09 Jun 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"You think that the Bible is like a buffet where you can simply pick those elements which appeal to you and reject those that don't? "
You think that the Bible is like a buffet where you can simply pick those elements which appeal to you and reject those that don't? Kind of sums up your approach, its all about you , isn't it, you are the most important element here. Anything which you deem to contradict your personal preferences is stupid and ignorant. Such an approach is simply i ...[text shortened]... matter of time before we see the book of Zahlanzi appear in place of those passages you reject.
yes, like everything else. if something is horrible, i cast it aside. if something is useless, i cast it aside.
"Kind of sums up your approach"
not kind of. it does. period. i am not gonna eat a pile of manure just because a moron told me it goes well with the steak. i can decide for myself.
"Anything which you deem to contradict your personal preferences is stupid and ignorant"
what personal preference is that? that genocide is bad? yes, everything that contradicts my personal (i am the only one in the world that thinks genocide is bad, so it's personal) preference IS in fact stupid.
" Such an approach is simply intellectually lazy for rather than attempting to find reason"
there is no reason to genocide. not now. not ever. and i wasn't intellectually lazy about this conclusion. i spent two entire seconds trying to come up with an instance where genocide is a good idea. i didn't find any.
"Its only a matter of time before we see the book of Zahlanzi appear in place of those passages you reject"
yes, i will revolutionize the way humanity is thinking. genocide is bad, what a novel idea. hope nobody steals this and get a nobel prize instead of me.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
09 Jun 15
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i am not gonna eat a pile of manure just because a moron told me it goes well with the steak. i can decide for myself.
So above you did say that you are a Christian. But you are one who says parts of the Bible are a pile of manure ?
Can you show me anywhere in the Christian Gospel in the New Testament where Christ taught parts of the Hebrew Bible were a pile of manure ?
If you cannot think of anything, I might be able to help. But first let me see what you come up with. Sometimes I ask questions that I know full well may put me out on a limb.
I am seeking the truth.
09 Jun 15
Originally posted by sonship"So above you did say that you are a Christian. But you are one who says parts of the Bible are a pile of manure ? "i am not gonna eat a pile of manure just because a moron told me it goes well with the steak. i can decide for myself.
So above you did say that you are a Christian. But you are one who says parts of the Bible are a pile of manure ?
Can you show me anywhere in the Christian Gospel in the New Testament where Christ taught parts of ...[text shortened]... es I ask questions that I know full well may put me out on a limb.
I am seeking the truth.
just as you marvel at this notion, i marvel at the notion that you consider yourself a christian while NOT seeing that parts of the bible are manure
"Can you show me anywhere in the Christian Gospel in the New Testament where Christ taught parts of the Hebrew Bible were a pile of manure ? "
whenever he says love thy neighbour, love thy enemy, everyone deserves a chance at salvation be selfless and don't put so much stock in material things, that's him saying the old testament is a pile of garbage.
but you want something less metaphorical, less subtle. you want him to specifically say those words. matthew said in 5:17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." you would say the OT must be awesome but read further when he says the Law is summed up by "do to others how you would have them do to you". when he says that we must love our neighbours as we love ourselves.
no, jesus didn't use manure and garbage. he was more diplomatic. he used nicer words. he is basically saying he had come to fulfill the law how it was MEANT to be in the first place. not how it was perverted by evil men.
he is saying time and time again that god doesn't want anyone to be stoned(the bad kind, with the rocks), another instance where those israelites perverted the law.
he is saying that everyone can be saved, in direct contradiction with "kill the canaanites, they are beyond saving, kill Sodom they are beyond saving, kill the entire world, it is beyond saving"
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
whenever he says love thy neighbour, love thy enemy, everyone deserves a chance at salvation be selfless and don't put so much stock in material things, that's him saying the old testament is a pile of garbage.
No it is not denigrading the Old Testament, It is in fact quoting the first part of ten commandments as a reminder:
"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?
And He said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment.
And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang the Law and the Prophets." (Matt. 22:36-40)
This is far from the blaspheming insult to the Old Testament which you belched out.
but you want something less metaphorical, less subtle. you want him to specifically say those words. matthew said in 5:17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."
Wrong again.This is Christ saying He comes to fulfill the Law and the Prophets. This is not to say the Old Testament was worthless as you belch forth in your ignorance.
Try again.
you would say the OT must be awesome but read further when he says the Law is summed up by "do to others how you would have them do to you". when he says that we must love our neighbours as we love ourselves.
