Real World Event Discussions

any christians here in this entire site please stand up

POSTED BY: leelu7777
UPDATED: Monday, September 22, 2025 14:45
VIEWED: 32293
PAGE 22 of 23

IMALEAFONTHEWIND

Tuesday, March 14, 2006 4:34 AM

Ah, this is a fan site, not a place to abuse believers and non believers. I am a christian and love firefly

Gld loves SCIFI

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, March 14, 2006 5:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Crackers:
G'day Finn. Yes you are right about Abraham and his crew moving into Caanan. Didn't want to get to techbical sprouting off historical jargon.
Anyway good to make your aquantence.

And you as well!

Though perhaps my last post was confusing; my point was that while Abraham may have been Mesopotamian or even Sumerian, the Hebrews themselves seem to have been a Punic (or maybe proto-Punic? Proto-Semitic?) Bedouin culture that roamed throughout the Middle East and eventually settled in what would later become Phoenicia.

Quote:
Originally posted by Imaleafonthewind:
Ah, this is a fan site, not a place to abuse believers and non believers. I am a christian and love firefly

I agree. This discussion was fun when it was about history, but the moralistic back and forth that some seem to want to discuss is not my cup of tea. Religion is what it is, but it is rarely debatable. If people wish to discuss socio-politics that’s one thing, but personally, I don’t think it should be use as a guise to ridicule Christians or any other religion.

Anyhow, I think the history part of the discussion seems to have waned, and since I couldn’t care less about the rest of it, this seems like a good stopping point (for me).

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

CARTOON

Tuesday, March 14, 2006 3:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But then it seems to me that Jesus superceded the OT. He could have killed those who killed him- evildoers that they were- but he didn't. In fact, I don't know of any instance in the Bible where Jesus killed anyone, and only one instance where he got pissed off (at the money changers in the Temple). So as far as I can tell, the NEW Testament message is- love your neighbor as yourself. "Thou shall not kill" is just a small subset of loving your neighbor.

Jesus did not supercede the OT, and clearly said so (as I've repeatedly pointed out).

Jesus clearly accepted the OT (which was the same in His day as it is today) as the authoritative, inerrant word of God (and not something made up by man, as many today imply), and likewise He clearly stated that He had not come to change or do away with one jot or tittle of it.

One can chose to accept that Jesus, Himself, said He did not come to supercede (or change in the least) any of the OT, or one can chose to ignore that He said that, and make up any implication one would like.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 14, 2006 5:37 PM

Whether he stated that he did or not, there is clearly a difference between Jesus' life and teaching versus "Thou shall not murder" and "an eye for an eye". Only a sophist* would fail to see that... let's not call it a "contradiction"... how about "new direction"? So, how do you resolve it? Which teaching do you follow: "Love your neighbor" or "Thou shall not murder"?

Sophist:
1a. One skilled in elaborate and devious argumentation.
1b. A scholar or thinker.
2. Sophist Any of a group of professional fifth-century b.c. Greek philosophers and teachers who speculated on theology, metaphysics, and the sciences, and who were later characterized by Plato as superficial manipulators of rhetoric and dialectic.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

CARTOON

Tuesday, March 14, 2006 6:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Whether he stated that he did or not, there is clearly a difference between Jesus' life and teaching versus "Thou shall not murder" and "an eye for an eye". Only a sophist* would fail to see that... let's not call it a "contradiction"... how about "new direction"?

There is no contradiction or change of direction. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament -- by His own words. And He very plainly claimed He was not changing the least part of it. I see no problem, contradiction, or change of direction with Jesus's claim.

BTW, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is in OT (see Leviticus 19:18), so there's nothing new about it. Also, (as one of my commentaries puts it) the "eye for eye" business was designed to curb exaggerated revenge, and expressed a principle that punishment should be proportionate to the offense. Jesus's opposition (Mt. 5:38) was not to the premise, but to it's misuse -- not an abrogation of the principle of equivalence, but a call to temper its application in light of the love commandment, in the interests of the kingdom -- specifically that believers should not seek retaliation (which, although "lawful" for them to seek would not be in accordance with their witness for His glory on earth) (see Mt. 5:10-12).

