I may have missed it when you posted context for others - I know you didn't for me when I asked for it.

What reasons did God give other than "They don't believe in me"? Are you going to come for me because I disagree with you? You have Biblical precedent.

Also, what did the children that were killed in god's sprees do to tick god off?

On the gift of faith - In other words, I have to buy what you're selling before I'm allowed to understand what I'm actually buying?

I've debated a lot of christians, friend. When biblical context is raised by the christian, one of a few things happen. Either: I provide the context, it backs my case up, they go after the translation, I show that my version has as much if not more validity than theirs, they doggedly deny this, OR I tell them that this passage was in full context when I quoted it, and they continue to claim it wasn't OR they back out right after I respond to their initial claim. I've also corrected a lot of atheists who HAVE used biblical passages out of context. I didn't see that in this thread.

Did you read my latest blog post? If you did, you didn't gather much from it. Read it. Also, how many times has god told his followers to massacre people in the bible? Plenty. Sometimes, even children. Sometimes, he told them to kill ALL LIVING THINGS in a particular area.

See, there you go, taking what I said out of context. You were saying "what if someone saw X". Mattshizzle responded with "it could have been X, Y, Z, A,B,C, etc." You responded with "What if all of these weren't true, and you saw it, you'd have to accept it" and i said "Well, it's hard for these things to not be true, and to determine their validity," and went after each one of those point by point. [EDIT: I didn't mention there that there were many other possibilities, such as weather balloons, satellites, optical illusions caused by any number of natural phenomenon, commercial or private planes, hot air baloons, blimps, etc.] You also said I gave a somewhat lengthy reason as to why delusion is a possibility when someone claims they've seen or heard god, and why people who are open minded can use delusion as an explanation without being close minded. I'm going to assume you read it all. You took one part of that out, one part that said delusion is a POSSIBILITY (not a certainty, and not necessarily the best possibility) and said "LOOK! You are dismissing me as insane!" And that part, alone, could suggest that. I did imply that evidence would convince me, or others, that you were right. In fact, if you quoted the next sentence, you'd have seen this, possibly:

That's quite an assumption.  Because that's what you might do does not mean that's what I or any other person would do.  I'll never forget a 4 year old girl who had to testify against a man who sexually abused her and forgave him.  The mom did the same.  He has to serve his punishment in accordance to the law but the family holds no ill will and is moving on.  Could I do that?  I don't know because I wasn't there but I pray that God would give me the strength to do the same.  And forgiveness is far more powerful than hate (Romans 12:17-21)

You still miss the point.  It had nothing to do with just community awareness but also self awareness.  Today, who became more aware of what actions you should take upon a shooting...those at VT or those say at New Mexico Tech?  Now that it's happened, who will more aware of how precious life is?  Who's parents will be more aware of their children?

If you are in fact in Canada, how can you presume to know the minds of Americans...and I'm not talking about what you see on TV.

And you know that how?

To do God's will.  I thought I said this...several times now. 

This is quite possibly one of the dumbest things an American can say. Amazing how often they say it. You think we're blind, deaf, and stupid or something?

Newsflash!

CANADA IS SO CLOSE TO THE US WE CAN SPIT ACROSS THE BORDER. CANADA IS NOT IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

And in other news, the earth is roughly spherical....

It seems to me there's a contradiction between John 3:18 and John 12:47.

 In the first, it is said that "he that believeth not is condemned already", but in the latter verse, it says that if any man hears Jesus's words, and believes not, Jesus judges him not.

Fine, butthis is a pretty bad situation all in all, for everyone involved. The christian community gets hated and possibly attacked for one (or a few) person's actions. Christians who think the action was a good one and those who denounce it will fight amongst themselves, possibly physically.And the friends and family of the person who was killed will certainly not convert to that religion if the god the christians worship is OK with that shit. 

And if it was proven that it was god, what reason would I have to love him? 

I can't not insult you here, dumbass. 9/11 was almost 6 years ago. Did it not occur to you that someone LIVING ON THE BORDER would cross it in the last 6 years? I am between an hour and an hour and a half's drive from the U.S.A. border (with normal traffic, weather conditions, and doing the speed limit). We still don't need a passport to enter your country. Point #2, you ethnocentric moron, is that EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WESTERN WORLD tightened its airline security after 9/11, and many non-Western countries did as well. You have no way of knowing the following three facts, but I am part native american (just enough that I am often mistaken for Arabic) traveled on an airplane during October 2001, and have since begun working as airport security. I was stopped at every single airport save the one in my town on my October '01 trip whether or not I set off the metal detector, none of the white people I travelled with were stopped once. I'm aware of all of this. Quit hiding behind this ridiculous veil.

