Questioning Christians....

>>15668031
All die.

Your thread is called Questioning Christians but there was no question

>>15668031
I'm pretty sure the Abrahamic God is an evil deity trying to take credit for another being's work.
>Worship me or die and suffer eternal torture
>Kill those who don't worship me
>Sacrifice animals to me. When that's not enough, I'll require you to torture and kill an innocent man. Only then will I forgive you.

>>15668036
So you believe in Abrahamic God's existence?

>>15668033
ideJ doesn't make a lot of sense, he tends to ramble aimlessly.

>>15668033
I meant to put one but I can be very questioning of those types of questions.

>>15668033
That's because it's a troll thread.

>>15668039
Yes. I'm actually a scientifically minded person, and believe that all things supernatural are actually just plain old natural, we just haven't been able to understand yet.

I would not believe in the supernatural had I not had several personal experiences, with others present to witness them as well.

>>15668036
Yet, the God I'm thinking of is more like the Native American creator. I don't really follow a religion but I believe in a creator of the universe I like to call God.

>>15668054
So what evidence do you have to support your claim that Abrahamic God is taking credit for another beings work, besides that his laws hurt your feelings?

>>15668054
If energy is finite then how could The Theory Of Relativity make complete sense.... Like where could all this energy we call "matter" come from? It makes my head hurt how much energy there is.

>>15668051
Nah I have had some troll threads this is more... I dunno, serious.

>>15668040
I ramble aimlessly and somewhere in there you find some sense.... Can't help it I have mental disorder.

>>15668055
Does your creator care how his creations live their lives?

File: ideJ.png (384KB, 900x582px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 900x582px

*swings lite sabor randum directuns* I'm getting bored.... I has my Schizo Affective + Depression + ADHD

>>15668076
He allows all to learn their way through the world and for warriors honor and pride. For peaceful people inner-peace and faith. I made a hybrid religion between native religions and Christianity.

>>15668055
Yes, that is a view I generally agree with.
>>15668056
Because Monotheism is the newest belief system in a world that was polytheistic for thousands of years. There is no reason to believe the bible as any more truthful than the written works that came thousands of years beforehand. The original flood story from the Epic of Gilgamesh (predating the bible by about 1,000-2,000 years) says the flood was caused by an evil god of deception.

>besides that his laws hurt your feelings?
it's not about feelings, it's about the fact that his laws are sick and twisted. Animal and human sacrifice, the condoning of slavery, rape, genocide, infanticide (all first borns of egypt. he killed innocent children, only sparing you if you sacrifice an animal and smearing it's blood above your doorway). A simple application of the golden rule, or just some common sense, reveals these actions to be nothing short of malevolent.
>>15668061
That's a question we don't currently have an answer for, and there is nothing to suggest that energy is finite in the first place. We can only see so far.

>>15668086
>There is no reason to believe the bible as any more truthful than the written works that came thousands of years beforehand
Well there are more reliable eye witness accounts for the bible, than those that came thousands of years beforehand
>it's about the fact that his laws are sick and twisted.
Its funny you use the word "fact" here. Whats the ultimate standard for your objective morals?

>>15668085
What evidence do you have that supports native religions?

>>15668094
>Well there are more reliable eye witness accounts for the bible, than those that came thousands of years beforehand
Citation needed on those eye-witness accounts and their reliability. What makes them more reliable? because they were more recent? and that doesn't take into account that they could believe what they say, without it being true. It all comes down to, basically, "he said, she said", so all that can be done is to consider the message.
>Its funny you use the word "fact" here. Whats the ultimate standard for your objective morals?
The same standard most civilized people use: The golden rule, treat others the way you want to be treated. If it were any other deity calling for genocide, condoning rape, slavery, and live sacrifices, I bet you wouldn't think twice about that deity being evil.

How exactly can you justify such atrocities as the ones committed by the abrahamic god all through the bible?

>>15668122
>Citation needed on those eye-witness accounts and their reliability. What makes them more reliable? because they were more recent? and that doesn't take into account that they could believe what they say, without it being true. It all comes down to, basically, "he said, she said", so all that can be done is to consider the message.
Well consider the dates of the gospels, the latest one was John, dated to, at the latest 100 AD, (which can attributed as either being written by him or by students taught directly by him). Also keep in mind that all the apostles, and many other Christians, with the exception of John, were killed for their beliefs, as recorded by historian Eusebius. Historians say anything written within 200 years of its subject material should be considered reliable. Note, Christians weren't able to more passionately record their history, because of their persecution, until Constantine made their religion tolerable.
>The same standard most civilized people use: The golden rule, treat others the way you want to be treated. If it were any other deity calling for genocide, condoning rape, slavery, and live sacrifices, I bet you wouldn't think twice about that deity being evil.
That doesn't make it objective.
>How exactly can you justify such atrocities as the ones committed by the abrahamic god all through the bible?
Well we'd have to take this on a case by case basic. Give me just one example of what you consider to be an atrocity of God, with scripture, and we'll discuss it.

>>15668096
My interpretations of what the native American religion would be like before any legends were added is appealing then you add a little Buddhism for truth and you have the perfect recipe for learning.

>>15668141
Well my question is, how do you know your melting pot of beliefs are true?

>>15668144
No, it's religion you have faith.

>>15668145
Faith doesn't have to be blind. In order to build faith, you have to build trust.

>>15668151
You only have faith where you do not know or where you get negative emotions.

>>15668151
The religion I made for myself is a mix of Christianity and Buddhism basically with a little Native American stuff mixed in.

>>15668161
You can't believe what you do not know. Something has to incite that belief

>>15668137
>Well consider the dates of the gospels, the latest one was John, dated to, at the latest 100 AD, (which can attributed as either being written by him or by students taught directly by him). Also keep in mind that all the apostles, and many other Christians, with the exception of John, were killed for their beliefs, as recorded by historian Eusebius.
agreed.
>Historians say anything written within 200 years of its subject material should be considered reliable.
This doesn't take into account whether the authors are trustworthy in the first place. Also, by this logic, the Epic of Gilgamesh flood story is more reliable than the Bible's plagiarized version, seeing as how the EoG version would be closer to the time it actually happened, while the Bible's was at least 1000 years after that.
>Note, Christians weren't able to more passionately record their history, because of their persecution, until Constantine made their religion tolerable.
Why do you think they were persecuted? How would you react if a cult started today claimed that there belief is right, and all the others were wrong all along? And they decide to write a new version of Jesus story, that while similar, changes key details, and says that this new version is right because their god told them so?
>That doesn't make it objective.
The golden rule is the most objective you can get when it comes to morality. It makes sense that if you don't want something done to you, it's not something you should do to others. No one wants to be murdered, so murder is considered wrong. No one wants their possessions taken from them, so theft is considered wrong.
>Well we'd have to take this on a case by case basic. Give me just one example of what you consider to be an atrocity of God, with scripture, and we'll discuss it.
The example I used earlier, for starters. The 10th plague of Egypt. The killing of innocent children in retribution for the actions of a few.

>>15668151
Chruddicanism that's what I'll name it starting now.

>>15668167
Learning incites belief more than anything.

