Kleisto,

Don't let Spider's incivility bother you. Everyone knows what he's what he's up to. He can't address the concerns I raise so he has confessed defeat through his attempt to slander the person who's concerns he cannot properly address.

This is a normal tactic of desperation for people who recognize that they are losing a debate and can't possibly come up with any sound arguments for their case. Instead of addressing the issues they turn to attacking the character of their opponent like a mad dog.

It's a clear sign that he recognizes the truth of my concerns and cannot come up with any rational arguments against them.

I asked you to state the precise nature of the claims that you believe I make that are false.

You have failed to respond to that because you know it's a lie.

The statements I make about the Bible are not wildly false. On the contrary, they are precisely what the Bible states.

Are you going to deny that the Bible has God requesting that people make blood sacrifices in order to atone their sins?

Are you going to deny that is it the Christian position that Jesus is the sacrificial lamb of God who died to pay for the sins of man?

What exactly are you claiming that I'm lying about.

Be specific!

Either that or confess that you are spreading outright lies about me in an attempt to slander me and discredit me simply because you disagree with my views.

They are usually false. You take things out of context of their original meaning. And or take bits and parts out of here and there and don't take the entire picture. For instance in another thread you claim that God instructs people to kill unruly children and heathens. But this is false. This is a JUDGEMENT. If they were the same thing then again ALL the judges that have given the death penalty should be executed themselves. Cause in your views a judgement is the same as just purely murdering someone.

There is nothing false in what I have said.

Killing is killing. Period.

I don't care if there has been a JUDGMENT made or not.

That's totally irrelevant.

You people accuse me of lying, when in fact, all it amounts to is your own inability to comprehend the things I say.

We could take your perspective and support the Crusades and the Witch Burnings, because in both of those cases JUDGMENTS had been made.

The Bible teaches to kill heathens where a heathen is anyone who teaches that Bible is not the word of God.

So based on that I could be stoned to death because a JUDGMENT had been made against me that I don't support the biblical picture of God.



It's just religious bigotry using a God as an excuse to KILL in the name of JUDGMENT that is supposed supported by God.

That, my friends is the TRUTH of the Old Testament.

Don't tell me that it's a lie, because it's not.

On the contrary you'd have to lie to claim otherwise.

None of the crusades or witch burnings is justified either. Both are wrong and sinful. We are not to judge anyone. And no judgement has been made towards you believing or not believing the bible. A judgement would be someone saying YOU'RE going to burn for not believing. No one has said YOU were going to burn, therefore no judgement has been made. Yes the scriptures say "deny me before man and I will deny you before the father" but you still have time in your life and a change of heart might happen. Not saying it will or it won't, but there's still that possibility. Jesus is the only one that can make a judgement. Jesus has always made the judgement. Jesus is the word and the word was with God from the beginning. Just in the "old testament" times. The word was just that, the word. Could not carry out the judgement. And that is why people were instructed to stone sinners to death, for the only reward for sin is death. Now the word has become flesh, eg., Jesus. And he is whom will judge each and everyone of us.

All you have here is a personal opinion.

Moreover, it's an opinion that clearly the leaders of the crusades and witch hunts would not agree with.

Those people believed that they were doing "God's Work".

So clearly they weren't rejecting God or refusing to obey God, on the contrary they believed that they were serving God and obeying him.

So here you would have a case where decent people who are trying to serve God are doing horrible things in God's name, and God isn't even stepping in to tell these wonderful devoted people that they have misunderstood his desires and commands.

This is precisely why the ideals that you support cannot possibly be true.

As Steven Weinberg has pointed out, "Good people will do good things, and evil people will do bad things, but it takes religion to get good people to do bad things"

Truer words were never spoken.

So if I'm to believe you, then I must believe that God doesn't have nearly the wisdom of Steven Weinberg.

He creates a book that causes people to do evil things in his name and doesn't even interject to let them know that they have misunderstood.

This is why Christianity fails Cowboy.

It can't possibly be true.

It's just not possible.

You're beating a dead horse.

Reading your posts offends me. I don't like it, I feel dirty afterward. But I'll do this one time (I've explained this to you in the past, so I'm doing this for others, I know I'm wasting my breath on you.)



You don't understand the Bible, because you've never read it or studied it. The scripture states the following:



The "Child" as you put it is actually a "son". There is absolutely no indication that a child is being discussed. Sons lived with their families their whole life, with the eldest son inheriting his father's possessions. All family members were expected to work, as the Israelites were nomadic and their lives depended upon hard work. It was not uncommon for Israelites to be killed by rival tribes or wild animals, so every man had to know how to fight and be ready to fight at a moments notice to protect himself and his family.

The son is described as being a zalal (glutton), which in Hebrew means to squander your own body and caba' (drunkard).

