01 Apr 18
Originally posted by @thinkofoneWhat “Gospel” what good news are you specifically referring to?
I advocate for the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry.
Jesus said he was sent by God to proclaim this gospel, do you also advocate those “words of Jesus” or do you just “advocate” certain words that suit your atheism and pretence?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @thinkofone
I advocate for the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry.
Did you answer the question about belief in God here?
No, you evaded it.
And you oppose the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry. You always have.
You and others advocate for a different gospel. Since you and others are unable to refute the truth what I post, you attack the messenger and/or ask off-topic questions as a way of deflecting from this fact.
Did you answer the simple question about belief in God here?
No, you evaded and indulged in wishful thinking.
And this has little to do with emotional state. I said before your posts only demonstrate that a heretic can be a calm heretic. So unlike others, I doubt that you're upset.
I might believe you're beyond feeling in your conscience about God. As if it has been seared with a hot iron to no longer have sensitivity.
Hypocrisy? Seriously? Back it up.
Did you answer the simple question about belief in God here?
No, you further evaded and indulged in delusional self appreciation.
Cite examples of where I've danced around the topic at hand by asking inane questions and pretending that I'm waiting on other posters.
Did you answer the simple question about belief in God here?
No, you hand wave to another matter hoping this scores as proving something. "Make the question of no importance."
No, ToO, I will not devaluate my question to make it of no importance.
You seriously can't make the distinction between that and not answering off-topic questions?
Always insisting that a question is "off-topic" is another mechanism to avoid revealing your true belief.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
AtheistofOne,
As for the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry?
You've dedicated your life to fight against that gospel.
Rather than have the courage to announce that you come to the world with a completely different Godless philosophy altogether, that has nothing to do with the New Testament, you hope to wrap your philosophy deceptively in a disguise of Christ's gospel.
Did you think Christians would perhaps not notice the deception? Not this one.
Did you think some Christians might think about it - "Hum, well, that does seem like a kind of different interpretation of the New Testament". Not this Christian.
Now, your last point about the summary of the whole law, mostly, I have debunked before. Doing it again the same way would be repetition.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
What is really ThinkOfOne's real belief?
I think it is pretty simple at its core - [paraphrased below]
"Jesus taught Atheism. Jesus taught Humanism. All other belief about Jesus Christ from the Bible is faulty embellishment done by people who didn't know as much about His ministry as me, ThinkOfOne."
Basically, that is all he has been saying for years here.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
Originally posted by @sonship"Gargantuan hypocrisy!"he fact remains that he's been waiting on you to actually post something substantive instead of continuing to dance around it by asking inane questions and pretending that you're waiting on him. It's what becker and romans do.
Gargantuan hypocrisy!
[b] Do you even believe that God exists ? teacher to us all about God ?
Monst ...[text shortened]... evasion, dance around, sidestep, abject hush of silence and ignoring of a simple question above.[/b]
Indeed I think the word gargantuan was created solely for this usage. ToO's hypocrisy would not have been done justice with a meager 'huge' 'massive' or even 'elephantine.'
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @thinkofoneSome of this will be repetition of past exchanges.
I've been through some of it before.
"Treat people the same way you want them to treat you" IS the law and the prophets.
And the law and the prophets DEPENDS upon " ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF".
Matthew 7:12 cannot be used to give the impression that Jesus was an advocate of Atheism.
Yes, verse 12 has Christ saying -
"Therefore all that you wish men would do to you, so also you do to them; FOR THIS IS THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS."
No one with straight face can insist that this makes the FIRST commandment totally insignificant to either the law or the prophets.
Ie. "Forget EVERYTHING I said about My Father and just be careful how you treat one another. I came to espouse Humanism."
That's ToO's hope, that he can make Matthew 7:12 summarize the entire law of God and the prophets of God to be advocating - just "the golden rule".
It is impossible that Christ would only stress the horizontal - man to his fellow, aspect of the law of God and nullify the vertical man towards God aspect.
Exodus 20:1-3
" And God spoke all these words, saying,
I am Jehovah your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the slave house.
You shall have no other gods before Me. "
What follows are words against every kind of idolatry and replacing God with someone or something else. This is the first vertical relationship towards God commanded.
It is not until verse 13 does the core of the law of God talk about the horizontal man to fellow man commandments of how we should treat and want to be treated.
"You shall not kill.
You shall not commit adultery,
You shall not steal.
You shall not testify with false testimony against your neighbor.
You shall not covet your neighbor's house, you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, not his donkey, not anything that belongs to your neighbor." (vs. 13-17)
Given so much teaching, signs, miracles, words, parables about His Father - God, that Jesus would be nullifying all of that as not important ?
Matthew 7:12 has to mean that concering the vertical - person to person aspect of the law of God and the exhortations of the prophets, this was a bottom line summary:
"Therefore all that you wish men would do to you, so also you do to them; for this is the law and the prophets." (Matt. 7:12)
Does anyone think that by this Jesus Christ was unteaching all the other things He taught about man towards God belief, obedience, and consecration?
He had said to seek FIRST the kingdom of God and His righteousness.
" But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you." (Matt. 6:33)
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Following are a couple of examples of the ramifications of this:
1) The prohibition against eating shellfish has nothing to do with ""treat people the same way you want them to treat you" and "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF". As such, the prohibition against eating shellfish is not a part of the "law and the prophets" defined by Jesus.
2) The depiction of God condoning chattel slavery is antithetical to ""treat people the same way you want them to treat you" and "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF". As such, the depiction of God condoning chattel slavery is not a part of the "law and the prophets" defined by Jesus.
I agree that shellfish eating is not core to the morality of the law. That is ritual. That is an ordinance which was downplayed by Christ Himself when He taught that it was what goes OUT of a man's heart that defiles him, rather than what goes into the mouth.
Christ Himself downplayed some ritual ordinances of the law - Sabbath keeping, dietary, eating the ears of corn in the field on the Sabbath.
Once again, the slave laws were about regulating and controling ancient custom which was less than ideal. And it should rather, I think, be compare to the law concerning coveting.
You shall not covet your neighbor's male or female servant is not a command to - "Go Get A Male or Female Servant" "Thus says the Lord - Go Have Slaves. I condone this. " .
SHOULD your neighbor have a male or female servant, don't jealously covet this. Be satisfied in God and trust in His provision of what you need. Not necessarily all you want, He provides, but what you need.
In fact NOTHING of your neighbor should you covet, whether good or bad. You shall not covet ANYTHING that is your neighbor's.
Laws existed to regulate the possession of certain things, and the advent of certain less than ideal actions ie. divorce, hitting your servant, spoils in warfare, running away from a vengeful relative because of an accident, etc.
This thread highlights that Jesus only referred to God as Righteous. If you disagree then you must know more about "righteous" then Jesus Christ. So plainly tell us that you know and live a more righteous life then He.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
01 Apr 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeHere you go Freaky, ThinkofOne has (indirectly) tendered the first of the 20.
How about I list 20 Godly actions for you from the OT and you explain, one by one, how they are compatible with the God depicted in the NT?
I won't even mention the killer bears...
'1) The reality is that In Leviticus 25:44-46 God is depicted as clearly and unambiguously condoning chattel slavery.
2)The reality is that the depiction of God condoning chattel slavery in Leviticus 25:44-46 flies in the face of righteous God spoken of by Jesus during His ministry.'
01 Apr 18
Originally posted by @sonshipIt really is unfortunate that you don't have better reading comprehension skills. If you did, perhaps it would cut down your use of straw man arguments.
Some of this will be repetition of past exchanges.
I've been through some of it before.
"Treat people the same way you want them to treat you" IS the law and the prophets.
And the law and the prophets DEPENDS upon " ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF".
[b]Matthew 7:12 cannot be used to give the impression that Jesus was ...[text shortened]... om and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you." (Matt. 6:33) [/b] [/quote][/b]
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
01 Apr 18
Originally posted by @thinkofoneAs a neutral observer, at least sonship has the ability to answer questions.
It really is unfortunate that you don't have better reading comprehension skills. If you did, perhaps it would cut down your use of straw man arguments.
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeOr, you could look at one action from the NT which, superficially, makes the "OT God" seem as nice as Mr. Rogers putting on a cardigan and changing into even-more-comfortable shoes.
How about I list 20 Godly actions for you from the OT and you explain, one by one, how they are compatible with the God depicted in the NT?
I won't even mention the killer bears...
Or, better yet, something from the "OT God," Genesis 1:1...
"In beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
Seems like a pretty nice person, that One.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
03 Apr 18
7 edits
Originally posted by @thinkofone
It really is unfortunate that you don't have better reading comprehension skills. If you did, perhaps it would cut down your use of straw man arguments.
It is not a problem of my reading comprehension. It is your arbitrary restriction on what you WANT me to READ.
You DON'T want me to read and comprehend that Jesus could not be teaching your Atheism or your Godless Humanism because He said -
" But seek first His [God's] kingdom and His [God's] righteousness, and all these things will be added to you." (Matt. 6:33)
So when I include this reading material along with Matt.22:40 your objection of "poor reading comprehension skills" is completely disingenuous.
It is impossible for me to respect you as a serious enquirer into the meaning of the Bible. That's a bit unfortunate.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
03 Apr 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeThinkOfOne has no concern whatsoever for the ministry of Jesus Christ. You might as well realize that.
Here you go Freaky, ThinkofOne has (indirectly) tendered the first of the 20.
'1) The reality is that In Leviticus 25:44-46 God is depicted as clearly and unambiguously condoning chattel slavery.
2)The reality is that the depiction of God condoning chattel slavery in Leviticus 25:44-46 flies in the face of righteous God spoken of by Jesus during His ministry.'
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
This poster says God is depicted as something in the Old Testament.
The implication seems to be that the "depiction" is fictional or a self serving lie of the Jews,
For some unknown reason ToO doesn't say Jesus is "depicted" as saying God His Father was "Righteous Father" (John 17:25)
since he depends on people to read his mind while he remains silent on crucial questions, we are only left wondering what he means. That obfuscation serves his purpose I suppose.
Is it that what he agrees with in the Bible is not "depicted" and what he does not agree with is "depicted"?
Did Jesus NOT say God was His "Righteous Father"?
Did Jesus say God was His "Righteous Father" yet make a terrible mistake because of the slave laws in the Old Testament?
You ask me?
God said and did what He did in the Old Testament, not just a fictional "depiction". And Jesus said and did what He did in the New Testament, including totally stand by God's righteous nature from eternity to eternity.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
03 Apr 18
Originally posted by @sonshipHe has stated that he finds the words of Jesus 'profound', but that's about the extent of his bravery when it comes to explaining his personal beliefs. (Worth noting that I too would describe the words attributed to Jesus as profound, despite my clearly stated atheism).
ThinkOfOne has no concern whatsoever for the ministry of Jesus Christ. You might as well realize that.