Instead of inserting words into my mouth produce Christ's condemnation of the Old Testament.
no, jesus didn't use manure and garbage. he was more diplomatic. he used nicer words. he is basically saying he had come to fulfill the law how it was MEANT to be in the first place. not how it was perverted by evil men.
If so that is not calling the word of God in the Old Testament a pile of manure. At best that is calling men's disobedience to God's word a pile of manure.
The stinky analysis you offer is a pile of manure.
You need something to eat.
he is saying time and time again that god doesn't want anyone to be stoned(the bad kind, with the rocks), another instance where those israelites perverted the law.
Okay, In John 8 Christ shines a brighter light on the crowd, convicting them that no one among them was without sin. And thus none of the eager mob was qualified to stone the woman.
This is not to say the Old Testament is worthless. In fact He told the woman - "Go and sin no more" which indicates that she was indeed guilty.
What Jesus did was was circumvent their eagerness to try to trap Him by exposing them. He alone was qualified to punish her, yet He did not but forgave her and instructed her to sin no more.
"He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast a stone at her" convicted them that they were each sinners. And this is what the Law of Moses did - leave everyman guilty and in need of atonement, redemption.
The Old Testament is NOT condemned there by Jesus. The superficial hypocrisy of the Christ opposing mob was.
The pile of manure is your handling of the whole Bible.
he is saying that everyone can be saved, in direct contradiction with "kill the canaanites, they are beyond saving, kill Sodom they are beyond saving, kill the entire world, it is beyond saving"
The execution of the Canaanites tells us nothing about their eternal salvation. It does present a portrait of God's hatred for sin.
And in the case of Rehab the harlot and her family being saved in Jericho, we have a window into God's grace even upon a world condemned to be judged.
Also in the Old Testament we have an entire book of Ruth from a tribe that was forbidden to enter the congregation of Jehovah until past the tenth generation (the Moabites). Yet this woman Ruth the Moabitess entered because she had a heart for God and God's people. And she became an ancester of king David and of the Messiah Himself.
This is in the Old Testament. This is portrait of God's grace in the midst of the Old Testament.
No, the New Testament does not say the Old Testament was worthless. That's your stinky humanism talking.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
From The Life Study of Exodus - Amalek verses the Kingdom by Witness Lee, Living Stream Ministry, Msg. 48, pg. 555,556 [my bolding]
http://www.ministrybooks.org/books.cfm?cid=1FDE
It is very difficult to define adequately what the flesh is. In this message I would like to set forth a particular definition of the flesh: the flesh denotes anything that does not work by grace. Grace is the Triune God becoming everything to us and doing everything for us. The New Testament reveals that grace does not refer to material blessings. According to the New Testament, grace is God Himself not only being our enjoyment, but also doing everything for us. Whatever we do is of the flesh, but whatever God does for us is grace. If I speak in myself without depending on God, my speaking is of the flesh, even if the subject is the Bible or spiritual doctrine. This indicates that even in speaking about spiritual things or scriptural things, we may be of the flesh. Whatever we do, good or evil, apart from grace is the flesh. For example, if a brother loves his wife by the self rather than by grace, his love is of the flesh.
In a sense the so-called good flesh is more hateful to God than the evil flesh. In 1 Samuel 15 we see that God hated the good aspects of Amalek. Therefore, whatever we do without depending on God and trusting in Him is of the flesh, no matter how good that thing may be. Anything that is not done by God is of the flesh. If I visit you in myself and not by God, that is of the flesh. If I pray for others without depending on God, but instead pray in the self, that prayer is of the flesh. Do not think that the flesh refers only to evil matters or to lust. It is obvious that such things are of the flesh. The flesh also includes good things. Notice the words “best” and “choice” in 1 Samuel 15. Saul spared the best cattle and the choice spoil. Related to the flesh are things which are the “best” and which are “choice.” Therefore, we say once again that whatever we do without the Spirit, without depending on God and trusting Him, no matter how good it may seem, is of the flesh. Whatever has its source in ourselves is an Ishmael.
Isaac typifies Christ. Hence, the issue of the flesh, typified by Ishmael, is versus Christ. God’s intention is to work Christ into us. But the flesh works in a way that is versus Christ. The result, the issue, of the flesh is versus Isaac. Whenever we exercise our flesh, we produce an Ishmael, and this Ishmael is invariably versus Christ. Ishmael cuts us off from grace and keeps us from Christ. For this reason, in John 15 the Lord Jesus said that apart from Him we can do nothing. However, we have done a great many things apart from Christ. But all the good we have done apart from Christ is an Ishmael who is versus Christ.