So basically, what is being described is a wastrel of a son who refuses to work, is constantly drunk and is endangering the lives of his entire family.

Here is how the death penalty was carried, according to the Talmud:

1) At least two accusers had to make an accusation of a crime worthy of death.
2) Testimony was held in front of a panel of 12 judges.
3) All 12 judges (who were religious scholars and had to have families) have to judge the accused as guilty.
4) Everyone involved in the trial had to be present at the execution.
5) The accused would be tied up at the bottom of a cliff or scaffolding.
6) The accusers would pick up a very heavy rock and drop it onto the accused.
7) If the accused survived, the men of the city would throw large rocks at the accused until he or she was dead.

Nobody knows if this law was actually enforced or how often. What we do know is that this law was created to protect the innocent lives of the son's family and entire village. A drunk who was supposed to be watching for marauding Canaanites could result in the deaths on hundreds.

So things you were wrong on in that one sentence:

1) The Bible records a law that was given to a nomadic tribe 3000+ years ago, which has a punishment of death for someone who is so lazy and drunk that it endangers all of the other nomads. The Bible does not instruct anyone to stone children.

2) The law doesn't apply to children, but to "sons". It is certainly directed at adult sons, because a child wouldn't have the money to be an alcoholic.

3) This law doesn't apply to "people" but rather "parents". So this law wouldn't allow someone to execute their neighbor or rivals son, only their own.

4) This law doesn't apply to "unruly" people, but to people who are gluttons and drunkards to the point that 12 educated adults with families of their own agree that the accused is a danger to society.

But God hasn't instructed us to do as such. God has told us quite the opposite. Nothing out of the new testament justifies the crusades or witch burnings. And Jesus specifically said that has come to fulfil the old covenant, the old testament. And gave us the new covenant, the new testament. So by no means is either the witch burnings or crusades supported by Christianity.

Well clearly there's some confusion on that issue.

Many would justifiably say that Jesus specifically said that he did not come to change the law and that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law.

So they would claim that Jesus was not rejecting the Old Testament as you claim, but rather he was supporting it.

So there are many different interpretations that can be argued for.

What makes you so special that your interpretations should trump the Kings who agreed with the Crusades and the Witch hunts?

Clearly they would be in gross disagreement with you.

And my main point still stands: If those people believed that their interpretations of the scriptures were correct then they were still striving to serve and obey God.

They most certainly weren't rejecting God or refusing to obey God. Nor where they rejecting Jesus as the Son of God, etc.

In other words, it would be false to claim that those people were knowingly and willfully rebelling against God and choosing to disobey God.

So the premise fails that these people would be "CHOOSING" disobedience over obedience.

In other words, the very foundational premises of the religion break down in these cases.

This is why the religion cannot be true as it stands.

Face it, if you like the teachings of Jesus then follow them. But why support a whole bigoted religion in the process?

My approach seems far better than yours to achieve that goal.

I totally accept the moral teachings of Jesus. In fact, I claim that these were indeed my own personal moral values even before I knew that Jesus taught them. Whenever I read these moral values I simply shake my head in agreement. From my point of view they are nothing more than common sense.

It's the Old Testament values that I reject. And apparently you reject those values yourself. Just as Jesus himself did.

So why not just recognize that Jesus most likely didn't have anything to do with the Old Testament fables?

Recognize that he was most likely teachings the wisdom of Buddhism. Obviously moral values that you can appreciate. He was unfortunately crucified for blaspheme against the Old Testament. And then rumors were constructed and propagated to that try to tie Jesus to the Old Testament values. Values that you apparently don't even like anymore than Jesus did.

I set Jesus free from the bigotry.

It all comes out great.

Jesus survives as a wise man who did indeed try to put a stop to the hateful behaviors that had been taught in the Old Testament.

It's totally respectable. It makes perfect sense. And there are no ambiguities or paradoxes to have to deal with.

What's wrong with that? It's all GOOD.

Again, showing how ignorant you are of the Bible. You know little bits and pieces, but you can't see the full picture.

Matthew 5:18


I know CowboyGH has said it, but I'll repeat it: Jesus fulfilled the law. In other words, when Jesus died on the cross, the old covenant was replaced by the new. When Jesus died, the entirety of the law had been fulfilled!

The ceremonial and civil laws no longer apply and now we are under the moral law (the 10 commandments).

Are you blind?

You just posted it yourself:

Matthew 5:18


Till Heaven and Earth Pass!

Well as far as I know the Earth is still here. Not sure what the status is for Heaven.

So off with your head heathen!

Jesus said "Till heaven and earth pass"

Not, "Until I'm crucified"

That's simply not what he said.

So who's showing their ignorance here?

The crusaders were totally within their right to believe that Jesus was saying that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law Till heaven and earth pass.

