06 Dec 10
2 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziSo we can rule out the OT fom the christian religion. At last. Good to hear.
that is the old testament. jesus made some slight modifications.
try and do some research before accusing
Then we can assume that hating homosexual acts is obsolete too? And the genesis, and flooding and prophecies and the rest of OT?
Sorry, but I think the christian community want to hold on of OT, even if Jesus says otherwise.
Can I read or cannot I read "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth"? Do I really have to do research for that one?
Or do you mean that Jesus ruled that specific one out? If so, then I have to do some research. Or get by with a little help from you.
I think I have the same right to accuse a religion as the OP has to accuse a religion. Perhaps it would be better to stop accusing religions altogether?
06 Dec 10
4 edits
for Agers,
there is NO EVIDENCE in any of your apparent use of damning comments that i thought that the suffering caused by sacrifice had any merit, indeed, to any one with even a semblance of integrity they can readily discern indeed its what the sacrifice accomplished that had merit, feel free to put a slant on other text that i posted, indeed, its seems perfectly obvious that you are merely content to clutch at straws with these futile attempts to draw a correlation between my faith and the unjust condemnation of an innocent women in Pakistan, it reaches a new level of lowness!
07 Dec 10
4 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFirstly
for Agers,
there is NO EVIDENCE in any of your apparent use of damning comments that i thought that the suffering caused by sacrifice had any merit, indeed, to any one with even a semblance of integrity they can readily discern indeed its what the sacrifice accomplished that had merit, feel free to put a slant on other text that i posted, indeed, ...[text shortened]... and the unjust condemnation of an innocent women in Pakistan, it reaches a new level of lowness!
it was a master-stroke of pure genius, with one propitiating sacrifice he undone all that had transpired
Implies that you are in awe of your god's supposed decision to have some character Jesus killed so to appease it's own requirement for blood tribute (or payment, or however you wish to define it). There really is no other inferrence I can draw from this; you think it was awesome.
Second
a perfect plan, brought to fruition by a perfect being!
Implies that you can see no way that this act could have been improved; that which your god supposedly had in store for this Jesus character was, by your statement above, the best it could possibly be. (note perfect implies no possibility for improvement - thus Jesus failing to experience excrutiating agony (supposing he existed and died on the cross) would not have been an improvement).
Thus we have established so far that you are in awe of God's decision to give Jesus the shaft; and you have judged the implementation of this blood sacrifice is the very best thing he could have possibly done. One more note to preempt you further, your omnipotent cgod could have performed any intervention.
Therefore I have no way to conclude that the pain meted out to Jesus is, in your evaluation, anything not virtuous. Indeed it was in your account, a perfect master stroke of pure genius.
This contradicts your protestation, note I'm not trying to bait you into a fight here, I'm presenting the only rational and logical conclusion that follows from what you have written.
07 Dec 10
3 edits
Originally posted by Agergwe are Christian, we do not practice blood sacrifice.
Firstly
[b]it was a master-stroke of pure genius, with one propitiating sacrifice he undone all that had transpired
Implies that you are in awe of your god's supposed decision to have some character Jesus killed so to appease it's own requirement for blood tribute (or payment, or however you wish to define it). There really is no other inferrence I can d your account, a perfect master stroke of pure genius.
This contradicts your protestations.[/b]
we are Christian, we do not have slaves.
we are Christian, we do not stone people to death.
you vain assertions in trying to link, the ransom sacrifice of the Christ, which propitiated for sins once and for all time displays a profound lack of understanding of the Christian faith, reflected in this futile and now deplorable and contemptible attempt to link our faith with the practices of ancient Judaism and contemporary Islam.
we are Christian, we are no longer under the ordinances of the Mosaic law, straw, straw and more straw Agers, try the big bad wolf, i heard hes in the market for straw houses!
there is nothing either rational, logical, honest nor admirable in attempting to portray an act of courage and ultimate sacrifice with the unjust killing of an innocent women, infact i find it quite depraved myself. It appears you do not understand the difference between unlawful killing with that of self sacrifice for others.
07 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYour god practices blood sacrifice (in so much as it demands it). We have established you heartily endorse this.
we are Christian, we do not practice blood sacrifice.
we are Christian, we do not have slaves.
we are Christian, we do not stone people to death.
you vain assertions in trying to link, the ransom sacrifice of the Christ, which propitiated for sins once and for all time displays a profound lack of understanding of the Christian faith, reflect ...[text shortened]... sacrifice with the unjust killing of an innocent women, infact i find it quite depraved myself.
07 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Agergdont talk rubbish, our God does not practice blood sacrifice, indeed, there has been no blood sacrifice now for almost two thousand years, what is it about once and for all time you do not understand, indeed seeing that you really do have no understanding of the personality of the Biblical God, i produce three scriptures for your perusal and continuing education,
Your god practices blood sacrifice (in so much as it demands it). We have established you heartily endorse this.
(Isaiah 1:11) . . . “Of what benefit to me is the multitude of your sacrifices?” says Jehovah. “I have had enough of whole burnt offerings of rams and the fat of well-fed animals; and in the blood of young bulls and male lambs and he-goats I have taken no delight.
(Hebrews 10:1-4) For since the Law has a shadow of the good things to come, but not the very substance of the things, [men] can never with the same sacrifices from year to year which they offer continually make those who approach perfect. Otherwise, would the [sacrifices] not have stopped being offered, because those rendering sacred service who had been cleansed once for all time would have no consciousness of sins anymore? To the contrary, by these sacrifices there is a reminding of sins from year to year, for it is not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take sins away.
(Hebrews 9:26) . . .But now he has manifested himself once for all time at the conclusion of the systems of things to put sin away through the sacrifice of himself.
My God does not practice blood sacrifice.
07 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAh so you're merely quibbling over time scales and numbers now. Atrocities by eternally existent beings are ok if committed 2000 years ago I see. (even though relative to the time this god has supposedly existed, the 2000 years is nothing).
dont talk rubbish, our God does not practice blood sacrifice, indeed, there has been no blood sacrifice now for almost two thousand years, what is it about once and for all time you do not understand, indeed seeing that you really do have no understanding of the personality of the Biblical God, i produce three scriptures for your perusal and continu ...[text shortened]... s to put sin away through the sacrifice of himself.
My God does not practice blood sacrifice.
07 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergNo, blood sacrifice was a feature of the Mosaic law, we are Christians, we do not practice that law. We are Christian, we do not engage in war or any type of atrocity, indeed it may not even be possible for us to take a profession where fire arms are carried. We are Christian we do not enslave people. Whether the events of the past were, 'ok', or not is irrelevant, indeed, these events are only issues for people that have issues with God, i have none.
Ah so you're merely quibbling over time scales and numbers now. Atrocities by eternally existent beings are ok if committed 2000 years ago I see. (even though relative to the time this god has supposedly existed, the 2000 years is nothing).
07 Dec 10
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThen you have no problems with the atrocities commited by god back in antiquity, You don't challenge the will of your supposed God. Thus the statement I made in my opening response is accurate, in that threads of the type you make here are hypocritical.
No, blood sacrifice was a feature of the Mosaic law, we are Christians, we do not practice that law. We are Christian, we do not engage in war or any type of atrocity, indeed it may not even be possible for us to take a profession where fire arms are carried. We are Christian we do not enslave people. Whether the events of the past were, 'ok', or n ...[text shortened]... evant, indeed, these events are only issues for people that have issues with God, i have none.
The justification for this being that the collection of Muslims (not all muslims btw) who endorse the will of their supposed Allah that the women in question be killed, also fail to have any problems with the decrees and acts of their god. Indeed they are not Jehovahs Witnesses - to them, your god does not exist. They are as willing to turn a blind eye to attrocities as you are since they don't recognise them as atrocities in the first place; they are merely following the will of their god.
07 Dec 10
4 edits
Originally posted by Agergwilling to turn a blind eye as i am, indeed, so now i am responsible for the actions of the ancient Hebrews more that three thousand years ago, is that really what you are saying Agers, if not then why are you making me personally responsible as if I am, simply because it is recorded in the Bible? Simply because i refuse to comment upon them. Indeed please tell the forum how many persons i have stoned to death, if none then you are talking pants, how many I have personally enslaved, if none then you are talking double pants, how many i have killed in atrocities, if none, triple pants, for that is what your post amounts to, pants floating on bilge water! I do not recognise many things, does that then make me personally responsible for them, well does it, no, then what are you havering on about? You have FAILED big time to state, that because of certain practices that were acted upon in the past, that they remain the will of God, for quite clearly they cannot be, for we have an exemplar in Christ, perhaps you have heard of him, first name Jesus, who revealed the will of God to us, through is actions and teachings. Indeed, for following and applying, which of those teachings are you now condemning me for? If none, they you had better shut up a you face.
Then you have no problems with the atrocities commited by god back in antiquity, You don't challenge the will of your supposed God. Thus the statement I made in my opening response is accurate, in that threads of the type you make here are hypocritical.
The justification for this being that the collection of Muslims (not all muslims btw) who endorse the wi ognise them as atrocities in the first place; they are merely following the will of their god.
I have not heard you condemn the actions of the Islamists, instead, all you try to do is establish some tenuous link to events in the past, flimsy straw like links, built upon a foundation of nothingness. If you have not condemned the Islamists, then i must assume that you agree with the action, after all, that is what you are saying of me, simply because i refuse to comment, I am guilty through some kind of association. I could indeed make a very good case for the justification of each warlike episode in scripture, but i choose not to. So will you condemn the actions of the Islamists or will you keep up this charade.
I have been to Pakistan, I have lived there, I know first hand what type of problems people are facing, what type of environment they are living under, what have you done Agers seeing that you want to get personal? You are a god are you not, able to discern the difference between right and wrong, what have you done to help? You termed my a hypocrite, for which action will you now condemn me, self sacrifice, wanting to help others? perhaps i engaged in unpaid voluntary work because I wanted to pursue a career and make lots of money? which one is it?
07 Dec 10
Originally posted by menace71No, nothing direct like that. Rather they would like to wear women down and make sure they know their places in the grand scheme of things as interpretted by their elders, who, as I understand are inherintly sexist.
LOL I know all of the guff we give you and G-75 but I don't see JW's wanting to put women to death by hanging!!
Manny
Please correct me if I am wrong here Rob, G-75.