Ishmael keeps us from fulfilling God’s eternal purpose. We cannot fulfill God’s purpose as long as we exercise our flesh and do not trust in God, depend on Him, or live in oneness with Him.
We are accustomed to do so many things apart from Christ. We all condemn sinful things. But not many condemn good things, even those seemingly spiritual things, which are done apart from Christ. Have you ever condemned yourself because you prayed for a certain thing in the flesh? The issue of praying in the flesh will also be an Ishmael of some kind. This Ishmael is versus Christ and frustrates us from enjoying the grace of God for the fulfillment of God’s eternal purpose.
Man’s flesh is versus God’s grace. This means that whatever man does apart from God Himself is a frustration to God’s purpose. This is a serious matter. We must admit that we still do many things through the exercise of our flesh. Some, however, may deny that they exercise the flesh. Yet they do not depend on the Lord either. As long as we fail to rely on the Lord, we are in the flesh and are exercising the flesh. Simply by not trusting in the Lord, we are spontaneously living in the flesh.
Originally posted by Zahlanziyup its all about you, Zhalanzi the spiritual buffet king.
"You think that the Bible is like a buffet where you can simply pick those elements which appeal to you and reject those that don't? "
yes, like everything else. if something is horrible, i cast it aside. if something is useless, i cast it aside.
"Kind of sums up your approach"
not kind of. it does. period. i am not gonna eat a pile of manure just bec ...[text shortened]... enocide is bad, what a novel idea. hope nobody steals this and get a nobel prize instead of me.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
From The Life Study of Exodus - Amalek verses the Kingdom by Witness Lee, Living Stream Ministry, Msg. 48, pg. 557,558
http://www.ministrybooks.org/books.cfm?cid=1FDE
II. AMALEK VERSUS KINGSHIP
The second picture of the flesh is that of Amalek in the book of Exodus. In this picture we see how to deal with the flesh, a subject we covered in the foregoing message. If we would deal with the flesh, typified by Amalek, we must be identified with the interceding Christ in the heavens and join ourselves to the fighting Spirit within us. In this message we need to see that the flesh is not only versus grace, but that it is also versus kingship. For this reason, the flesh must be thoroughly dealt with before the kingdom of God can come. Where the flesh is, there can be no kingdom of God. Only when the flesh is dealt with is it possible for the kingdom to come.
In Romans 8:7 Paul says that it is not possible for the flesh to be subject to God. The kingdom of God denotes the authority of God by which all things are made subject to God. But it is not possible for the flesh to be subject to God. It is utterly opposed to God’s throne.
A. A Hand against the Throne of Jehovah
In Exodus 17:16 we see that Amalek is a hand against the throne of Jehovah. In the eyes of God, Amalek was considered a hand against God’s throne. This indicates that Amalek tried to overthrow God’s throne, just as Satan once tried to do. Exodus 17:16 says that because there is such a hand against the throne of Jehovah, God will have war with Amalek from generation to generation (Heb.). By this we see that Amalek is versus God’s authority.
Every aspect of our flesh, whether good or evil, is an enemy of God’s authority. The flesh does not care for God or for His authority. Whenever we are in the flesh, we regard ourselves as individuals who are not obligated to submit to God’s throne. We think that we have a position and rights of our own. Such a rebellious attitude has its source in Satan. Satan, however, is one with our flesh. Satan’s principle is not to come to us directly, but to come through others or through something in ourselves. For example, Satan came to Eve in the form of a serpent. In Matthew 16, Peter, a disciple who loved the Lord Jesus very much, was utilized by Satan. Satan came to the Lord in Peter and through him. Often our flesh serves as a cloak for Satan. Whenever we exercise our flesh, Satan is hidden within us. Therefore, like Satan himself, the flesh is against God’s authority. According to the portrait in Exodus 17, Amalek is a hand against the throne of God.
10 Jun 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziI am not terming you intellectually lazy because you do not condone genocide, i am terming you intellectually lazy because its just so much less effort for you to dispense with those portions you don't agree with. You are not a Christian, you are a zahlanzist. Perhaps you can write a nice sanitised version of the Bible filled with all those namby pamby issues you support?
"People who don't condone genocides are intellectually lazy"
robbie carrobie - 2015
you should put that in a song. for kids. it's very heart warming.
10 Jun 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDo you agree with genocide?
I am not terming you intellectually lazy because you do not condone genocide, i am terming you intellectually lazy because its just so much less effort for you to dispense with those portions you don't agree with. You are not a Christian, you are a zahlanzist. Perhaps you can write a nice sanitised version of the Bible filled with all those namby pamby issues you support?