File: awordofadvicefrom4chins.webm (541KB, 1280x720px)

541KB, 1280x720px

>>15668031
So are you saying that while something is alive it is smart, and when it dies it becomes dumb or is anything that dies dumb from beginning to end?

Because honestly unless you're immortal you're probably dissing yourself.

>>15668031
>That which is alive is smart.
>That which is alive is smart.

Oh boy...

>>15668170
>cont.
There is also verses in Leviticus, calling for the death penalty of minor things such as wearing clothing made of more than one kind of material, planting more than one kind of crop in the same field, and picking up sticks on the sabbath.

Then you have it saying (using google to find the exact verse again, I'll get back with that in a few) that if a woman is raped, the rapist is to pay her father 10 pieces of silver, and marry her. the raped woman has no say in it, and is basically treated as property.

Then there is a verse saying that you may not enslave your own countrymen, but to take your slaves from a neighboring country instead.

Then tells slaves they are to obey their masters unquestioningly, even the cruel ones.

Chruddicanism : "You learn through yourself and the world around you"

>>15668191
Is there a problem?

>>15668187
>corrupt file

You've got to be kidding me.

The copypasta for your sake:
Hi there!

You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!

Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bit to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!

>>15668170
>This doesn't take into account whether the authors are trustworthy in the first place. Also, by this logic, the Epic of Gilgamesh flood story is more reliable than the Bible's plagiarized version, seeing as how the EoG version would be closer to the time it actually happened, while the Bible's was at least 1000 years after that.
Well I don't think they'd face persecution for something that they weren't absolutely sure in. And if they were right about something as miraculous as the resurrection of Jesus, then I'll take my chances with believing the rest of the bible
>Why do you think they were persecuted? How would you react if a cult started today claimed that there belief is right, and all the others were wrong all along? And they decide to write a new version of Jesus story, that while similar, changes key details, and says that this new version is right because their god told them so?
What does their reason for being persecuted have to do with the reliability of their testimony?
>The golden rule is the most objective you can get when it comes to morality. It makes sense that if you don't want something done to you, it's not something you should do to others. No one wants to be murdered, so murder is considered wrong. No one wants their possessions taken from them, so theft is considered wrong.
Just because something makes sense doesn't make it objectively true. There were plenty of scientific laws that were considered facts and made sense that were later proven untrue.
>The example I used earlier, for starters. The 10th plague of Egypt. The killing of innocent children in retribution for the actions of a few.
Would you kill 100 babies, to save a million more? So if killing those babies freed the Israelites and provided a foundation for the Savior Jesus to be born, wouldn't that make it justified?

>>15668187
People should be considered fairly smart whil alive, that's all I was saying. Please, don't ask those dead people for advice.

>>15668177
Exactly, so what have you learned that incited your beliefs?

>>15668196
corrections.*

I was mistaken, it was 50 pieces of silver to the father. Deuteronomy 22:28-29

God condoning the imprisonment, enslavement, and rape of women from an enemy. Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Judges 5:30

cont.

>>15668207
>Well I don't think they'd face persecution for something that they weren't absolutely sure in.
You don't 'think'? And you can believe yourself to be sure of something and still be wrong.
>And if they were right about something as miraculous as the resurrection of Jesus, then I'll take my chances with believing the rest of the bible
One part of a book being correct doesn't make the rest of it valid, especially a book with so many different authors, edits, translations, and the voting of the catholic church to decide which books "they" thought should and shouldn't be in the bible. Also to note, I have no problem with Jesus or his message of love and peace. It's YHWH that is the problem.
>What does their reason for being persecuted have to do with the reliability of their testimony?
To draw a correlation in an attempt to let you see it from a different perspective.
>Just because something makes sense doesn't make it objectively true. There were plenty of scientific laws that were considered facts and made sense that were later proven untrue.
There is no full on objectiveness when it comes to morality. All we can go on is our collective reasoning and agreement. Trying to draw a parallel to science is moot, as science, as a system of learning, is designed to be flexible and change as new facts and discoveries are made.
>Would you kill 100 babies, to save a million more? So if killing those babies freed the Israelites and provided a foundation for the Savior Jesus to be born, wouldn't that make it justified?
No. If I had that kind of power, I would kill the ones directly responsible for endangering that million more, not deal a punishment to innocent children who had no say in whether the Israelites could go or not. There was no necessity for killing those kids at all, even less so for a supposedly all powerful deity.

>>15668216
God condoning the owning of sex slaves
Exodus 21:7-11

God condoning slavery
Leviticus 25:44-46
Exodus 21:2-6
Exodus 21:20-21 (you can beat your slaves, just make sure they don't die immediately. if they die of internal bleeding a few days later, you are off the hook.)
Ephesians 6:5
1 Timothy 6:1-2
Luke 12:47-48 (even Jesus giving slavery the OK)

>>15668248
>You don't 'think'? And you can believe yourself to be sure of something and still be wrong.
I'm just going with the probability that so many wouldn't die for something they weren't absolutely sure in. The apostles didn't deny their faith even in torture
>One part of a book being correct doesn't make the rest of it valid
It is when that one part being correct proves that it was ultimately written by God
>and the voting of the catholic church to decide which books "they" thought should and shouldn't be in the bible.
Whats wrong with that? They simply couldn't gather to decide earlier on account of being persecuted, and most didn't consider it an issue because they were all sure of Christ's resurrection which is the most important part anyway
>To draw a correlation in an attempt to let you see it from a different perspective.
I don't see how thats supposed to change my perspective. That'd be an emotional response on my part
>There is no full on objectiveness when it comes to morality.
I'd argue that there is, in God. God's actions may not seem just to you, but his laws given to modern believers through Jesus are.
>No. If I had that kind of power, I would kill the ones directly responsible for endangering that million more
Killing the pharaoh would not have freed the Israelites. It'd just mean that they'd have to appeal to someone else. God says himself that the Pharaohs heart was hardened, which means that very little would have convinced him. God also wanted to establish trust with his people, and show them that he'd use any means to free them from captivity.
Also, if you adhere to Christian theology, you'd know that anyone that dies before the age of accountability is sent to heaven, so those babies did ultimately end up in a better place

>>15668203
Define "smart"

>>15668289
>I'm just going with the probability that so many wouldn't die for something they weren't absolutely sure in. The apostles didn't deny their faith even in torture
That only shows they truly believed, but like I said before, it's possible to believe something and be wrong.
>It is when that one part being correct proves that it was ultimately written by God
No, it doesn't. By that logic, I could write a book, include a few lines talking about Jesus resurrection, and fill the rest with complete bullshit, and it would be considered written by God.
>Whats wrong with that?
because they excluded books, edited things, and changed other parts to fit their agenda. A perfect book inspired by a perfect god would have no need for humans to have to decide on it in a council with group votes.
>That'd be an emotional response on my part
exactly. the point being that persecution or lack of persecution has no relevance to validity. Every religion has been persecuted at one point.
>I'd argue that there is, in God. God's actions may not seem just to you, but his laws given to modern believers through Jesus are.
See, that's just circular logic. You are arguing that God is just because the bible says so, the bible is true because god said so (in the bible). I would like you to address the point I made that any actions your god has taken, you would deem evil if done by any other god. simply because your god says so. Your are arguing morality from an endless feedback loop in the bible. An evil act is still an evil act, regardless of who performs it.
>Killing the pharaoh would not have freed the Israelites. It'd just mean that they'd have to appeal to someone else.
He could kill the pharaoh, along with all the authority figures, from the top down, until there was no one left to stop them from leaving. Or he could simply tell the Israelites to start walking, and instantly kill anyone and everyone who moved to try and stop them.

