Relevant Questions For Christians

Author: Mandrakel

Posts

Total: 51
#31
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@MisterChris
 I find it humorous when athiests tell Christians how to interpret their own Holy Book. 
I find it humorous that anyone would think that the possibility of interpretation is anything but a problem for any faith with competing sects and competing interpretations. Unless you can somehow demonstrate conclusively that you are correct and your interpretation are correct and all other possible interpretations are incorrect I have no choice but to take the text at its word and the words used are ALL THINGS. 
#32
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
If half your holy book can be dismissed why have that half in the first place?
Did I say it could be dismissed? Don't put words in my mouth. I said it had been fulfilled. There's a difference I recognize, and that difference does not dismiss the O.T. as if it no longer had relevance. After all, didn't Santayana say that those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it? Is there relevance to the N.T., since it was finished 2,000 years ago? Many believe that, and that belief is on them, just as in the belief many share that Earth was created in six 24-hour periods, 6,000 years ago. They are welcome to that belief; I don't share it even though I am a creationist. The hitch is, I also believe creation continues to this day by the work of evolution, which God still oversees while allowing it [evolution] its own free agency. How many Christians do you know who buy that?
#33
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
-->
@secularmerlin
Stuff continues to happen. That would seem to suggest that all things are not yet accomplished. 

So when I say "Babe Ruth was a good player back in his day" you believe Babe Ruth existed for 24 hours sometime in the 20th century? This is what happens when you ignore context and grammatical norms.
#34
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
-->
@secularmerlin
I find it humorous that anyone would think that the possibility of interpretation is anything but a problem for any faith with competing sects and competing interpretations. Unless you can somehow demonstrate conclusively that you are correct and your interpretation are correct and all other possible interpretations are incorrect I have no choice but to take the text at its word and the words used are ALL THINGS. 
Ah, yes. And I suppose we should do away with all belief systems now. As you say, how can anyone's interpretation of anything be verified completely?

Fortunately, that includes doing away with your belief system of ignoring context, reason, and grammatical conventions.

You see my point I hope. Nothing can be verified completely. We can verify things beyond reasonable doubt, and corroborating this verse with the rest of the Bible (heck, even the verses surrounding it) yield enough evidence to back up my interpretation beyond reasonable doubt. 

What's ironic is that the tactic you fall upon is self-refuting: if no interpretation is able to be demonstrated conclusively, what grounds do we have for adopting yours?
Moreover, can you completely verify your interpretation that my interpretation is unverifiable?

If you make your standard complete verification you are left with an incoherent worldview. 
#35
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw



YOUR PATHETICALLY BIBLE IGNORANT QUOTE ONCE AGAIN: "Christians believe the Mosaic law was utterly fulfilled by the Gospel of Jesus Christ. At least, that is what he said. The references to the O.T. in these regards, as well as even the Ten Commandments are completely fulfilled, and therefore not applicable in favor of the Gospel of Christ. This is why when asked what the great commandment was, Christ answered that there were actually two: Love God, and love your neighbor [meaning everyone else]. Under these two laws, all previous Mosaic laws are consumed."

To contradict your Bible stupidity again, the simple conclusion, without going into greater detail because of your total Bible ineptness, is when Jesus told a man that wanted to know in how he could be saved, Jesus replied herewith to follow the OLD LAWS: "And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witnesses  Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?" (Matthew 19: 17-20).  

FAUXLAW, DO YOU WANT TO CALL JESUS A LIAR AGAIN IN HIM SAYING TO FOLLOW THE OLD LAWS, WHERE YOU SAY THAT CHRISTIANS DO NOT HAVE TOO?

FAUXLAW, you should remember this Bible narrative above, yes? You should because this is where I easily made you the Bible fool again in the following link:

You are excused for now, that is, until you show your Bible stupidity once again to be corrected as usual.


NEXT?


.
Topic's author
#36
Mandrakel
Mandrakel's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
0
2
2
Mandrakel's avatar
Mandrakel
0
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
Did I not address it, now in my #15? Seems some of us do not see the forest for the trees. 
Well of course we should not overlook the fact that my slightly cryptical OP addresses the age-old excuse that theists use for vilifying homosexuals, i.e., because the Bible says so. But at least you demonstrated the tendency to interpret to suit one's needs or to avoid the intent.
Topic's author
#37
Mandrakel
Mandrakel's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
0
2
2
Mandrakel's avatar
Mandrakel
0
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Citing a supernatural guy up a mountain somewhere, as justification, was a tad audacious.....But some people will believe anything.
And some people will pass the buck when it comes to taking responsibility for their own shortcomings or prejudices. "I'm not anti-poofter but the Bible does say........."

#38
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Mandrakel
because the Bible says so. 
Yes, and that is my highest objection to the justification many Christians adopt for numerous arguments that develop over our penchant to discriminate against others. The Bible says many things, but it is hardly a perfect book. No book that I am aware of [and I have a sizable library of just printed books]  is perfect, so I am not likely to use that argument without the exception of its imperfection. Besides, unlike BrotherDThomas, for one [there are others] I detest Bible pounding to prove a point; it has little, and should have no effect on reasonable people who believe the Bible as far as it can be construed to be correct [and I certainly believe it is with my reservations]. Unfortunately, some fall into poundmethomas' pounding by pounding back. No book should suffer that fate, because it does take a lot of beating.
Topic's author
#39
Mandrakel
Mandrakel's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
0
2
2
Mandrakel's avatar
Mandrakel
0
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
some fall into poundmethomas' pounding by pounding back. No book should suffer that fate, because it does take a lot of beating.
I agree. I remember all too fondly the Bible fights we used to have at Sunday School whenever our teacher had to excuse herself to take a dump. No, we weren't fighting over the translation of text; we would hurl them at each other. Those books sure took a beating.

#40
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
Did I say it could be dismissed? 
Look you can't have your cake and eat it too. Are the rules still in force or are we dismissing that part of the book ?
#41
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@MisterChris
So when I say "Babe Ruth was a good player back in his day" you believe Babe Ruth existed for 24 hours sometime in the 20th century? This is what happens when you ignore context and grammatical norms.
You mean when you interpret a sentence instead of taking it at face value. 
 I suppose we should do away with all belief systems now.
Since this does not logically follow from my argument I didn't really get much further.
#42
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,148
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@MisterChris
It is time for Mankind to transition from Religion  to Humanism. It is time to question the purpose of this Simulatation we live in. We know it is a simulation because of Spooky Action at a Distance (Quantum Entanglement).
#43
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mandrakel
1) How do you have your hair cut? (Leviticus 19:27 You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard.)

2) How well done do you enjoy your steak? (Leviticus 19:26 Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it)

3) Would you or do you have any tattoos on your body? (Leviticus 19:28 Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord)

4) Do you condone homosexuality? (Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination)

5) Do you often pick cherries?
#44
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
Are the rules still in force
The "rules" as you call them, are covenants: covenants that bear the weight of ultimate justice. Justice will not be denied, nor should it be bent. Covenant = contract. The Old Covenant, or Testament, or Contract, was in force until the coming of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. His Atonement fulfilled, that is, met the demand of the justice imposed by the Old Covenant. Therefore, the "rules" of the Old Covenant are no longer in force, but that does not mean they are dismissed, as in erasing their history. We erase at our peril. Why? Because it is good to know the seeds of why the Atonement was necessary in the first place, and what it actually accomplished. By holding the history, not erasing it, we understand the continuity of Old and New Covenants. Jesus Christ embodies the fulfillment of the Old Covenant. It is upon his New Covenant that we are implored to obey, but obedience, and its consequences, are our choice, completely. Otherwise, justice would not be served and met.
Topic's author
#45
Mandrakel
Mandrakel's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
0
2
2
Mandrakel's avatar
Mandrakel
0
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
Whether or not a directive comes from the Ten Commandments or not my intention was to highlight the tendency of Christians to hide behind their faith when it comes to vilifying homosexuals.
#46
eventuality001
eventuality001's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 66
0
0
3
eventuality001's avatar
eventuality001
0
0
3
-->
@Theweakeredge

Honestly, I am not sure what part of the Biblical account entailed within my post seemed inaccurate or unscriptural or unfactual.

As far as the subject of Rome outlawing and prohibiting  Plural  / Polygamy  marriage in parts of Israel controlled by the Roman Government.   here are a few links that explain this in more detail.

 
In 285 A.D. a constitution of Diocletian and Maximian outlawed polygamy to all subjects of the empire without exception.

You can look online and review the persecution that the Jews endured under The Roman Empire.
here is one link   -  out of many more    -      https://www.britannica.com/topic/Judaism/The-Roman-period-63-bce-135-ce

if there was something inaccurate or untruthful in my post, please let me know.

  If someone does not believe the Biblical account because the surrounding nations and communities do not have the same record of events in their historical data,   Please realize that these surrounding communities are the nations that evolved into the religions of  Islam  and  Catholicism.

So it is a matter of placing your trust in the  Bible   or  trusting  in  the  Islamic  narrative    -  and the  Catholic narrative of what defines historical fact.


#47
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
What is the difference between declaring a law to be no longer in force and declaring that there isno longer a law? 
#48
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@MisterChris
In what way does "until all things are accomplished" differ from "until all included prophecies are fulfilled" and while you ponder that remember that even if some bloke named jesus did fulfill one or two the bible makes predictions about the end of the world. All things will never be accomplished. That is a common feature of religions by the way. To claim some authority from the supposed upcoming end of the world.
#49
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
The declaration, alone, accomplishes nothing. Depends on who's talking, and who is actually accomplishing the task of fulfillment; a charletan, or the real deal.
#50
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
I don't know what real deal you mean. 
#51
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Mandrakel
Great questions.