As a former christian, I can tell you that many christians would disagree with you. I can also tell you that many of the "invalid assumptions" are quite valid, depending on whom you ask in the body of believers.

Nice ad hoc rationalization....so exactly which part of the quoted scripture says, "This is Jesus the man talking not jesus the god"....which is especially troubling when you think about the fact that jesus "is" god  (at least that was my understanding when I was a xtian, maybe things have changed since then).  Also, if this is such an inspired text why did god have john wait 9 chapters before he addressed the fundamental flaw in the argument...oh wait, no you just cherry picked an out of context verse to support your argument.  Nice..

Sorry, razor.

This "he was speaking as a man in this instance and speaking as God in that one" based solely on your interpretation (which must be the right one since it's yours, eh?) is not that much different from saying

"If I don't like what Jesus was saying, he was speaking as a man. If I do, he was speaking as the Incarnate God."

No it's not and if you stopped to think about it you'd realize what I'm trying to explain here. I'm not talking about who Jesus was in these verses, I'm explaining to you how the people who lived at the time who walked with him would have viewed him and how they would have accepted him during his ministries (and hence how we as humans should look at his example on how to live as well). People would come to believe him as the Christ, the Son of God, and God as a man on Earth but the point is during this time Jesus became the example for all men on how to live and the two verses listed were examples from Jesus as a man to others on how to live. You seem to be combining revelations after the time of Jesus to what was understood about him at the time.

As an example of what you are doing to justify your responses, say we use the military. How can you compare the solider of the civil war to that of today's solider? Would today's solider understand the idea that people would litterly have picnics near the battlefield to watch and at dark, both sides would stop fighting and have parties? Would the civil war solider understand air fighters much less smart bombs?

Much like how our understand of who Jesus was came to be, same can be said on how we changed warfare over the centuries. Asking "well why didn't they use the airplanes to attack" and assume this to be some kind of battle warfare contradiction (since we know today that battles are faught with an airplane) because you are using today's understanding of war is a misinterpretation of the time of the events. Our understanding of Jesus today cannot be compared as to how people of the time would have understood him and accepted him.

So when Jesus was talking to the disciples by themselves, was he speaking as God or as man?

If you want to take that contextual view, razor, Jesus was never more than a man until the guys who wanted to build a religion around him made him God.

And if you read the full gospels you'll see how he speaks to the crowds and how the level at which he speaks progressively gets more and more, I guess the word would be "spiritual", and it is then towards the end in which Jesus does not speak quite in the same manor. I'm not drawing a line since we are 2000 years later and we can evaluate the fullness of his message. What I'm saying is before you cry out contradiction, there is a need for understanding both the context of the speech and the period of time in which it would have occurred. Add to this mentalities of the people and you might begin to see under which context Jesus spoke. No one built anything around him; those who believed were followers of his example. It is us who built up religions and dogma not of his example but of our own desires. This is why I can make the statement of "no contradictions" because you need to stop taking the bible as if it was written yesterday.

Another example (and I've given this before)...if you are describing a football game and told someone about it, would you tell them "our team missed a 4th down attempt and lost the game" but omit the detail they were down 30 points with 10 seconds left? This changes the entire context of your description and under what premise the game was being watched and listened to and helps to let people know what your mindset was like at the time of watching the game. The same can be said on how you interpret Jesus' words, not like how we would today with dogma clouding the view, but rather like someone 2000 years ago hearing the words for the first time, ever.

If you want to go that way, razor, he had to dumb down what he was telling the disciples (look at the times he had to explain his parables to them). Do you really want to say that being close to Jesus makes you stupid? 

Yeah cause that's not what it SAID.  You made that up as a rationalization for why god is not contradictory.  You say that's an explaination, then explain it better b/c that didn't go over so well.  Your remark is not even close to the actual text.

Sorry if you don't but that's what it means. 

Now why didn't you say this to begin with instead of being combative?

I'm going to stick with only Luke since this is where it began...