>>15668289
also, tell me, how can you justify what is said in >>15668216
>>15668287
?

Saying an evil act is justified because your god did it, and your god is always just because he says so, is not a justification. That's tyranny. The one in power saying they can do whatever they want because they are in power, and questioning their evil deeds is instead evil.

>tl;dr, i've pointed out multiple evil acts by your god, and am asking you how they can be justified.

Slavery, rape, genocide, infanticide, and sacrifices. Back to the previous example, how would you feel if a cult came along saying they are right and you are wrong, and their god openly advocates these things? You would call that god evil, would you not?

>>15668328
>That only shows they truly believed, but like I said before, it's possible to believe something and be wrong.
Well we have 500 eye witnesses. Seems reliable to me
>By that logic, I could write a book, include a few lines talking about Jesus resurrection, and fill the rest with complete bullshit, and it would be considered written by God.
Well yeah, if you did it before his resurrection. Thats called a prophecy
>because they excluded books, edited things, and changed other parts to fit their agenda.
So what was their agenda then, and do provide evidence please for this claim
>A perfect book inspired by a perfect god would have no need for humans to have to decide on it in a council with group votes
Well it could be argued that God is the one that made the decisions, through them. Either way, there are distinct reasons why each book that was excluded/included, primarily their dates written
>exactly. the point being that persecution or lack of persecution has no relevance to validity. Every religion has been persecuted at one point.
I wasn't using it as a point that Christianity it true, I was just justifying why it took them so long to record their history more extensively
>See, that's just circular logic. You are arguing that God is just because the bible says so, the bible is true because god said so (in the bible). I would like you to address the point I made that any actions your god has taken, you would deem evil if done by any other god. simply because your god says so. Your are arguing morality from an endless feedback loop in the bible. An evil act is still an evil act, regardless of who performs it.
Agreed, we should stick to what the evidence points to, which I interpret as validating the bible

Cant greentext your last point because post is too long. I don't know why God didn't do that, but I think it could be argued that there wasn't anything unjust about it, considering that dead babies enter heaven automatically.

>>15668352
>i've pointed out multiple evil acts by your god
I specifically asked for one at a time, and I've asked, by what standard can you say their objectively evil? You've implied in an earlier post that emotional reasoning is flawed, so it can't be simply because it makes you uncomfortable

And yet, the atheist is the one arguing with a pigeon.

>>15668390
There are just as many eye-witnesses to claim they saw miracles of other gods. And in the end, the only source of these eye-witnesses is in the bible. It's not impossible to write "500 people saw this."
>Well yeah, if you did it before his resurrection. Thats called a prophecy
You seem to be unaware of the other claimed resurrections before Jesus. Osiris is one, as well as Dionysus, Persephone, Odin, and Krishna. There are others i can't recall at the moment. Why do their resurrections not count for anything? Also, see self-fulfilling prophecy.
>So what was their agenda then, and do provide evidence please for this claim
the same as most religious leaders: control and power through fear. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
>Well it could be argued that God is the one that made the decisions, through them.
yes, that could be argued, but there is no basis to believe that argument
>I wasn't using it as a point that Christianity it true, I was just justifying why it took them so long to record their history more extensively
noted.
>Agreed, we should stick to what the evidence points to, which I interpret as validating the bible
But it seems to me you are interpreting it as validating the bible because of confirmation bias, and holding to the circular reasoning of the bible itself.
>I think it could be argued that there wasn't anything unjust about it, considering that dead babies enter heaven automatically.
You basically agreed that killing babies is OK and justified. How can you not see how wrong that is?

Another point I remembered would be the holidays. It's historical record that every christian holiday was commandeered from other religions. Why would a valid religion need to Hijack the celebrations and traditions of older religions?

Also, since we are passed the point of 10th plague, how would you address slavery?

>>15668444
>Osiris is one, as well as Dionysus, Persephone, Odin, and Krishna. There are others i can't recall at the moment. Why do their resurrections not count for anything? Also, see self-fulfilling prophecy.
Can you provide evidence for their resurrections?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
Did a quick skim of the wiki, don't see anything that supports your claim. It actually says very little discussion on the biblical canon took place
>How can you not see how wrong that is?
Well I can justify it by saying my laws were given to me by the ultimate law giver, God. You're the one who has to explain to me why its evil, besides that it hurts your feelings.
>Another point I remembered would be the holidays. It's historical record that every christian holiday was commandeered from other religions. Why would a valid religion need to Hijack the celebrations and traditions of older religions?
This is irrelevant. Practicing those holidays has nothing to do with biblical teaching.
>Also, since we are passed the point of 10th plague, how would you address slavery?
Slavery in the Old Testament was very different than it is now. Slaves were considered equal members of the household and given higher authority than the children. Slaves were more akin to butlers. They were subject to discipline and submission to the head of the house, as was all the other members.

>>15668489
>Can you provide evidence for their resurrections?
Just ancient texts saying so. So basically, the same amount of evidence you have.
>Well I can justify it by saying my laws were given to me by the ultimate law giver, God. You're the one who has to explain to me why its evil, besides that it hurts your feelings.
I don't know how to simplify it any more to you. You are basically saying your god is justified to perform acts that any sane person would agree is abhorrent, but it's not evil when your god does it because your god says so. Once again, that's circular logic, and if any other deity tried the same thing, you would quickly label it evil without a second thought.
>Slavery in the Old Testament was very different than it is now.
Wrong. Slavery is owning another person. An individual is stripped of their freedom and forced to obey every command of their master without question under threat of beating.
>Slaves were considered equal members of the household and given higher authority than the children. Slaves were more akin to butlers.
Also wrong. Butlers are hired servants, and can quit their job whenever they want. Slaves have no choice.
Exodus 21:20-21, concerning the beating of slaves, and explicitly says they are property.
Exodus 21:7-11 buying sex slaves, condoning the act of selling your daughter as a sex slave.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 God on rape victims being forced to marry their rapists.
12:11-14 there are no words for this one. It's just sick.

>>15668530
>2 Samuel 12:11-14*
forgot to include book for last one.

>>15668530
>Just ancient texts saying so. So basically, the same amount of evidence you have.
No, I have eye witness testimony backed by the historians
>I don't know how to simplify it any more to you. You are basically saying your god is justified to perform acts that any sane person would agree is abhorrent, but it's not evil when your god does it because your god says so
Don't you think that God, being the creator of life, time, all of creation, has the right to do what he pleases with it? He has no need to justify himself. The difference between my deity and others is that mine is real
>Slavery is owning another person. An individual is stripped of their freedom and forced to obey every command of their master without question under threat of beating.
No, it was a job, like any other. The bible provides laws on how to treat slaves. They were under threat of discipline, just like any other member of the household.
>Exodus 21:20-21, concerning the beating of slaves, and explicitly says they are property.
It says to discipline them within reason
>Exodus 21:7-11
Says nothing about sex
>Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Culturally, much value was placed on virginity/purity. Nobody would want to marry a nonvirgin, so the rapist being forced to marry her, would also be forced to provide for her.
>2 samuel 12:11-14
Again, assuming Christianity is true, whats wrong with the author of life doing as he pleases with his creation?

