No Longer A Christian

[On Fire]

Originally posted by Zakath

It depends entirely on who's using the word, since it's definition seems a bit "fluid".

Not in my mind.

Prove it.

You disprove it.

Nope. He doesn't even exist. All you're doing is asserting that the rules you prefer are his rules to try to bolster the authority behind your personal preferences.

And you are wallowing in a sin that you refuse to let go. God have mercy on you.

No he didn't. You're referring to translations of a collection of copies of ancient versions religious stories penned in languages you cannot even read. There is no more evidence that some deity is accurately quoted in the Bible than in the Bhagavad-gita, the Qua'ran, or the Zend Avesta.

He did.

The sooner you tell Satan to leave you alone the better off you'll be. He's making you say the stupidest things.

 

[Mr. Coffee]

Originally posted by granite1010
"It wasn't cruel; it involved the full consent of the Son, who gave himself in love."

Well, I guess we can quibble, but the torture of one of your own members and the abandonment of said member seems cruel on its face. I suppose that's just me.

The wrath of God is good. The self-offering of the Son is good. I've gone into the wrath of God earlier in this thread, and I have nothing to add unless you'd like to comment on the earlier post.

Originally posted by granite1010
The point being that Osiris (a member of an Egyptian trinity of sorts) was reborn. He was also, incidentally, pictured as a shepherd carrying a lamb on his shoulders. Interesting...

The discovery of pre-Christian shepherds is very interesting. A blinding epiphany.

To demand that a mythological analogy be perfect and clear of "ambiguity" is an impossible test, especially considering the ambiguity of the Christian religion.

All have sinned. Sinners are reconciled to God through Jesus Christ. Questions?

Noticed you didn't address the issue of the three days and nights.

I did. It's called rounding and it's done in the Bible. Do you really believe that the the historicity--the reality--of the resurrection hangs on the temporal index used to describe the Jesus' burial?

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by On Fire

You say "Right." but you don't really understand. Defense mechanism?!?! See, you JUST DON'T GET IT. "Most Christian don't like the OT"? Where on Earth did you get that lie?

So you can believe in God in so far as he punishes people but not when He offers salvation to the world? You can't have one without the other.

On Fire, is it possible for you to answer these questions or not? This whole post of yours is just blowing smoke.

Either you can't, or you don't want to.

 

[Granite]

"I did. It's called rounding and it's done in the Bible. Do you really believe that the the historicity--the reality--of the resurrection hangs on the temporal index used to describe the Jesus' burial?"

It's called "ROUNDING"? This is just priceless. So, the text doesn't REALLY mean three days and three nights. You hafta ROUND it.

What scriptural support do you have for this? Does three days and three nights mean three days and three nights or doesn't it? You're torturing the text.

Was Jonah in the fish three days and nights? Or was this period of time just "rounded"? Did creation take six days, or five days and a quarter? Was the timespan of creation "rounded"?

The reality of the resurrection is only as good as the man (or the writer) predicting it. Jesus said three days and three nights. He WASN'T in the tomb three days and three nights. As I said already: either the gospels are wrong, or Jesus is. Take your pick.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by granite1010

So when do they stop being innocent? This whole "age of accountability" concept has no scriptural support.

:duh:
They stop being innocent when they transgress the law. Be it God's law, man's law or the rules of their parents or school. But no matter what, one who had no hand in creation has any right to destroy the life of an innocent person.

If God can do whatever he wants with his creation, would you answer the questions I asked of On Fire?

What were the questions?

 

[Granite]

See post 634.

 

[On Fire]

Originally posted by granite1010

On Fire, is it possible for you to answer these questions or not? This whole post of yours is just blowing smoke.

Either you can't, or you don't want to.

You want a yes or no answer to the question "is wholesale genocide OK"?

1. Is it OK for Hitler to kill millions of Jews? No.

2. Is it OK for Sadam Insane to kill thousands of Iraqi's? No.

3. Was it OK for God to punish His people? Yes.

4. If God decided to punish His people today would it be OK? Yes.

 

[On Fire]

Originally posted by granite1010
either the gospels are wrong, or Jesus is. Take your pick.

You forgot an option: it's impossible for a finite man to understand an infinite God.

 

[Lighthouse]

I have to go back to the last page to find your questions?


Just kidding.

Originally posted by granite1010

Right. So, you're saying that the genocide was okay then, and it's justifiable now. Correct? Given the right circumstances Christians would be A-OK if they decided to start killing women, men, stealing goods, and kidnapping virgins. Yes or no.