SWORDOFWHEDON

Tuesday, March 14, 2006 7:53 PM

Quote:
I would need to go into a thousand page response to answer all of your questions, as there are no simple, quote-from-one-verse answers to most of them. However, if you'd like serious answers, I'm willing to do so privately at your request -- again, to the best of my ability

Go for it, just remember you justified your opinion with one sentence on "eye for an eye"

Quote:
The Hebrew* reads "murder", not "kill". There's a big difference.

The Hebrew word incorrectly translated as "kill" in a lot of English translations of Exodus 20 is "ratsach". There are several different Hebrew words for "killing", including (but not limited to): "harag" another word for murder; "shachat" to kill as in animal sacrifices; "muwuth" to kill anything, etc.

True, but I'm sick of being corrected by people who don't know that, hence sticking with the "kill"

Quote:
Murder is the intentional taking of innocent human life

Dictionary(legal and websters) disagrees. Murder is UNLAWFUL killing. There is no qualifier for innocence.

Quote:
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
A flock of crows.

Quote:
No argument there. But, one also can't take a single sentence out of the context of the whole of scripture. Some of the issues you mentioned are far to complex to explain away with a reference to a single passsage.

I'm going to take that to mean "Never heard of any of that stuff before, better look it up"

Let me save you the trouble:

God Sends Bear to eat mean children who make fun of a bald man:

Quote:
2 Kings
2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. (2:23-24)

2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

God Hates Tilex

Quote:
Leviticus
14:33 And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying,
14:34 When ye be come into the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession, and I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession;
14:35 And he that owneth the house shall come and tell the priest, saying, It seemeth to me there is as it were a plague in the house:
14:36 Then the priest shall command that they empty the house, before the priest go into it to see the plague, that all that is in the house be not made unclean: and afterward the priest shall go in to see the house:
14:37 And he shall look on the plague, and, behold, if the plague be in the walls of the house with hollow strakes, greenish or reddish, which in sight are lower than the wall;
14:38 Then the priest shall go out of the house to the door of the house, and shut up the house seven days:
14:39 And the priest shall come again the seventh day, and shall look: and, behold, if the plague be spread in the walls of the house;
14:40 Then the priest shall command that they take away the stones in which the plague is, and they shall cast them into an unclean place without the city:
14:41 And he shall cause the house to be scraped within round about, and they shall pour out the dust that they scrape off without the city into an unclean place:
14:42 And they shall take other stones, and put them in the place of those stones; and he shall take other morter, and shall plaister the house.
14:43 And if the plague come again, and break out in the house, after that he hath taken away the stones, and after he hath scraped the house, and after it is plaistered;
14:44 Then the priest shall come and look, and, behold, if the plague be spread in the house, it is a fretting leprosy in the house; it is unclean.
14:45 And he shall break down the house, the stones of it, and the timber thereof, and

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 14, 2006 8:47 PM

Quote:
BTW, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is in OT (see Leviticus 19:18), so there's nothing new about it. Also, (as one of my commentaries puts it) the "eye for eye" business was designed to curb exaggerated revenge, and expressed a principle that punishment should be proportionate to the offense. Jesus's opposition (Mt. 5:38) was not to the premise, but to it's misuse -- not an abrogation of the principle of equivalence, but a call to temper its application in light of the love commandment, in the interests of the kingdom -- specifically that believers should not seek retaliation (which, although "lawful" for them to seek would not be in accordance with their witness for His glory on earth) (see Mt. 5:10-12).

So although it's "legal" to tit-for-tat, it's not what Jesus would "recommend"? I dunno- perhaps I got the NT wrong but my impression that loving your neighbor meant loving your neighbor: if he demand your cloak give him your shirt also, let he who is without sin, and so forth. I don't see how you can have two sets of rules. Either loving your neighbor is a commandment, or it's a "recommended practice"... something you do for bonus points.

Also, there are large parts of the OT I can't imagine Jesus condoning: offering virgin daughters to the crowd, for example.

But then again, there is the Gospel of Thomas which appears to be even older than the synpotic Gospels and possibly derived from the earliest version (Q1 or Q2) and it's quite harsh, so maybe the "real" message of Jesus isn't as fuzzy and warm as I was taught.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

CARTOON

Tuesday, March 14, 2006 9:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SwordofWhedon:
Go for it, just remember you justified your opinion with one sentence on "eye for an eye"

Actually, I never brought up the "eye for eye" quote -- but I was responding to it (above).