Please explain to me why any of these is wrong, besides that it hurts your feelings? If you could go back in time and kill baby Hitler, would you?

>>15668579
>No, I have eye witness testimony backed by the historians
No, you don't. Citation needed if I'm to take that claim seriously.
>Don't you think that God, being the creator of life, time, all of creation, has the right to do what he pleases with it?
It's justified because he can. That's how many psychopaths justify doing evil acts. And also, just because he claims to be the creator, doesn't mean he is.
>He has no need to justify himself.
Yes, he does, because he openly commits acts that he says are evil if anyone else does them. That's called hypocrisy.
>No, it was a job, like any other. The bible provides laws on how to treat slaves.
wrong, and right. It was not a job, it was slavery. Otherwise it wouldn't be called slavery. And yes, the bible does describe how to treat them, as in the verse i pointed out in earlier posts. There is no mention that you have to treat them well, but much advocation for treating them horribly.
>It says to discipline them within reason
>minor infraction, beat to bloody pulp, slave dies a few days later from internal bleeding. That's ok, they are just property.
>Says nothing about sex
read it again.
>When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. ***If she does not please the man who bought her***, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or ***fail to sleep with her as his wife***. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.

Cont.d

>>15668579
cont.d
>Culturally, much value was placed on virginity/purity. Nobody would want to marry a nonvirgin, so the rapist being forced to marry her, would also be forced to provide for her.
That is still forcing the victim to marry her rapist. That does not justify such an atrocious act.
>Again, assuming Christianity is true, whats wrong with the author of life doing as he pleases with his creation?
I've already addressed this.

>Please explain to me why any of these is wrong, besides that it hurts your feelings?
You haven't listened to a single thing I've said. Let's try and turn this around, then.

Please explain to me why any of these things are justified, besides that your book says so?

>If you could go back in time and kill baby Hitler, would you?
what does this have to do with anything? Fine, I'll bite. Yes, I would, because he would be directly responsible. I wouldn't, however, kill every firstborn child in germany for the acts of a few, which is the reasoning your god uses.

Can you not take a step back and see what you are doing? You are arguing that rape, murder, genocide, torture, slaver, and live sacrifice are not evil. You surely understand the words you are typing, don't you? You justify that these evil acts aren't evil because your god says so, a god that is relatively young and new in comparison to all the other god's out there.

You would be better off worshipping the monstrosities of H.P. Lovecraft if they existed. They advocate all the same things as your god. The only difference would be that they would be honest about the fact that they are evil, whereas your god says these evil acts are not.

>>15668604
>No, you don't. Citation needed if I'm to take that claim seriously.
Why don't you consider the gospels eye witness testimony? Why don't you consider Luke a historian?
>It's justified because he can.
No, its justified because all of creation belongs to him, including us
> just because he claims to be the creator, doesn't mean he is.
What reason is there to believe otherwise? Wouldn't a more powerful creator be keen to proving himself the creator, rather than let an inferior being take the credit?
>There is no mention that you have to treat them well, but much advocation for treating them horribly.
Yes there is. It says anyone that disciplines a slave beyond a single days worth of recovery will face criminal charges
>When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. ***If she does not please the man who bought her***, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or ***fail to sleep with her as his wife***. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.
If they marry, then she is no longer a slave, shes given a higher authority. The man, in turn, provides for her, and she gives him children and cares for them. This was a cultural norm.
>That is still forcing the victim to marry her rapist. That does not justify such an atrocious act.
Its not supposed to justify it. Its a punishment to the rapist, not to the raped.
>Please explain to me why any of these things are justified, besides that your book says so?
Because there's evidence that my book is the word of the ultimate law giver, God

>>15668636
>Why don't you consider the gospels eye witness testimony? Why don't you consider Luke a historian?
for the same reason you don't consider any other proposed holy texts valid. There are no outside sources to correlate, and therefore, all texts hold just as much water.
>No, its justified because all of creation belongs to him, including us
You keep saying that, but have yet to give good reason to believe that's the truth other than "he said so in the bible".
>What reason is there to believe otherwise?
Because there were other gods making that claim long before monotheism ever came along. What reason is there to believe they were lying? See how your flawed reasoning can be used against you?
>Wouldn't a more powerful creator be keen to proving himself the creator, rather than let an inferior being take the credit?
There is no sure way of knowing that. For all we know, the creator is completely neutral in everything and just watching how it plays out. It could have been a non-sentient force, for all anyone knows, and the lesser gods being by-products of creation just as much as we are. And if your god has proven himself, why are his followers split into 3 factions who have been trying to kill each other for the past 2000 years, and the so much of the world not even believing in him at all? The criteria you just presented to a different creator, you don't even apply to your own.
>Yes there is. It says anyone that disciplines a slave beyond a single days worth of recovery will face criminal charges
I think this is getting away from the point that slavery is condoned at all. try to call it what you want, and spin it how you want, it is still slavery.
>If they marry, then she is no longer a slave
yes, she is. The bible treats women as property as well, and marrying him doesn't change the fact that she is there against her will. You are also ignoring the part where he condones a man selling his daughter into slavery in the first place. Cultural norm is no excuse.

>>15668636
>Its not supposed to justify it. Its a punishment to the rapist, not to the raped.
Punish the rapist by letting him rape his victim even more? And I'm sure the one that was raped would disagree about it not being a punishment for her, seeing as how she is now forced to let her rapist continue with the act for the rest of her life, while she has no say in the matter.
>Because there's evidence that my book is the word of the ultimate law giver, God
please provide this evidence, because so far, you have provided nothing more than any other religion offers as evidence, that evidence being "my book says so". You are still using circular logic. Do you understand what circular logic is? It's a logical fallacy, and if it were a valid form of reasoning, could be used to claim anything and everything, just by writing a book about it.

>>15668666
>>15668680
Nice devil trips
I apologize for the cop out, but its 3 am and my fever is acting up. Thanks for the discussion, good night.

>>15668686
We can continue later, if you would like. I'm about to get off of work and have to go soon myself. I thank you for the discussion as well. Despite our vast disagreements, you at least have my respect for keeping it civil and not resorting to ad hominem attacks and the like.

>>15668686
>>15668695
>an atheist and a christian ending a debate civilly, and without name calling even once the entire time
THIS is the most paranormal thing I have ever witnessed. 2spooky4me. Holy shit, /x/, sometimes this board can be gloriously surprising.

>>15668705
>atheist
actually, I'm a polytheist who believes in the existence of all gods. I'm a worshiper of Minerva/Athena because of my love of knowledge above all else.

I can, however, see how I can come across as an atheist from some of the contents of the conversation though.

And obviously, my opponent and I are both smart enough to at least know that once we resort to name calling and personal attacks, any chance of convincing the other of anything or having a productive discussion would go straight out the window.

>>15668086
>evil god of deception
Why do people insist on saying stupid things like that? Why doesn't anyone read things anymore rather than spouting utter nonsense based on hearsay as fact?

The Mesopotamian flood accounts have Enlil, head of the divine assembly, decide to wipe out humanity because it is noisy and annoying and breeding too fast. Enlil is neither evil (the cultures back then didn't have a good-evil dichotomy) nor a god of deception.

>>15668636
Because they are not historical documents and because the writers of the gospels were not writing history but instead writing accounts of the life of a religious figure from a while ago. That is not eyewitness accounts.

Plus, if you say the stuff in the OT and NT is real because it is your holy book, does that work for other religious ideas as well? I have historical evidence to prove that stuff was sacrificed to the gods, that there was prophecy and communication with deities that predate your religion by millennia. Do I get to claim that everything that I can find on the internet about these gods is 100% real and true, because historical documents and eye witness accounts? Or does that just work with YHVH?

>>15668031
"that which is alive is smart." Then why the fuck are you still alive?

>>15668773
>the cultures back then didn't have a good-evil dichotomy
>Why do people insist on saying stupid things.

What are the odds you were being intentionally ironic and not just a huge fucking retard?

>>15668196
>There is also verses in Leviticus, calling for the death penalty of minor things such as wearing clothing made of more than one kind of material, planting more than one kind of crop in the same field, and picking up sticks on the sabbath.

There are only two people who ever bring up things like that occurring within the Old Testament. Either hard-right fundamentalists or atheists who wish to discredit or question an established faith. It's odd because, as a form of criticism, it really does work better on Judaism than Christianity.

Anyway, in regards to things within Mosaic Law all contained within the Old Testament...

>For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. For he finds fault with them when he says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. - Hebrews 8:7-13

>cont'd

>>15669070
The truly defining attribute of the Christian faith is the belief that Jesus was the Messiah. In accordance with Messianic prophecies he fulfilled Mosaic Law by dying on the cross and realizing the full truth of God. Therefore, Mosaic Law is now obsolete. Essentially, even the Old Testament itself admits that it is a deeply flawed text that must be rectified by a Messiah.

This is why (most) Christians don't circumsize. This is why they don't follow kosher food laws. Etc.

Essentially, any reference of Mosaic Law within the Old Testament is no longer a valid criticism of Christian beliefs because, according to the New Testament, those laws are now invalid and unnecessary.

This is very basic Christian theology and it strikes me as bizarre that so many people still don't understand it. Of course, you may say 'Well, then why keep the Old Testament as part of the standard Christian Bible'?

Because it's still considered holy scripture, even if it's almost never interpreted as literal. The majority of learned Christians (and even most Jews nowadays) simply view the Old Testament as a collection of poetry (Psalms), philosophy (Ecclesiastes), and many a folk narrative.

This is in no way an edit or a reform. This is how it was in the earliest incarnation of the Church, to be honest. Paul the Apostle instructed Christians that Mosaic Law was no longer necessary as far back as around 50 AD.

This resurgence in biblical literalism and an adherence to the new doctrine of 'sola scriptura' only really emerged in the past 200 years or so by way of American Protestant movements.

Those who adhere to the much older doctrine of prima scriptura still regard scripture as sacred and worthy of respect, but they tend to study the scripture more and also insist that the Bible is not the only source of truth for a Christian. Conscience, experience, community, modern advancements...all of these must always be taken into account.

>>15669072

Did that cover everything? I tried to cast as wide a net as possible for any issues you might have with the Christian religion.

Also, worth noting that a similar passage to the one contained in Hebrews is also in Jeremiah.

>>15669072

Mosaic Law is absolutely NOT obsolete. The Bible is very clear on this fact: Jesus fulfilled the Law, but Christ himself stated that the Law is eternal and forever binding.

>>15669107

As an example, the New Testament states that sin is transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4), and it further states that, though we are not covered by the law but instead by the grace of Jesus Christ, we are still required to keep sin, transgression of the Law, away from our bodies. We are not chained by the Law, but the Law is eternal and will be written on our hearts if we are saved.

>>15669072

>prima scriptura
>forcing God to conform to human logic

I see the direction this conversation will go...

I have no desire to argue with somebody whose mindset has been crafted by Satan himself, as I will only assert that God's own Word is the only absolute truth and that anything else is deception. Have a good day; God bless you.

>>15669107
>Mosaic Law is absolutely NOT obsolete.

Yes it is. See Hebrews 8:7-13. Jesus fulfilled that prophecy, ergo Mosaic Law is obsolete. It's completed and given true form and the law is now 'inscribed upon our hearts' rather than given concrete word.

>will be written on our hearts if we are saved.

Exactly. By accepting the love of Christ, the law is instead written upon our hearts.

The Final Commandment is the fulfillment of the law. It's everything.

A sin is not merely a written law. A sin is anything that removes you from God's love.

>>15669130

Prima scriptura still upholds the Bible as being of absolute importance though. But there's more to the faith than just a book. The very fact that the Church exists is proof of that, isn't it?

Curious, what denominations are you two? Catholic here.

>>15669070
>All the rape, murder, torture, and slavery condoned in the old testament doesn't count any more because of the new testament
>ignoring the fact that it means there WAS a time such things were still OK
dudes got a point. even if the old ways don't apply, the old ways applied at one point, and yhwh's still a fucking psycho tyrant

>>15669171
making it obsolete doesn't change the fact that your god has killed countless innocents, including women and children. he also still threatens eternal torture if we don't obey him.

>Tyranny

>>15669241
>>15669245

Well, this relies on the idea that the Old Testament must be completely devoid of error. It's not. From a Christian perspective, the Old Testament is the result of an imperfect relationship and interpretation of God.

I'm not afraid to say it. Moses wasn't perfect. He was flawed. He was not Christ.

Your criticism still applies primarily to Judaism because most Christians acknowledge the imperfection in the old ways and find the truth in the teachings of the Messiah. Most Christians, again, view these as narratives. Interpretations of God from a people following an imperfect set of laws.

>Eternal torture

What? But the Old Testament makes absolutely no mention of hellfire. The Old Testament notion of the afterlife is Gehenna, a somber afterlife of shades. There is no eternal punishment for crimes within the Old Testament.

Truth be told, the only time Christ talked about the afterlife or the Judgment as a form of punishment was in a parable told describing his harsh ideas concerning false prophets and those who claim to follow him but hypocritically don't.

The theological Catholic interpretation, as it stands, is that Hell is a self-created place that is devoid of God's love. God did not create Hell. Rather, Hell is the absence of God. You send yourself to Hell by rejecting God's love rather than embracing it.

My God is God. My God is the Trinity.

My God is not YHWH.

>>15669521
>A christian who actually knows his shit.
>"My God is not YHWH"

You, good sir, are someone I do not have a problem with, then. I admire you for being one of the few to take the time to understand your beliefs, your book, and the fallibility of the humans who had part in creating it, as well as having the wisdom to take from it what is important.

Like I said before, I have no problem with Jesus or his message, but with YHWH as described in the old testament. You and I still have differences in the details of faith, but for what counts, we are in agreement.

Respect+. In the words of /b/, you are a gentleman and a scholar.

>>15669521
The old testament says you go to sheol which is basically hades

and christ said to follow moses' teachings

File: To slay a giant.jpg (101KB, 630x840px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 630x840px

>>15669659
Sheol was once a place of boredom, while Hades (Asmodeus) toured the surface, pursuing relations with the kingdoms of men,

but since that whole God debacle he has returned to Hell to reign over the souls of the fallen, and things have gotten spicy

>>15669171

A sin is transgression of the Law, as it is stated in scripture.

>more to faith than just the book

Faith and truth are separate entities. You can have faith in anything, but the simple fact that you have faith does not make that which you have faith in true. Scripture gives importance to the Church; however, scripture defines the Church as the body of believers, not a single denomination.

I was raised Lutheran, but I've explored the ideas of both the eastern and western Catholic churches and accept them where they don't contradict my own Spirit-given discernment and scripture.

>>15669521

For the record, this is an entirely Roman Catholic perspective.

File: Venerable-Archbishop-Fulton-Sheen.jpg (54KB, 562x562px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 562x562px

>>15669653

I can get behind that. God bless.

>>15669659

>Christ said to follow moses' teachings

No. Christ said he came to fulfill the law, and that the law would remain in place until it was fulfilled.

He fulfilled it. He died for the sins of humanity. He forged the New Covenant. To think otherwise is to deny Messianic Prophecy. To deny otherwise is nothing short of heretical.

>>15669674

A sin is anything that removes you from God's love. It's not a law. It's more than that. It's more important.

Moses made laws. Christ didn't. Christ only brought truths...and that truth replaced the law. A man who follows truth has no need for law. Love. Discipline. The willingness to stand against evil. That's the truth.

And no, I'm a liberal Christian. I'm a conservative.

>Scripture defines the Church

It defines the core of the Church, certainly. But a Church is more than scripture. A Church is both scripture and community.

>Faith and truth are separate entities

This I can agree with. But if you have faith in Jesus then you have faith in the truth.

>>15669683

Yes, this is true. I'm a Catholic to the core, no lie. I'm a convert though, if that counts for anything. Former Methodist.

>>15668711
Not that guy, but regardless... a Christian and a (insertnotchristianhere) ended a conversation without flinging shit..... holy mother of god, I'm gonna go pray to Odin now.

>>15669728

I'm NOT a liberal Christian, I mean.

But for anyone worried about that? I also despite politics and I don't partake in them.

File: 1388878739978.jpg (212KB, 574x650px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 574x650px

>>15669728
>I can get behind that. God bless.
And you as well. It really makes my day when I encounter a Christian like yourself. I don't know where you live, but here in Tennessee, your kind are extremely rare.

The ultimate goal I want us all to strive for, is peace and understanding between people of all faiths, and for us all to be good and civil to each other. I'm sure a truly good and perfect creator would appreciate this more than any quibbling over details. A Catholic like yourself being able to come to an understanding with a Pagan like me on this idea can set a good example for others.

Have you ever considered becoming a priest? Due to personal experience, I generally hate Christian priests, but I think you would make a good one.

>>15669729
I know, I'm surprised too. And it hasn't happened once, but twice now with >>15669728

I'm starting to think this thread itself is divinely blessed.

>>15669734
>I also despite politics and I don't partake in them.

Damn, dude, Respect++

This thread has succeeded in giving me a good deal of hope for humanity. May you all be blessed by Minerva, Jesus, Odin, any benevolent deities you all may or may not believe in, and most of all, by the Creator.

You're good people, /x/, and I love you all. I'm off for now, and hope to converse with you all again soon.

>Love and peace.

>>15670037
>Have you ever considered becoming a priest?

I've strongly considered it, yes. But seminary is such a huge commitment and it does, sadly, cost money. What I'd do for a poor Church that wouldn't take from people like that. But then again, the education is six-years and pretty intensive, so I guess I can't blame them entirely.

More than anything, it's just such a big step and such a huge devotion. I feel confident about it now, but I'm afraid of going in and then, maybe in three years, suddenly having strong regrets.

It's never too late for it though, I guess. In a lot of ways I'm already pretty ascetic in my lifestyle. I like the modest, disciplined approach. Strong advocate of celibacy. I don't eat at restaurants, I cook simple and healthy food, I don't season my food, etc.

Admittedly, I'm a drinker. I drink way too much. It's my biggest vice and I'm very ashamed of it. I wouldn't consider becoming a priest or anything like that until I can sufficiently tame the habit.

Thanks for the encouragement. It's rare to see and I appreciate it a lot.

[spoiler]Oh, and I live in Kentucky. Southern for life.[/spoiler]

>>15669728

Have you read the entire Bible? The Bible clearly states that the definition of sin is transgression of the Law. Transgressing the Law separates you from God. Transgressing that Law is what made Christ's sacrifice necessary.

Moses didn't make laws. God gave Moses the Law: this is the function of all of God's prophets. Jesus taught the very same things Moses did.

>scripture defines the church

Scripture defines the Church. The Church is what God says it is. People try to change the definition to suit their habits.

>faith in Jesus

Faith in Jesus is faith in Jesus, not what people have to say about Jesus. The only person whose word on Jesus can be trusted is His, and to find His Word, you must look to scripture.

>>15670133
>Transgressing the Law separates you from God.

And Christ replaced the law. He fulfilled it. He completed it. The true path is not in law but in Christ.

Moses was instructed by God. Christ was God made flesh and supercedes all other things. In the fulfillment of prophecy and in the teachings of love, Christ is superior to law. Christ is beyond it.

Do Christians follow kosher food laws? Do they avoid wearing clothing of mixed fabrics? No. Because there's no need. Theologically, these were arbitrary laws made in placement of the truth before the Messiah delivered it. They were no longer followed by Christians. They are no longer necessary. Because Christ made the law into the truth.

To deny this is to defy both prophecy and the life of Christ and I consider it a heresy.

>Scripture defines the Church

It defines the core of the Church's teachings. But a Church is not simply scripture. It's people under the authority of the Church and it's conscience and it's society and its the Church's placement in the world. Definition is never changed. Truth is constant. It's universal. The world changes and people change but the truth of the Catholic Church does not.

>Faith in Jesus is faith in Jesus

And Jesus is all there is. His truth, his life, his teachings. The end.

Yes, you look to scripture. But you also interpret it, you analyze it, and you set it against both prophecy and the finality of Christ.

If you still insist on following Mosaic Law entirely then you aren't a Christian. You may as well just be Jewish because you're denying the Messianic Prophecy and Christ's fulfillment of it. Which is heresy.

>>15670037
>Pagan telling a Christian he would make a good Priest unironically.

guyz, im scared. wtf is going on in this thread? what sorcery is this? i never thought i'd see this in a million years.

>>15669728

"For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

This is what Jesus said. Tell me: have heaven or earth disappeared? As everything been accomplished? Has the apocalypse occurred, the anti-Christ risen and defeated? Have the prophecies of Revelation all been fulfilled?

They have not. Jesus died for the sins of humanity; he forged the New Covenant signed with His blood. This covenant does not do away with the Law, but makes us right before it. By Christ's blood, we can live by the standard of the Law through His abiding in us. This does not mean that the Law no longer matters or does not apply.