If God decided that he wanted the wicked destroyed by the hands of His children, then yes. Of course, since there isn't a Christian nation in existence, that isn't likely. But I still see no problem with Christians fighting in wars, especially the war on terror. The reason Muslims attacked America is because they hate Christianity. And they think America is a Christian nation. Of course, a lot of what America currently stands for shapes what Muslims believe Christianity stands for. So I agree that God doesn't mind them being wiped out. But He would still like to free the ones He can.

The Jehovah of the Old Testament commanded barbarism, genocide, misogyny, the seizure of virgins, and other assorted brutality. Now, whether or not any of this ever happened (and I personally doubt the reality of most OT history) doesn't matter. It's in there. Wrapping yourself in a Bible and just saying "God did it, it MUST be okay" is a defense mechanism, nothing more.

Where do you see God commanding the seziure of virgins? What I remember is God mostly commanding that all citizens of those cities be destroyed. And the only time I can think of where that didn't happen was with Jericho. And I'm not one for saying, "...it must be okay." I say, God can do what He wants. If He did it, it is okay!

Most Christians don't like the Old Testament because of the blood shed a) done in God's name, b) perpetrated against children and women, and c) ordered directly by Jehovah.

Sounds like the staff here at TOL. Not! I have absolutely no problem with the OT, and I have no problem that those type of things are going to happen again, when the prophecies in Revelation unfold.

It's not as though Moses was misguided or didn't understand what God was telling him. In fact, Jehovah could get annoyed very quickly when not enough was burned to the ground, slaughtered, or seized.

He even killed people for keeping stuff: Achan.

Defying God is deadly, it always has been and it always will be.

 

[wickwoman]

Dear Lighthouse:

I missed the declaration of Jihad by the Christians against the Muslims. Funny, I thought it was a small faction of extremists who bombed the world trade center and I thought it was the U.S. government conducting the war on terror, not the Christians. Your version seems a little bit out of whack. Possibly this is a fantasy of yours. A great "holy" war. There is no such thing.

 

[Delmar]

Originally posted by granite1010

Most Christians don't like the Old Testament because of the blood shed....

Originally posted by On Fire

"Most Christian don't like the OT"? Where on Earth did you get that lie?

I wouldn't call that a lie. More Christians than not do not understand the big picture of the Bible. I am pretty sure that more than half would be willing to dismiss certain verses because the came from the OT.

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by On Fire

You want a yes or no answer to the question "is wholesale genocide OK"?

1. Is it OK for Hitler to kill millions of Jews? No.

2. Is it OK for Sadam Insane to kill thousands of Iraqi's? No.

3. Was it OK for God to punish His people? Yes.

4. If God decided to punish His people today would it be OK? Yes.

The first two examples are a non-sequitar. I was asking about the extermination of heathens ordered by Jehovah. So, at least you're consistent. Wiping out entire nations if we think God told us so is okay. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Granite]

"If God decided that he wanted the wicked destroyed by the hands of His children, then yes. Of course, since there isn't a Christian nation in existence, that isn't likely. But I still see no problem with Christians fighting in wars, especially the war on terror."

So that would include, in your unlikely but hypothetical scenario, kidnapping virgins, killing women, infants, burning property to the ground, the whole nine?

"But I still see no problem with Christians fighting in wars, especially the war on terror."

Neither do I. Of course barbarism and the extermination of entire countries is something I don't truck with.

"Where do you see God commanding the seziure of virgins?"

Numbers 31:15-18. Giddy up!

"He even killed people for keeping stuff: Achan."

He sure did! And Achan's whole family was subsequently stoned to death and burned till golden brown! Wasn't that exciting? Wasn't that merciful? Aren't the sins of the father NOT supposed to be passed on to the son?

Merciful my foot.

 

[Mr. Coffee]

Originally posted by granite1010

"I did. It's called rounding and it's done in the Bible. Do you really believe that the the historicity--the reality--of the resurrection hangs on the temporal index used to describe the Jesus' burial?"

It's called "ROUNDING"? This is just priceless. So, the text doesn't REALLY mean three days and three nights. You hafta ROUND it.

What scriptural support do you have for this? Does three days and three nights mean three days and three nights or doesn't it? You're torturing the text.

Was Jonah in the fish three days and nights? Or was this period of time just "rounded"? Did creation take six days, or five days and a quarter? Was the timespan of creation "rounded"?

The reality of the resurrection is only as good as the man (or the writer) predicting it. Jesus said three days and three nights. He WASN'T in the tomb three days and three nights. As I said already: either the gospels are wrong, or Jesus is. Take your pick.

And I told you.. it's consistent with Biblical usage. It doesn't matter if idiomatic expressions in other cultures don't make sense to you, because they don't have to. But you might try to understand these idioms, instead of judging them.

From the Talmud:
Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, tenth in the descent from Ezra said: "A day and a night are an Onah ['a portion of time'] and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it" [J.Talmud, Shabbath 9.3 and b.Talmud, Pesahim 4a]. This understanding was used in the numerous correlations between Jonah 1.17 ('in the belly of the fish for three days and three nights') and the OT passages cited below.

From the New Testament:
Matt 27.63-64: ""Sir," they said, "we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, `After three days I will rise again.' So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. " Note that 'after three days' was somehow equivalent to 'until the third day' (not 'until the fourth day').

In the Old Testament, 'three days,' 'the third day,' and 'three days and three nights' are used to signify the same period of time:

Gen 42.16: "And he put them all in custody for three days. 18 On the third day, Joseph said to them, "Do this and you will live, for I fear God" and they are released ON that day (from the context of verses 25-26). In this case the 'for three days' meant only 'into the third day'

1 Kings 20.29: "For seven days they camped opposite each other, and on the seventh day the battle was joined. " In this case we have 'for seven days' meant only 'into the seventh day'.

2 Chr 10.5: "And he said to them, 'Return to me again in three days" (NAS) with verse 12: "So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam on the third day as the king had directed, saying, 'Return to me on the third day." In this case 'in three days' is equivalent to 'on the third day'.

Esther 4.16: "Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa, and fast for me. Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will fast as you do. When this is done, I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish.'" And then in 5.1: "On the third day Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the palace, in front of the king's hall. " In this case, "on the third day" is equivalent to "for three days, night or day".

1 Samuel 30.12: "He ate and was revived, for he had not eaten any food or drunk any water for three days and three nights. 13 David asked him, "To whom do you belong, and where do you come from?" He said, "I am an Egyptian, the slave of an Amalekite. My master abandoned me when I became ill three days ago. " In this case "for three days and three nights' somehow was fulfilled when his master left him 'three days ago'.

Jesus' death on Friday afternoon would have been part of the Thursday night/Friday daylight "day". (Because in that culture, a 'day' starts at sundown). So, we have 3 'day/night' days involved: "Thursday night/Friday daylight", "Friday night/Saturday daylight", and "Saturday night/Sunday daylight" (remembering again that a part of a period counted for the whole).

 

[Granite]

And as I asked: until the text can't mean something other than what it says, how do we know when a "day" really is a "day" or if it's a "day" we have to "round"?

Was creation literally six days? And was Jonah in the fish three days or not? The only reason you have to torture the text is because you have something to prove. Scripture is straightforward until its credibility is on the line; then, magically, it means something other than what it says.

What, exactly, is the litmus test one uses to determine when a "day" really isn't a twenty-four hour "day"?

 

[On Fire]

Originally posted by granite1010
The only reason you have to torture the text is because you have something to prove.

Wait.....who's always asking for proof? Oh....that's right, it's the atheists! Stop asking for proof. Do you think one of us is sitting on a Polaroid of God creating Adam? :freak:

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by lighthouse

I have given it some thought. The unborn are innocent, but they do not remain innocent. However, God can do whatever He wants with His creation. Those who are not God have no right to take innocent life, for no valid reason.

So when the Jews slaughtered the innocents, were they wrong?

When the Christians slaughtered the Muslims (including pregnant women and unborn babies) by the thousands in the Crusades, were they wrong?

When the Christians slaughtered thousands of people (including pregnant women and unborn babies) of other religions during the Inquisition, were they wrong?

:think:

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by On Fire

...Stop asking for proof.

:doh:

Wouldn't that be convenient for your silly, unsubstantiated religious beliefs if all the non-believers stopped asking you questions.

Then you could pretend that everyone was as gullible as yourselves and just sit back waiting for your god to show up and ring in the kingdom...

:doh: Sorry, I forgot you've already been doing that for 2,000 years now... and he still hasn't bothered to put in an appearance...

Do you think one of us is sitting on a Polaroid of God creating Adam? :freak:

Of course not, because then you'd have proof. And we all know you have none... :chuckle:

 

[On Fire]

Wallow on, :zakath:.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by On Fire

Wallow on, :zakath:.

It's difficult to keep one's footing with all the excrement you religionists keep shovelling out...

:ha: