Palin, Southern Baptist and hypocrisy

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]I'm no fool.

You coulda fooled us![/b]

I did.

You see, I have something you lack. I have trusted in Christ.

I have eternal life as a present possession.

So I am here to share the good news with those of you who have consigned yourselves to a death based on an atheistic world view.

I realise you think you are so smart and that I am a fool, but that's ok. It comes with the territory.

Originally posted by josephw
I did.

You see, I have something you lack. I have trusted in Christ.

I have eternal life as a present possession.

So I am here to share the good news with those of you who have consigned yourselves to a death based on an atheistic world view.

I realise you think you are so smart and that I am a fool, but that's ok. It comes with the territory.

You think behaving like a fool is an effective way to spread the "good news"?

Originally posted by TheSkipper
You think behaving like a fool is an effective way to spread the "good news"?

Who's the fool? The one that knows the truth or the one that denies Christ?

Why is it so difficult for some of you to follow the thought through a thread?

I never said that I behaved like a fool. You said it, not me.

I said that I become the fool because I am spreading the "good news", because those of you think I'm a fool for believing what the Bible plainly teaches.

Say what you will.

Originally posted by josephw
What I am advocating is faith in God's word the Bible.

When you admit to condoning the stoning of a woman caught in adultery, I will believe you, because
that is God's Word in the Bible. Otherwise, I will continue to call you out on your hypocritical claims.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
When you admit to condoning the stoning of a woman caught in adultery, I will believe you, because
that is God's Word in the Bible. Otherwise, I will continue to call you out on your hypocritical claims.

Nemesio

"I will continue to call you out on your hypocritical claims."

Knock yourself out if you want to.

I'll not respond to your trick questions you should know very well are designed to twist the truth. Maybe you don't know it!

Let me ask you this. Why does it say in the law to stone the adulterer, but then Jesus defends the woman caught in adultery?

Originally posted by josephw
Why does it say in the law to stone the adulterer, but then Jesus defends the woman caught in adultery?

Because Jesus realized that the command to stone the woman was unjust and despicable and
did not reflect the view of God. That is, because Jesus realized that the law was man made
(like the law about divorce that most Christians ignore anyway), He preached against it.

Why do you think that Jesus encouraged the people to disregard God's Holy Word which he
proclaimed as Law through Moses in the Hebrew Scriptures?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Because Jesus realized that the command to stone the woman was unjust and despicable and
did not reflect the view of God. That is, because Jesus realized that the law was man made
(like the law about divorce that most Christians ignore anyway), He preached against it.

Why do you think that Jesus encouraged the people to disregard God's Holy Word which he
proclaimed as Law through Moses in the Hebrew Scriptures?

Nemesio

I believe that the argument some make, that "Jesus did not come to change the law, but to fulfill it" is weak. I agree with you---He clearly changed the rules concerning punishment for adultery. He changed a lot of old rules and regs whose time had past.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Because Jesus realized that the command to stone the woman was unjust and despicable and
did not reflect the view of God. That is, because Jesus realized that the law was man made
(like the law about divorce that most Christians ignore anyway), He preached against it.

Why do you think that Jesus encouraged the people to disregard God's Holy Word which he
proclaimed as Law through Moses in the Hebrew Scriptures?

Nemesio

What is wrong with you?

"Because Jesus realized that the command to stone the woman was unjust and despicable and
did not reflect the view of God."

This is you own opinion, and does not reflect the view of scripture.

Back it up with definitive proof. That means on what authority do you base this claim?

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I believe that the argument some make, that "Jesus did not come to change the law, but to fulfill it" is weak. I agree with you---He clearly changed the rules concerning punishment for adultery. He changed a lot of old rules and regs whose time had past.

I see. So what you're saying is that it is now ok to commit adultery.

Your own argument is very weak because you fall short of explaining why you think the law is has changed.

Look, you're missing the whole point that is being illustrated by the story of Jesus' intervention in the stoning of the woman.

I would like to explain it to you, but I've been through this before in this forum. It would be a colossal waste of time since you have already arrived at the conclusion that best fits your world view. You, as well as most of the posters in this forum, only recognise your own authority, and discount any suggestion that God has the answers, or that there are any absolutes that govern the universe.

It's a frightfully pathetic frame of mind.

Originally posted by josephw
This is you own opinion, and does not reflect the view of scripture.

Back it up with definitive proof. That means on what authority do you base this claim?

You asked what I thought. I told you. The authority that I base this claim is on the fact that
stoning a person for adultery is abominable any way you look at it and the idea that a 'God of
love' would have commanded this is absurd. Jesus, as a teacher of a belief in a 'God that is
love,' was wise enough to recognize this and to speak out against it. Since I don't believe in
the infallibility of Scripture, I'm not wedded to the idea that anything stuffed into the mouth of
God really reflects the desires of the Divine.

Now, having answered your question fully and candidly, I'll ask that you answer mine:

Given that you have complete faith in God's Word in the Bible, it seems that the commands
offered in the Hebrew Scriptures are ones which you are bound to follow. So, why don't you
stone women (or men for that matter) caught in adultery? Certainly you know one or two in
your lifetime, and certainly members of your faith community have known people who have
committed adultery. Why not stone them as commanded by 'God?'

Further, I'd ask if you thought that people in 50 BCE who stoned such women were in fact
doing a moral wrong?

Nemesio

Originally posted by josephw
I see. So what you're saying is that it is now ok to commit adultery.

No, he's saying that it is not okay to stone people for committing adultery.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
You asked what I thought. I told you. The authority that I base this claim is on the fact that
stoning a person for adultery is abominable any way you look at it and the idea that a 'God of
love' would have commanded this is absurd. Jesus, as a teacher of a belief in a 'God that is
love,' was wise enough to recognize this and to speak out against it. people in 50 BCE who stoned such women were in fact
doing a moral wrong?

Nemesio

You know, the more you speak the more obvious it becomes to me that your knowledge of the scripture is not only lacking, but is in fact corrupted. (Don't take that personally.)

Do you not realise that the law was given to the Jews? Not the gentiles?

Do you know why?

The law given to Israel, through Moses, was specifically designed by God for a specific people group at a specific time and place. This is a subject well beyond the scope of anything you are knowledgeable of as attested by your profound lack of understanding of Jesus' own words.

"Jesus, as a teacher of a belief in a 'God that is love,' was wise enough to recognize this and to speak out against it."

Speak out against it? Why do you insist on making remarks such as this? Nowhere in the gospels will you find Jesus speaking out against the law, nor can you extrapolate from His words that He did.

This whole argument is absurd. It all started when I said I believe what the scripture says about women. How in the world someone can then suggest that I support the stoning of a woman for adultery is an adulteration of reason and logic. I feel sorry for anyone whose mind is so biased against Christians that they have to fabricate an argument out of a simple statement from out of another context just to try to make the author of said statement look like a bigot or something.

This whole argument is absurd. It all started when I said I believe what the scripture says about women. How in the world someone can then suggest that I support the stoning of a woman for adultery is an adulteration of reason and logic.

I love discussions like this... it's brilliant. In particular the comment 'adulteration of reason and logic'....

The fact of the matter is - if you're going to apply reason and/or logic to the bible, or in fact any religious scriptures, then very quickly you're going to find yourself in a whole heap of trouble; in fact, more or less from the word go. Religious scriptures are filled with hypocrisy and contradiction, and although the underlying principles that underpin most major religions are (arguably) morally sound, they fall far short of meeting our requirements to get by responsibly and respectfully in the modern age.

Reason tells us that the bible (as the example that I best understand) is a book that was put together over hundreds of years, with bits removed, bits added and undoubtedly large swathes mis-translated. Reason tells us that this is a collection of stories - no better or worse than Grimm's Fairytales, for example. It has a fascinating history and social context... but ultimately it's just a book.

Logic tells us likewise - you can't take the bible literally; therefore it's open to interpretation; therefore it's just a book, written by various people (some known, some unknown) and nothing more than that. It is not, and never has been, the word of (a) god. Same goes for all other holy books, from the torah to the koran.

I thought the whole point of this thread was to discuss Palin... well, as a non-American, I find it altogether highly disturbing that a potential leader of the world's biggest superpower genuinely believes that a book written 2000 years ago, with authors entirely unverifiable, is LITERAL TRUTH. To believe that, you really do have to throw reason, logic and (let's be frank) intelligence to the wind.

Originally posted by josephw
This is a subject well beyond the scope of anything you are knowledgeable of as attested by your profound lack of understanding of Jesus' own words.

Is that what it looks like? An attempt to avoid answering a difficult question by claiming it is beyond our comprehension?

The law given to Israel, through Moses, was specifically designed by God for a specific people group at a specific time and place.
The question then is whether or not those laws were reasonable, just and morally good. If they were, why do we not follow them today? Would it be wrong to follow them today? Did God give a new set of laws for the rest of us that specifically contradict those laws (ie tell us which of them we must not follow).
Do the 10 commandments still apply or were they also Jew specific?

Originally posted by aanepade
I thought the whole point of this thread was to discuss Palin... well, as a non-American, I find it altogether highly disturbing that a potential leader of the world's biggest superpower genuinely believes that a book written 2000 years ago, with authors entirely unverifiable, is LITERAL TRUTH. To believe that, you really do have to throw reason, logic and (let's be frank) intelligence to the wind.

You shouldn't really be that disturbed. After all, about 90% of the worlds population claims to belief similarly ridiculous things and most societies seem to have managed anyway. I think it is wrong to assume that because someone throws reason, logic and intelligence to the wind on one subject then they will do the same in all other areas of their life. Many reasonable, logical, intelligent scientists have quite happily discarded the lot when it comes to their love life.