Worshiping anything but God is still sin.
Making idols is still sin.
Using God's name in vain is still sin.
Murder is still sin.
Adultery is still sin.
Stealing is still sin.
Lying is still sin.
Coveting is still sin.

The truths of what Moses received from God and what Christ brought to us is proven in this: if you are saved, you are right before this law, and you are innocent: good because He is good, and he is in you.

Can you truly say that Christ lives in you if you attempt to justify doing any of the actions I've listed above? The Law is very much still active. If you are not made right before the Law, hell is your fate.

>>15670199

You should be scared. What you're seeing is Christ being reconciled with what Christ himself condemned. What you're seeing is blasphemy.

>>15670201
not him, but you seem to be adding to that more than it says. "until everything is accomplished" could very well be referring to the death/resurrection.

>>15670201

>Until heaven and earth disappear
>Until everything is accomplished

You are missing something. You are missing something so truly important.

What were Christ's words? On the cross? As he was dying? What were Christ's words? The last sayings of Jesus on the cross?

>Father, forgive them. They not know what they do.
>Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.
>Woman, behold your son. Son Behold your mother.
>My God, My God, have you forsaken me?
>I thirst.
>It is accomplished.
>Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.

The sixth words? What were the sixth words?

>IT IS ACCOMPLISHED

It was accomplished. Christ said so on the cross. From the mouth of Jesus, it was accomplished. Why else would he say those words?

>Will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished
>It is accomplished

From the mouth of God himself.

>>15670201
>Worshiping anything but God is still sin.
>Making idols is still sin.
>Using God's name in vain is still sin.
Murder is still sin.
>Adultery is still sin.
>Stealing is still sin.
>Lying is still sin.
>Coveting is still sin.

Yes, I fully agree. This is all true. But not because it was Mosaic Law, but because it removes you from God. This is only logical. Observations alone tells you that these things remove you from God. They remove you from God because each one violates Christ's Final Commandment of Love.

We're not talking about those. No one has any problem with those. We're talking about circumcision and of kosher food laws and of mixing fabrics and of sowing seeds.

It is accomplished. So said the Messiah.

>>15670201
well, since you are such a supporter of OT law, I'm going to rape your daughter, give you 50 pieces of silver, marry your daughter, and rape her every day for the rest of her life. after all, according to OT law, that's perfectly fine according to Deuteronomy 22:28-29

>>15670174

Point to a single place in scripture where Jesus (or any figure) states, "I replace the Law." The true path is not in the Law, but in Christ, who brings us to exceed the standard of the Law by His blood.

The Law is from God. Christ Himself taught and followed the Law. Christ is beyond it because Christ fulfilled it in every way possible. Did Christ not say that He wants us to do greater things than He? If Christ followed the Law, what excuse do we have for attempting to forsake it?

Yes, the ceremonial laws of the religious-political Israel no longer apply because we are not bound by the old covenant, but the Law of God is eternal.

To deny the Law of God as being of God is, to me, denying what is revealed by God's Spirit. I consider it blasphemy against the Spirit, which, if you've read the Bible, you know to be called the most dire of sins.

>Scripture defines the church

The Catholic Church has been wrong many times. The Catholic Church has forsaken the teachings of Jesus Christ many times. You forsake infallibility of scripture in favor of asserting infallibility a political institution which has been personally responsible for persecution and crimes against humanity.

The world changes. People change. The Catholic church changes. But the truth of Jesus Christ does not.

Jesus is all that there is. His truth, his life, his teachings. Jesus taught the Law.

I insist that Christ changes me to be like Him, able to be right before the Law by being forgiven and further changed to be able to be as He was, and Jesus Himself followed the Law.

I follow Christ. In that, I may be committing heresy against your Catholic Church, but I remain steadfast in my loyalty to God and what He has given us: a Law, Christ, forgiveness, and redemption.

>>15670249
just trying to help, but you forgot to mention that Jesus also said specifically to keep the commandments. don't recall exact book/chapter/verse, but it was a little boy asking him how to get to heaven, and that was among a couple other things in his response.

>>15670262
>Point to a single place in scripture where Jesus (or any figure) states, "I replace the Law."

>"For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." - Matthew 5:18

"It is accomplished." - John 19:30


>For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. For he finds fault with them when he says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. - Hebrews 8:7-13

>>15670228

You're missing something as well. What was Christ doing? Christ accomplished the act of sacrifice. And so it's true: Christ's sacrifice is accomplished. Did he in any way say
>all has been accomplished?

In fact, Christ gave Revelation of prophecy after this act. All has not been accomplished: Christ has never said this.

This does not in any way invalidate Christ's own words that the Law won't pass away until heaven and earth have passed away.

>>15670249

The Law of God is the ten commandments. Christ taught love. Christ's commandment of love comes from the fact that the basis of God's Law is to: love God and love one's neighbor. Read the commandments: this shows itself to be true.

Transgressing the Law, whose essence is to love God and love one's neighbor, removes you from God.

I'm in no way talking about ceremonial Law, which was for men. I'm talking about God's Law, which is for God's people.

>>15670267

He said to keep the law until it was accomplished. Then, while dying, he said it was accomplished. What else do you want?

Also, regardless of that, the Ten Commandments are still perfectly valid and moral to follow. We're not talking about those. We're talking about the imperfection that came with Mosaic Law.

We're talking about death. Stoning. Slavery. Food laws. Etc.

>>15670278

"It is accomplished." Does not say, "I replace the Law," or even, as you seem to assert, "all is accomplished."

>Hebrews 8

I am not contesting that there is a new covenant. The old covenant, marked by sacrifice of animals and the ceremonial laws of Israel, is obsolete. I'm not contesting that.

The fact that you can't see the difference in the ceremonial law and the Law of God which is constant throughout the Old Testament, Christ's teachings, and Christ's sacrifice deeply saddens me.

>>15668031
Besides the absolute lack of proof for the existence of God whatsoever, there is collosal number of logical flaws with the judeo, christian or muslim view of God. One of the most crucial one for me is, simply, that If there would exist such immensly and unimagineably powerful being it wouldn't crave attention like a little whore.

>>15670293

Christ said, "Until heaven and earth pass away," as well as, "all is accomplished."

Jesus said in the act of sacrifice that, "It is accomplished," which it was. The sacrifice was accomplished. But "all" has by no means been accomplished.

>>15670284

>All has been accomplished

That's all there was. That was the point. If the Law had been perfect then there'd be need for a Messiah.

He came. He died for our sins. He established the New Covenant prophecized in Hebrews and Jeremiah, in which God would forget the inequities and sins of man in lieu of forgiveness.

A better question is...how was all NOT accomplished? Christ came, brought the truth, and then died in agony. That was the point. And so all was accomplished.

>The Ten Commandments

I'm not speaking against the Ten Commandments, I'm speaking against things like rules involving slavery. I am speaking against the inherent imperfect relationship that the people of the Old Testament had with God.

>>15670310

No. Not 'all is accomplished'.

UNTIL 'all is accomplished'. That's all there was. That was the accomplishment. And it's completely in accordance with the prophecies of Jeremiah and Hebrews.

When you combine the Messianic Prophecies of Hebrews and Jeremiah...along the words of Christ...

The inevitable and logical conclusion is that Christ replaced the Mosaic Law.