Jesus spoke of followers throughout his life. He makes mention to several people about following in his footsteps. He turned no one away who's faith was true and, as he would explain, who God revealed to the truth. In Luke 9:57-62..."No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.", meaning the person who cares more for what happenings on this Earth and not the calling of God will not receive the gift of faith and salvation.

Luke 10:27 " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

The first commandment, Love God first, comes before family, friends, and self. Because of this, he explains what will happen because of his coming...

Luke 12:51-53 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

The division that Jesus brings is because, as he explains, many are called but few are chosen because they did not chose him when called. In chapter 14, the parable of the great banquet (15-24), when the master calls many but no one would go, this is likened to many being called to Jesus though his servants, but few would come so he called all who would listen and would shut out anyone who did not come when called.

People will be against each other because of Jesus as not all will come to the understanding or the acceptance of him. For many it's not about disagreements between family members but worldly possessions, such as the rich ruler who could not leave his money to follow Jesus (Luke 18:18-30).

I know I said I'd stick with Luke but John 9 and the story of the man born blind is a great example of how people will hate you for Jesus' name. The man who was blind would come to be hated by the Pharisees and so the blind man would hate them in return as they would try to come between him and Jesus and the blind man rejected them for Jesus.

Through the gospels, Jesus makes it known that you should not have anyone or anything between you and God for if you do you would not be worthy of God's gift. If you find anything between you and salvation, hate and remove it from your life for Jesus stated..

Luke 6:22 Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man.

 

Is this kinda like how the Pope somtimes speaks "ex cathedra"? How are we supposed to tell the difference, when it's Jesus who's speaking? It seems to me that it's a matter of whim (ad hoc), whenever something difficult needs to be explained, Jesus is speaking as either God or as man, depending on the scriptural problem involved. This is not persuasive, you'll have to do better than that if you want to convince me that I'm in error in relation to contradictions.

And now you know.  My point has been that the bible message, especially that of Jesus, is clear because they are all interconnected to each other.  Each point supports the last.  I didn't mean to go all bible study on you but you did ask.

As to my point, I'm actually kinda wondering why you disagree. The interpretation I presented to you is biblically based and is shared from other biblical interpreters.

You know I'm curious if you are an "ex-Christian" as I've heard it used.  I know magilum is.

I ask because if your family is Christian and you've approached them saying you don't believe in God, I wonder if you've experienced the hate that can come from people over something like that.

My point there is while it's not easy to accept, there will be people who will hate you and reject you for your beliefs.  It is not Jesus' teaching to litterly hate someone but do not have the person as part of your life in the faith of Jesus if they are pushing you away from God.  If I were to date someone who was an atheist, I would not hate her for her non-belief, but if she were to attack my faith I would not simply change my mind like Katie Holmes did.  If the person would not accept me for me with my faith, then I do not have to accept that person either.  You do not keep someone in your life that is trying to destroy you and that is what it's all about.

 

 As a generic statement, I could tell you that he spoke more theological after his entry to Jerusalem.  Case by case if you want to ask...

Granted but that point is irrevelant to this conversation no?  I've seen this many a time but when discussing what the bible states, belief is not what is important but rather point of view and proper interpretation....at least that's what I'd hope for.

I suppose you are one of the lucky ones. Hell I've had a hard enough time with my family when I left the fundamentalist of the catholic church to follow something more bible based...

Then we understand each other.

Yeah, the World Christian Encyclopedia says there are 33,830 Christian denominations, all claiming biblical authority. And yet, the Bible says that God is not the author of confusion. Go figure.  

Yeah, the Bible originated with the Roman Catholic Church, so if they were Satan's spawn, why would they preserve God's Word intact through the centuries? Or even if they're merely "not Christians", as some would claim, then how can they have been trusted to transmit God's Word faithfully to us today? Or how can we even trust that the Bible is God's Word, and not some fairy tale that's been concocted by greedy powermongers, for the sake of keeping the poor from murdering the rich?

And yet, Protestants all over the world never question where thier holy book came from, or whatever's in it. They just trust to the religious authority of their choice (or their parents' choice) to give it to them in easy to swallow bites, like pablum.

 

I often wonder how people can claim to believe the Bible, when they don't even know what's in it, because they haven't read it. Religious illiteracy is rampant, most people really know very little about their religion, its history or its tenets.

None of them claim biblical authority only difference in observance.  Every one of them regards Jesus as the savior and every one recognizes his death and resurrection.

Because, as believers, we follow AND BELIEVE what is written..

2 Peter 1:20-21 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.