Because that's what the Bible claims that Jesus said.

Jesus taught that the law wouldn't pass away as long as the earth existed, until the law was unfilled. In other words, the law would pass away with the earth, unless it was first fulfilled. It's really self-evident what Jesus was saying, but you seem to have a strong affinity for picking out one part of a verse and take it completely out of context.

Seems to me that this is what you're trying to do.

It's crystal clear to me that the verse says that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law til all be fulfilled.

And when will they be fulfilled?

Not until Heaven and Earth pass away.

That sure seems like a reasonable interpretation to me. Therefore I would be hard-pressed to argue with any King who's preparing for the crusades that his interpretation is wrong, if this was the interpretation that he was claiming to have, I couldn't argue with him.

I don't see any grounds for the stance that you and Cowboy are trying to take.

"Till Heaven and Earth Pass" seems pretty clear to me.

It's no wonder that Christianity suffers from such diversity and has broken into so many confused and disagreeing sects.

At the very BEST, the Bible is totally ambiguous, vague, and open to a very WIDE RANGE of interpretations.

That alone, indicates to me that it can't be the instructions of any supposedly 'all-wise' God. Unless it was God's purposeful intent to confuse the hell out of everyone and incite them into hostile disagreement about what God supposedly expects from humanity.

But what kind of a God would pull a stunt like that on humanity?

A far more reasonable approach to these ancient fables is to simply recognize that they are the ramblings of men. That solves all the problems associated with them instantly.

I have. I've read the Bible.

I have and have read the KJV version, the New American Standard Bible version, the Today's New International version and the one that the Gideons place in the hotels. I've also read various Gnostic interpretations of the Bible as well. Multiple times.

They're still bizarre and contradictory. As someone once said "Reading the Bible made me an atheist". I can easily say, I totally agree with that.

Exactly.

The accusation that just because someone thinks the bible is bizarre is reason to conclude they never read it is nonsense.

The Bible truly is bizarre.

And I agree with EquusDancer. Reading the Bible can help a person become a non-believer.

After all, when I first started to study the Bible on my own I was a "believer"!

I was actually expecting to find the answers to all my questions about the Bible. After all, I had been taught that the Bible has all the answers. But that turns out to be a big fat lie.

For example, why does God accept blood sacrifices in exchange for the atonement of sins?

It doesn't even say anywhere in the Bible why God would be appeased by such an act. It just assumes that people are already used to that idea and have already accepted that this is what God's in general do. Because back in the days when it was written that's what people typically believed. So they didn't need a 'reason'.

Well, I don't accept that gods should automatically be appeased by blood sacrifices. To me that is just an ancient superstitious idea in the first place.

You really need to go into the Bible accepting a whole lot of superstition FIRST. If you're looking for any real answers, forget it.

I understand the logistics behind blood sacrifice, but don't agree with them, especially in this day and age. Even now, I will have nothing to do with Santeria/Voudoun. I think the Gods should be better then that. I think it's all humans perceptions on things and they think it's necessary.

I find it amusing and ironic that it's okay to sacrifice someone or something else, but no one is volunteering themselves.

If I truly wanted a good book of Laws to live by I would be looking at what the Bible is taking, such as the Codes of Hammurabi, or the Indian lawgiver whose name I can't think of right now (He was also the first who believed in treating animals and had early trained veterinarians, I believe). Those laws were fairly straightforward and balanced.

No, this exchange is a PERFECT example why I 'reject' Christian dogma-- even the two uber Christians on this thread can't agree on something that's supposed to be SO obvious and SO true.

What's obviously true is that is that if there is a God, understanding him eludes even the most faithful. Probably because there is no such certainty and unanimity of 'truth' in what is apparently a human predeliction to want to be the sole owner of The Truth(tm).


-Kerry O.

Maybe you have, maybe you haven't. But now that you have made that claim, please be aware that if you start spewing nonsense, I'll call you on it. It's strange that you would keep re-reading it after the first or second pass. Why read it multiple times? And do you mean the New Testament or the Old?

And what is a "Gnostic interpretation of the Bible"? Do you mean the Gnostic Gospels? That's fine, but they aren't canon for a reason. They are hundreds of years younger than the youngest of the canon books.

Well Kerry, here is the problem. CowboyGH is making a claim that isn't supported by scripture.

Most of your views are false. You make claims about what the Bible teaches, then deflect from owning up to your words by saying "the Bible makes that claim" and that it wasn't you who made the claim.

So if the Bible teaches to kill heathens, SHOW EVERYONE WHERE IT SAYS IT!!! And I suggest you find a verse that teaches to kill a heathens for being a heathen and not because the heathens were murderers.


You don't even get the basic 10 commandments right...

It's "Thou shalt not MURDER"!