>>15670278
>>15670284
I think you two are having a misunderstanding, so let me try to interject:

Don't both of you believe that the ten commandments still apply, but the laws concerning animal sacrifice, kosher, multiple fabrics, etc are the ones done away with?

If you both answer yes, then there is no need for you two to be arguing.

Seriously, this has been a wonderful thread with people of different beliefs being able to come to understanding through civil discussion and mutual respect, let's not ruin this good streak with 2 christians arguing with each other, please?

>>15670313

>all has been accomplished

That's not all there is. Read Revelation. Actually, just read the whole Bible. It's important for you to read all of it if you're going to talk about it.

>God's law is not perfect

How is God's standard not perfect? God's Law is perfect.

>Ten Commandments

I'm not speaking against ceremonial Law. I'm not speaking against the imperfect relationship of people in the Old Testament. The imperfect relationship of people in the Old Testament was caused by their inability to follow the Law, which Christ Himself clarified.

Christ taught the Law: love God and one's neighbor. These were not new. This Law existed when Moses gave them to the people of Israel. Israel could not follow it.

>>15670325
>Don't both of you believe that the ten commandments still apply

The Catholic guy here. Yes, of course they will apply. They are logical truths that all extend from Christ's love.

Christ brought but one Final Commandment. 'Love one another'...and this fulfilled the meaning and truth of the Ten Commandments. If you love another person? How can you steal from them? Or murder them? Or lie to them? Or commit adultery against them? If you love God? How can you worship one before Him? Essentially, the Ten Commandments are all an extension of the Final Commandment.

>but the laws concerning animal sacrifice, kosher, multiple fabrics, etc are the ones done away with?

Yeah, absolutely.

If the other guy agrees with this then I have no qualms whatsoever.

>>15670320

Again, there is more than the sacrifice. Read Revelation.

The Messianic prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah (both in the old Testament) give prophecy of things that must occur even after the point of sacrifice. There is more to come.

Christ did not replace God's Law. Christ's sacrifice invalidates the need for ceremonial law, but God's own Law, which was originally given by Moses, is active, then, now, and until all has come to pass.

>>15670302
>"it is accomplished"
>It has to say ALL is accomplished

now you are trying to argue from semantics. How about comparing the 2 verses in their original translations?

also, like >>15670325 said, let's not ruin the streak.

>>15670337

Non-Catholic here:

>love

This is the Law! God's Law is love. Moses gave it; Israel couldn't follow it.

>>15670309
>underrated post

>>15670345

Moses gave law. Jesus gave Love, which fulfilled the law and brought out its truth. Again, if the law of Moses was perfect then we'd never need a Messiah.

Look, I think the Ten Commandments should be logically followed because of Christ's Final Commandment but that things like circumcision and slavery laws were abolished by the Messiah. Yeah?

>>15670309
>that If there would exist such immensly and unimagineably powerful being it wouldn't crave attention like a little whore.

Greater things must, naturally, make themselves known to lesser ones.

>>15670353

Jesus taught the Law, which is love. The people of Israel had the same Law Jesus gave from the time of Moses. The Law--love--has always been perfect. It's people that aren't perfect. Our imperfection has always been the reason we'd need a Messiah.

What comes from God cannot be imperfect.

Jesus didn't abolish anything. The New Covenant supersedes the Old, which required following of ceremonial rules, but the Law itself--love--is active. Technically, if you could follow God's Law your entire life, as well as the ceremonial rules, you wouldn't need Jesus. But nobody can follow God's Law on their own because everybody is imperfect.

Why not look to Christ when you want to know what the Law is?

In Luke, a man asks Jesus what is written in the Law and what it means to him. This is what Jesus says:

"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'

Christ's final commandment is actually a tighter form of the law. You're not only required to love your neighbor, but further love your neighbor -as Christ loves you-. The Law has always been what it is. Love. It is not imperfect.

>>15670373

(Luke 10:26-27 if you're curious)

>>15670373
>Christ's final commandment is actually a tighter form of the law.

And that is what makes it the perfected form of the love.

Yes, it was imperfect. People were never told the why or the reason behind it. They were simply told to do it. So they did not murder for fear of God, but not for the love of their neighbor.

So the law was imperfect. It didn't teach the truth as it should have. It's one thing to have a man obey the law. It's an entirely other thing to have that man understand why the law is important.

Jesus abolished many things. If he didn't then why don't Christians obey kosher food laws, for example? There existed more Mosaic Law then the Ten Commandments.

I can't help but think that we agree on the absolute end but disagree on the semantics.

File: image.jpg (31KB, 516x421px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 516x421px

>That which is alive is smart.
>OP is alive.
Heh

>>15670386

I disagree that the Law is imperfect. What you're saying is that what God gives is imperfect, which is edging on blasphemy of the Spirit. The Law has not changed. It's been clarified, but not changed.

Jesus never once said, "I abolish..." anything. Jesus eliminates the need, yes, but nothing was abolished. To say that it could be abolished could say that what is of God is not eternal.

>>15670372
No, actually, they don't and certainly not in such a way. Because presenting onself and demanding consideration, and indeed much more, is a serious flaw, a sign of pride which in turn destroys the perfect image of such a being

>>15670386

Additionally, your logic is dangerous because by placing the blame on the Law rather than the people, you're shifting the blame onto God, rather than the people who themselves held the inherent evil.

>>15670386

Catholics tend to be pretty anti-Old Testament on most things, but if you take the time to read it, places where the prophets attribute the speaker as God often allude to love as the basis and substance of the Law.

>>15670396
>>15670386
hey, guys, it's time to stop now. You both agree on what is important. Isn't that enough? Like >>15670037 said,
>The ultimate goal I want us all to strive for, is peace and understanding between people of all faiths, and for us all to be good and civil to each other. I'm sure a truly good and perfect creator would appreciate this more than any quibbling over details

I think he's on to something on that last part. In the end, does God care about your disagreement (which is obviously stemming from a combination of semantics and differing interpretations), or does he care about how you act and treat others?

>protip, it's how you act and treat others

so what difference does it make if you disagree on something trivial?

>>15670420

Non-Catholic guy here:

God also cares about your attitude towards Him. I don't want to be a prick on purpose, but if I can somehow prick our Catholic friend here to explore his faith further, I'm happy.

>>15670424
What need is there for him to explore his faith further when he already agrees on the most important part? Because he doesn't agree with you exactly on every detail and interpretation? Welcome to Christianity, then, you only have a few thousand more denominations and about a billion people to repeat the process with again once you convince this one he has to think exactly like you. Then after that, you got the challenge of the NON christians!

>>15670431

I want him to explore his faith further because I care about him as a brother. I don't necessarily want him to believe exactly what I believe (nor do I believe that I could convince him to do so), but if I sense danger, I'll take any means necessary to ensure that I at least cause him to consider another position.

It never hurts to learn new things.

>>15670439
his "position" is the same as yours: believes in jesus and accepts him, believes the ten commandments are to be followed, and over all, trying to be a good person. What more do you want? what "danger" do you sense?

>>15670453

The stance that what is revealed by God's Spirit is imperfect is dangerous, as it tends towards blasphemy against God's Spirit. Jesus warned against this specifically.