quite common in the patriarchal societies of that time to dispose of wives, children, servants and slaves as the master saw fit.
Not in the society your insinuating about...where their very laws (which was after Abraham by the way) strictly forbid "disposing" of people who you must justly treat under God's law.
Quote:
"Here, take my young virginal daughters and do what you will with them, just leave me along with these men of God"
You are good at taking things out of context...
Lot knew the value of guests in the Jewish society and knew even greater the repugnancy of the acts the male crowd wanted to do to his male guests. Rape, if i must spell it out to you....but instead of seeing it as a story/event that shows how repugnantly God views sin, you have taken it to mean something that it is not...
Quote:
prized possession
another misunderstood idea...
All in all, you take things quite literally and seem to enjoy misconstruing good ideas into bad ones...man have you ever read Dante's Inferno?...well maybe I wont go there...but I did, but I am sure i will hear some quite literal reactions to a story that is allegorical...
You have to understand that the Jewish people of the time wrote and spoke in ways that was meant to have the listener ask themselves, "What does this mean? What did he mean?" It was meant for them to meditate upon the moral...it wasn't MOST OF THE TIME meant to be literally understood.
In the end I think we are going to end up arguing in circles...
-OD
X
(I can't read or write)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
here are only two important commandments, love god with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself ...
That is not abolition, that is fulfillment...those two commandments contain all ten commandments. You break one of the 10 then you can't fulfill one or both of the two Jesus ask's you live by.
Quote:
The scent of burning flesh wafting to heaven was meant to propitiate this fearsome (but appraently bribable) entity.
You have got to be kidding!! I believe you missed the entire point...some can say it was a demand of absolute faith (read Kirkegaard) others, and I believe more truthfully say, that it was a parable or event that happened to show where everything came from: GOD. God, gave Abraham the child when he could have none, God gave him everything! It wasn't a sacrifice of worth it was seeing if Abraham knew that what he has, what he loves, only came from God. That he wouldn't be attached to things as if he (Abraham) created it. Not even his child.
You're points are absurdly construed as having no sense of religious writing or understandings. They are very literal to the point of blindness. There are plenty of misinformation and insinuation that isn't correct.
Quote:
In fact, it was quite common in the patriarchal societies of that time to dispose of wives, children, servants and slaves as the master saw fit.
Not in the society your insinuating about...where their very laws (which was after Abraham by the way) strictly forbid "disposing" of people who you must justly treat under God's law.
Quote:
"Here, take my young virginal daughters and do what you will with them, just leave me along with these men of God"
You are good at taking things out of context...
Lot knew the value of guests in the Jewish society and knew even greater the repugnancy of the acts the male crowd wanted to do to his male guests. Rape, if i must spell it out to you....but instead of seeing it as a story/event that shows how repugnantly God views sin, you have taken it to mean something that it is not...
Quote:
prized possession
another misunderstood idea...
All in all, you take things quite literally and seem to enjoy misconstruing good ideas into bad ones...man have you ever read Dante's Inferno?...well maybe I wont go there...but I did, but I am sure i will hear some quite literal reactions to a story that is allegorical...
You have to understand that the Jewish people of the time wrote and spoke in ways that was meant to have the listener ask themselves, "What does this mean? What did he mean?" It was meant for them to meditate upon the moral...it wasn't MOST OF THE TIME meant to be literally understood.
In the end I think we are going to end up arguing in circles...
-OD
PS. No hard feelings, nothing was meant to be mean or attacking, just the way it is presented...it can never hurt to have these arguments brought up or argued against...well at least i think so
*now i am going to switch to spectator (i hope) i don't think I can say much of anything else...this debate has been raging for 2000yrs..i know I won't solve it...*
X
(I can't read or write)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That is not abolition, that is fulfillment...those two commandments contain all ten commandments. You break one of the 10 then you can't fulfill one or both of the two Jesus ask's you live by.
Whose ten commandments?
There are Catholic and Protestant versions which are different from each other. There are two different versions in the OT (but only nine total in each), and then a whole nother set of commandments in the OT meant to replace the previous ones.
And there is an argument to be made that when Jesus said of the ten only two mean anything to god 1) love god and 2) love your neighbor. Now, love your neighbor doesn't show up in any OT version. This most certainly WAS a serious break w/ the OT.
literal reactions to a story that is allegorical
And the NT is not allegorical? Perhaps you need to discuss the finer points with the NT literalists who've posted here.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Precisely, "No one comes to the Father except through Me." No argument there. As He said multitudinously, He was the fulfillment of the promises of God for the redemption of sinners -- Jesus was the "seed" promised in the garden who would crush the head of the devil -- the "lamb" God Himself would provide as the sacrifice which God promised to Abraham on Mt. Moriah -- the son of David who would sit eternally on David's throne, etc. The Hebrew scriptures speak of His coming throughout. Again, none of this is a contradiction of the Hebrew scriptures, but a fulfillment of them.
Just a short observation - this is a fine example of a religion about Jesus which I find prevalent in people who call themselves Christians. Jesus is the fulfillment, the seed, the lamb of god, the sacrifice, the true king etc
OTOH, the religion of Jesus would practice love, forgiveness, non-attachment to material things etc rather than righteouness, 'smoting' and all those other OT exhortations and prophecies. You can't follow Jesus if you're busy with the OT.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So in other words, there is scientific evidence that supports the Bible?
Originally posted by citizen:
There's also a scientific explanation, the sea did “part”, at around the time recorded in the Bible, . . .
Quote:It’s silly because it seems very overly simplistic interpretation. Abraham, afterall, did not sacrifice Isaac.
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Why silly? I thought the whole thing about Abraham sacrificing Isaac was a test of faith.