Quote:
Originally posted by SwordofWhedon:
True, but I'm sick of being corrected by people who don't know that, hence sticking with the "kill"

Okay. So the facts don't matter to you. The Bible says "murder", but "kill" suits your argument better, so heck with what the Bible says. I see.

Quote:
Originally posted by SwordofWhedon:
Dictionary(legal and websters) disagrees. Murder is UNLAWFUL killing. There is no qualifier for innocence.

Firstly, it's God's (not Webster's) definition of murder that counts. Secondly, killing someone in war or a criminal via execution is not taking "innocent" life.

Quote:
Originally posted by SwordofWhedon:
I'm going to take that to mean "Never heard of any of that stuff before, better look it up"

Actually, I've heard of it all. I've been studying the Bible (English, Hebrew & Greek) from cover to cover for decades.

[EDIT: I don't want to imply by this statement that I have all the answers. I don't. While some passages of the scripture are clearly beyond understanding (certainly my understanding), many of the passages frequently taken out of context and abused are readily explanable when taken in context to the whole of scripture by persons who've obviously made the effort and taken the time to do that.]

This forum is not the place for a point by point discussion with someone who obviously hasn't studied the Bible in context. I'm willing to do so privately with each and every individual in here who has sincere questions about it.

I am not, however, willing to waste my time debating with people who don't want to know what it actually says, but only want to pick verses entirely out of context of the whole to accuse those of us who believe in it as being fools and idiots.

Been there, done that. Won't waste my time on it with argumentative folks who obviously already know all there is to know about everything.

My Lord commanded me to be ready to give an account of my faith whenever anyone asks. I have done that. He also commanded me that when the gospel is rejected in blatant unbelief, that I am to wipe the dust from my feet and move on. I am doing that here and now from those who are obviously too intelligent for me to be of any assistance, anyhow.

Anyone who is seriously interested in discussing any of these topics, feel free to contact me, and I will discuss anything at length. Otherwise, believe it or not, I have better things to do with my time.

Quote:
Originally posted by SwordofWhedon:
See, the problem is always that once a theist, whatever their bent, is proven wrong, then it becomes hate speech or ridicule, because it's made them uncomfortable.

Whatever greases your gears, sir. Have a nice day.

CARTOON

Tuesday, March 14, 2006 9:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So although it's "legal" to tit-for-tat, it's not what Jesus would "recommend"? I dunno- perhaps I got the NT wrong but my impression that loving your neighbor meant loving your neighbor: if he demand your cloak give him your shirt also, let he who is without sin, and so forth. I don't see how you can have two sets of rules. Either loving your neighbor is a commandment, or it's a "recommended practice"... something you do for bonus points.

Okay, maybe my last explanation was a bit ambiguous, so let me try one last time...

The "eye for an eye" was to curb exaggerated revenge, and expressed a principle that punishment should be proportionate to the offense.

For example, if person A cut off person B's arm, person A was not to be put to death, because person B was not killed.

If person A tore off person B's finger, person A was not to lose an arm, because person B didn't lose their arm as a result of the actions of person B.

If person A destroyed person B's goat, person A was not to take away person B's house.

The premise of an "eye for an eye" was to protect the guilty from exaggerated punishment. What about that doesn't make sense or seem in someway harsh or cruel?

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Also, there are large parts of the OT I can't imagine Jesus condoning: offering virgin daughters to the crowd, for example.

Where does it say that God endorsed Lot's action? It doesn't. It is recording an historical event -- plain and simple. If I write an article about how Booth assassinated Lincoln, does that imply that I'm endorsing Booth's actions, simply by stating factually that it happened?

Yes, Jesus endorsed the Hebrew scriptures as being the inerrant, authoritative word of God -- everything in them is true and recorded accurately -- and where the scriptures record that "The Lord said...", the Lord did indeed say.

However, to imply that this means that Jesus endorsed or condoned the individual actions of individual human beings which are recorded in those scriptures is silly.

I know, you don't actually believe that that is what I'm saying.

The scriptures are chock full of accounts of sin. No one believes that Jesus was condoning the sinful actions recorded therein.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 14, 2006 9:58 PM

So- what do you think of the Gospel of Thomas? Lacking a narrative structure, it is strictly about "And Jesus said..." But what Jesus said doesn't quite match up with what Jesus said in the synoptic Gospels.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.