*sigh*
Also the Bible, as we know it today, was cannonized in the 4th century, though technically there were earlier canons.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by OmegaDark:Quote:
May I assume that you're getting at, the bible is along the lines of a "moral guide."
Nope, I am saying that it is irrelevant to someone who is incorporating the values. It doesn't hold up in an argument unless you are basing your entire arguments validity on your 'historical evidence.' We can argue whether it is useful or not to argue historically in some other thread, I would prefer arguments on doctrine and understanding....
Ok, now I'm confused. Perhaps it's the lack of sleep. Could you re-state the entire thought, I'm having problems right now
Quote:
Originally posted by OmegaDark:Quote:
IMO, all religions are the same, they just go about it in a different way.
From my study (FOR THE MOST PART, MOST PART) the values are very similar....but that too doesn't affect or hinder the arguments for or against Christianity...but it is awfully interesting to see how alike most religions truly are!!!
Not saying it did. Just voicing a thought.
Quote:
Originally posted by OmegaDark:Quote:
(Yes, I've used exageration in the above. By all, I mean vast majority that I've studied.)
I know
Yah, I assumed that you'd get it. But, I wanted to be explicit. No chance for misunderstanding that way
Quote:
Originally posted by OmegaDark:Quote:
For instance, Christanity generally promots that if you don't do x, you'll go to Hell for all eternity.
I have to disagree here (sigh).
I'm happy you disagree
But, that doesn't take from the fact, that in my experience talking to people "of faith" and my readings, that this seems to be true. That it is the general concensus.
Perhaps it is just all those burned out bulbs that you referenced in this post?
You really are turning out to be the Christian that is opposite to all Christians that I've met to date. I like that
Quote:
Originally posted by OmegaDark:
The toughest thing about scripture and the like is the 'reading between the lines'. But, if you take it literally, then well...*sigh*...my argument is useless for you....
Agreed. Scripture has been used to commit terrible attosities throughout history.
But, interpreted "properly" it can reveal wisdom. For instance, my referenced non-warm fuzzy passage. One could interpret it to mean, if you don't take some time off regualarly, then you'll put yourself into the grave. Or similarly, if you don't take time off, you won't enjoy life and become a bitter shell of a man. etc.
And if you interpret it literally, badness.
Quote:
Originally posted by OmegaDark:Quote:
"or true"?
Heydon't insinuate...that is just silly
No, what I was getting at was, what did you mean by truth? I wasn't being facetious.
----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm going to make this short since I haven't really slept in 2 days and I'm starting to come down from my caffeine high.
1. Capital letters, grammar, and the occasional punctuation mark to break up the run-on sentences would make your argument (or lack thereof) much more coherent.
2. Jesus was a social worker. Some may even argue he was a socialist or communist. If he were here right now, I'm fairly certain he would be appalled at the way his teachings have been twisted.
3. The current edition(s) of the Bible are different than what was originally written (see Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient pieces of parchment). The Bible also isn't the word of God. It's man's interpretation. Also, the Church (namely Roman Catholic, but I'm sure others do it as well) has a bad habit of declaring anything that threatens the status quo and power structure "heretical". My favorite piece of "heretical" work is the one that says (I'm paraphrasing here) "I'm all around you everywhere you look", suggesting that Church is kind of pointless.
4. Whether or not a god, goddess, or multiples of these exist seems irrelevant to argue over. Can't we agree to be good people and whatever happens happens? If one is a good person, one won't go to hell, assuming such a place exists. I'm personally a fan of Siddhartha's viewpoint: "yeah, sure there are gods, but they are subject to the same rules and regulations as humans. But this knowlege is irrelevant as it will not help you achieve Nirvana"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Do you know your Bible? God stayed Abraham's hand... but Abraham was fully prepared to kill someone- his son- in order to please God. Because God regularly accepted sacrifices... and apparently even required them (o/wise Jesus' sacrifice wouldn't have been part of the plan).
It’s silly because it seems very overly simplistic interpretation. Abraham, afterall, did not sacrifice Isaac.
I was raised in the Pope John XXIII version of Catholicism. For those too young to remember, Pope John XXIII came (I thought) closest to the teaching of Jesus as written in the current Bible. "Let he who is without sin...", "Behold the publican", "Blessed are the peacemakers", "If he demands your cloak give him also your shirt" (I read an interesting intepretation of that), and so forth. Pope John XXIII was all about love and compassion.
But then I would read portion of the Old Testament, and the brutality and UNFAIRNESS of it all would bring my mind to a screeching halt. Reading about Abraham and being a child, for example, I naturally identified with Isaac. What was Isaac doing all this time? Was he gulled into following his dad? Did he have an idea what was about to happen, and was he accepting of it? Or was he resisting? Conflicted? And mostly- Who gave Abraham the right to murder his son?
Another intersting thing I found about the Old Testament is the view of religion as being a cross between and tribe and a belief. That's what all the "begats" are about. You didn't "become" a Jew, you were either one of God's Chosen People or you weren't. (I sometimes think that the "reason" why Xtianity was relatively successful was because is was pretty cosmopolitan- you didn't need to be BORN into it, you could be converted. That has a lot of immediate growth potential. )
When people talk about religions being more or less the same, I don't think they realize how truly alien some of the religions are. The Greeks gods, for instance: superhuman strength coupled with backstabbing, petty, jealous antics, not above raping young girls or killing honorable men. Power uncoupled from wisdom. Or the Aztec and Mayan and Phoenecian gods demanding human sacrifices for things like rain and good winds: Stuff that they often didn't deliver on. They were unpredictable, vindictive bastards, eh? BTW- the populations were relatively comfortable with supplying the sacrificial victims. Rubbing our modern sensibilities against ancient religions should produce a sense of discontinuity.
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME