Question for our Christian visitors
Posted on: September 24, 2006 - 2:11pm
Offline
Question for our Christian visitors
Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca
- Login to post comments
JesusLovesYou,
Are saying that the 10 Commnadments (as well as the other laws of the OT) are not for Gentiles? If yes, then why do many xian's want the 10C's on public display?
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca
If you reject reason,logic,science, and even 'thinking' when arguing for your god, what have you left?
Every response should soley be "but I have faith".
But for you to argue against critics using these very tools, and then to enact protection from them for your own arguments is intellectually bankrupt.
No, i am not saying the 10 commandments are not for gentiles because they fall under "abomination unto God". Read though the establishment of the laws in the OT and you will notice a huge difference between all the different laws. A good majority of the laws were there only as a foreshadow.
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
I'm sad to see that this discussion hasn't progressed since I left it. Despite many words, and many assertions, the simple facts remain:
1) faith, by definition, is not capable of ascertaining truth because, by definition, it is in conflict with the only verifiable means of testing a statement's veracity that we have. Despite the fact that apologists confuse the colloquial definition with the religious definition, faith and reason are necessarily at odds.
2) With all due respect to passion, asserting an incorrect position over and over is still asserting an incorrect position. I think that todangst particularly has laid bare the fallacies in your arguments, and I'd like to think that a few of my points had merit, even if I try to avoid the stodgy language of philosophy. (No offense, guys! I am from the deep south. It's not my fault.) Becoming more wordy while saying the same thing is pretty transparent.
3) Regardless of the number of degrees a man has, falling victim to a logical fallacy is still illogical.
Anyway, I respect what you're trying to do, passion. I think if you and I were to sit down over a beer, we'd probably agree on many things that are unsavory about the "atheist argument," at least in the eyes of the flock. Unfortunately, the simple truth is that irrationality can always come up with a convoluted, poorly defined argument that "sounds" like it refutes the logic of disbelieving in god. Your arguments have continually avoided the questions put to you, and you have done the same thing that believers do -- avoid, attack, deflect. I understand that these are your only courses, but demonstrating the stubbornness of illogic in this forum is... well... preaching to the choir.
If you'd like to put forth a comprehensive, completely error free refutation to god-belief, I bet everyone here could argue you off the forum, too.
Anyway, I've got about 8 days of sixteen hours a day work, so I'll check in again next week and see if anything's new.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Thanks for mentioning that, gregfl. It's one point I forgot to make against reason_passion, but it's a good one.
The actual consequences of abandoning reason are even more terrifying than just speaking in nonsense. The impossibility of discourse inevitably leads to violence.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
So it's capable of predicting the future, but it can't get even the most basic elements of morality right?
Don't you see a contradiction here?
No, let's have you deal with this contradiction.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
The irony here is that the very point we are making here is that the theist IS being irrational! So reason passion is actually agreeing with us without realizing it, because 'faith' is simply an irrational decision to believe despite having no reason to believe...
Which we can define as "Yes, I know my beliefs are internally and externally contradictory, but I don't care, I believe anyway."
This is not a means of providing justification for one's views, on the contrary, it is the admission that one has no means to do so....
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
and what basic elements of morality might these be my friend?
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
First of all only Jesus could fulfill the Law, in that He was perfect and without sin. A man without sin could fulfill the law perfectly.
Second. Jesus did not come to destroy the law. Many Christians act as if He did come to destroy it.
Third. The purpose of the Law has always been the same. It is to prove that we are all sinners in need of salvation from the lake of fire which is reserved for sinners (Rev 20:15)
Fourth. Hebrews 11 points out the truth of my third point in telling us that all the leaders of Israel prior to Jesus were saved by faith not by the law.
Fifth. The Old testament had a system of blood sacrifice because it recognized that people sin. The Law helped them to know how sinful they were but what God required to forgive them of it was an innocent blood sacrifice. Jesus the New testament tells us is the sacrifice to end all sacrifices. He is the perfect spotless sacrifice. All the sacrifices before him were flawed. They were what is called a 'type' a pattern that points to the future comming of the perfect sacrifice.
Sixth. The fulfillment of the law for the Christian occurs at the moment of salvation when the law is written in their hearts. They now can follow it without effort because it becomes part of their makeup due to the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit from the moment of salvation for eternity, never able to leave after that forever. John 14:16, Eph 1:13, 4:30
Jeremiah 31 - 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
The Christian cannot escape this. He has Gods law in his heart, he must obey it. God is serious about this concerning Chrsitians.
He says "You are not your own for you were bought with a price" to the Christians who think they are free from the law.
Seventh. Christians are told to stand fast in Liberty that is the driving scripture behind the American way of life. It comes directly from the bible. But the bible goes on to say only use not liberty for an occassion to the flesh. In otherwords dont sin. Don't disobey Gods laws.
No the laws never save a person. But they point out their need of salvation. The laws never saved anyone in the first place but they were given to represent what God wants. Why would a Christian not want what God wants? No A Christian shouldn' have to conciously obey a list of rules but his life ought to demonstrate the truth of the scripture in Jeremiah 31 quoted earlier which says that there is a law written in their hearts.
Eighth. God cared so much that Christians obey him that he made his manifesting in their lives conditional upon their obedience.
John 14 - 21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”
Why would a Christian glory in the idea that he is no longer bound by God's laws, when the manifestation of Christ in his life is totally dependent on his obedience to His commandments?
Nineth. I hope it is clear so far that I support the law for Christians. But why should Christians impose such law on Non Christians? Why insist on 10 Commandments monuments"? Well I guess the argument is "Why should non Christians force the removal of the laws that Christians cherish? It seems that one will force its will on the other. What makes it better that the non Christian forces his will on the Christian?
Ray Luff
God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com
Non-christians forcing their will on christians? Excuse me?
The public building where the judge wanted to set up the ten commandments monument was already there and had been there for some time. It was built by and for people of various religions, most of whom probably considered themselves christians. Those same people made the very wise decision that that building should not be a shrine for any particular religion's beliefs so that people of all religions might go there and feel equally welcome.
It was a particular group of christians, with this judge as their minion, who decided to force THEIR will on everyone else by taking the aggressive action to place a monument to THEIR religion in this formerly secular building.
I'm sick and tired of this bogus martyr routine. It's so transparent. Some christian groups are constantly looking for opportunities to sneakily force everyone to join in their worship (the prayer before a NASCAR race is a good example), then bleating about oppression when someone tries to stop them out of sheer civic mindedness. The obvious goal is to set themeselves up as the underdog in the public imagination so that they can try to get "protection" through the courts and the law. Well, forget it. American christians need protecting about as much as the American military does.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
That statement wasn't meant to offend it was meant to be rhetorical in that it was meant to state the loop that people particularly in the USA get in about rights. Im a Canadian. And there are loops the Canadians get in too.
Rights seem to be a favourite American pass time. And it stems from a verse in the bible regarding Liberty. All the liberty that Americans demand all started with a preacher preaching from
Thessalonians 5 - 1 Stand fast therefore in the Liberty wherewith Christ has set you free and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
The problem for Americans is however, everything after the word Liberty in that sermon has become forgotten or ignored today for many. In practice it has become.
Let me have my liberty to become entangled in a yoke of bondage and leave Christ out of it. And this has become the right of people in their minds. An whats the word unalienable right. (I think thats what you say.)
Then people have said based on a letter by Jefferson that stated that the government would never attack the church, that the Church ought not to preach at us. Preaching is uncomfortable. We don't want to hear it. The problem is that the great lie is now being preached to fill the gap where the church used to preach. The lie that we have rights apart from God. The lie that we were materially created which begs the question of where our spirit came from.
I think there is more to say about the 10 commandments I hope not to derail that thought. I'd like to come back to them but I'd be interested whether any one wants to tackle this question first.
If we were materially crated then does it not follow that we were also spiritually created? or do we believe the lie that we do not have a spirit?
God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com
Without derailing the thread too far...
1) Give a positive definition of "spirit", i.e. don't tell me what it isn't, tell me what it is.
2) If any here gives an answer, would you look at it seriously? After all, you've already stated that claiming we don't have a spirit is believing a lie.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I think you need to support this a little more. My understanding was that the framers of the American constitution got most of their philosophy from secular Enlightenment thinkers like Mill and Locke. Though I don't deny they referenced the bible, this still doesn't mean that all readings of American rights have to be or should be read through a biblical filter.
So it is seriously your political position that Americans have no POLITICAL right to live in violation of christ's teachings? Welcome to the theocracy.
People don't want to hear preaching from a church that isn't their own either because their beliefs are in conflict or because they realize that all church preachings are drivel. Your fantasy of theocracy is amusing and horrifying at the same time. Frankly, it's more radical and militant than anything I've heard from American theists. I'm embarassed to hear it coming from a fellow Canadian.
Spirit is an ancient word predating modern understanding of brain function. Anything that you call spirit can be explained fully in terms of neural activity and memory.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Well, its a mix of things. As a Christian its hard to see the 10 commandments go because it's what this nation was founded on. Even though our constitution says that there shall be no relation between church and state, the 10 commandments started with our great nation. You are correct on the old testiment no longer stands (only to teach us lessons of the past) and we are on grace now but, we are to be like Christ! He didn't come down to earth and have other Gods, images, take is fathers name in vain, forget about the sabbath, forgeting to love his mother and father, kill others, commit adultery, steal, bearing false witness, and covet. The old testiment stated not to do these things, the 10 commandments. If you want to live a Godly life, following these would be a good idea. Christians get upset because we still live by those commandments, we want to please God in all we do. Our system of goverment is built up around these commandments as well. Its like taking something from you sense you have been born, you are going to put up a fight, cause its part of you.
Seriously, why do you keep saying that our law is based on the 10 commandments.
Here we go:
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
(As it so happens, freedom of religion is granted to everyone in the United States. This directly contradicts commandment 1)
2. You shall not make for yourself an image, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
(Actually, all of the court houses in the U.S. have statues. If you want to say that this is talking about "other gods," I'd point out that there are lots of works of art sanctioned by the government, that depict other deities. So far, U.S. 2, Commandments 0)
3. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me.
(Again, the U.S. government grants us the right to bow down and worship any damn thing we want. U.S. 3, Commandments 0)
4. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
(There is no law against using the words God Damnit! U.S. 4, Commandments 0)
5. Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. 9Six days you shall labor and do all your work.
(No laws against working on the Sabbath. U.S. 5, Commandments 0)
6. Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
(Not really much to go on here... I think pretty much every country in the known world thinks it's a good idea to honor your parents, but I don't recall anything in the Constitution about it. That would be U.S. 6, Commandments 0)
7. You shall not murder.
(No Shit, Sherlock. Could you please find me a country where murder is not a crime? We'll give this one to god, because it's nice that he knows murder is a crime.. seems pretty obvious to me, though... U.S. 6, Commandments 1)
8. You shall not commit adultery.
Nope. Not in the constitution. There are some state laws dealing with it, but nothing on a constitutional level. You lose again. U.S. 7, Commandments 1)
9. You shall not steal.
(Ok. Another "No Shit" law. Find me a country where stealing is not illegal, ok? I'm giving this one to god, because it's nice that he knows stealing is bad, even though everybody knew this long before the Hebrews even existed... U.S. 7, Commandments 2)
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
(Nope. Nothing in the constitution about coveting your neighbor's shit.)
SOOOOOO.... the final verdict? God managed to figure out that stealing and murder are wrong. So did every other culture. Ever. In the history of the world. Ever.
How is it again that our constitution is based on the ten commandments?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I can't say why some Christians are angered when people try to remove the 10 Commandments from public places, but here is a little tidbit that may clear up something: most Christians differentiate between moral law and ceremonial law in the Old Testament. The former refers to things like the 10 Commandments, while the latter refers to things like sacrifices, rituals, etc. The ceremonial laws are what they say are no longer necessary. And for the question about the jot and tittle: these are the smallest markings in the Hebrew alphabet (the language used to write the Old Testament).
This is such a heated debate that I couldn't help but poke my head in the door and spout my two cents.
I tihnk it is unfair to pose this question. Not becuase it is an illegitamate question, but because no matter what a Christian comes here and says, he is going to have his head bashed to the ground no matter what s/he tries to argue. While I am in fact an athiest, I believe that the ten commandments are in fact a nice set of moral rules to live by. If the Christians want to live their life by them in order to gain acceptance into their heaven, so be it. It isn't my place as a non-believer to judge them, offend them, or tell them what to do.
This website is just a *bit* biased against religious people, and posing questions that will incite arguements isn't necissary. All of you guys know that you are going to win the arguement becuase you have 50 hard working minds that are trying to negate any statement a believer may say. Maybe if Jesse Jackson or someone came in here it would be a good debate becuase he knows his shit inside and out (I assume!).
Take care,
Mike
Welcome Mike. Don't be so bashful.
It was asked to expose the irrational position most christian hold on this issue. You're correct, no matter how they answer it, they are going to take a bashing. If they held a rational position, we couldn't bash them. So who's falt is it, ours or theirs?
Most of the 10C's have nothing to do with morality and the few that do are not unique to the Bible. If Christian want to live by them that's OK with me. Just don't put them in or on public property and pretend this gives you authority to pass laws that invade others lives based on your myths.
They have thousands working for their side yet we beat them with just a few. (maybe God is on our side! - lol) Bring Jesse or whomever you like here, we'll take them all on if they are irrational.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca
Did anyone pay attention? I just demonstrated that only 2 of the 10 commandments have anything to do with American Law.
How can you say they're a nice set of moral rules? Even if you take real law out of it, only 4 of them have anything to do with what is generally considered common decency.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
When I said moral, I guess I was to vague. If you are a believer, part of your morals is your religion. The Ten Commandments tell you how to lead your life not only in regards to other people but how you lead your life with respect to God.
Mike,
What does that have to do with creating laws for all citizens to follow?
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca
Nicely Said, Just came to know about this site from MSNBC.com, while enjoying my bagel and reading the news. Just have to say that it's a great forum.
I thought I'd add throw in my few nickles as well (cents are not worth that much these days).
- People figured out long time before the advent of organized religion that common sense moral issues like adultery, stealing, murder were wrong, and just because a person does not believe in religion or god doesnt mean that they condone these acts. Also, religion cannot take all the credit for natural instincts like helping your neighbours and taking care of people who are less fortunate just becuase it says so in a holy book; these are tendencies that even some primates show, and organized religion just made it official by listing it in their books.
-Secondly, let's for a minute assume that a magic wand was waved over the earth so that people forgot everything they knew about religion and what faith they prescribe to. So there would be no 'old and new testaments', there would be no Jesus and no Jews or muslims and of course no Koran and Mohammad, absolutley no religions, and no ideas of a god. Yes you guessed it, there would be absolute peace, no killings in the name of religion, the middle-east would be a nice warm vacation spot, and we could spend all the money wasted on religious reasons and wars in the pursuit of science and exploring space and colonising the solar system.
Bagel-man,
Welcome and you are correct in your view of a world without religion. That is what the song "Imagine" by John Lennon was all about.
Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj8LR25HeJA
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca
Thanks Randallord, glad to have found this site. "Imagine" is one of my favorite songs as well.
Cheers
I'm a Christian, and a rational one. Your question is a silly one, to be honest. Your assuming that just b/c Christians don't want the 10 c's removed that we believe we are still under the O.T. law. That's not necessarily true. Those monuments are simply a symbol of Chritianity. Taking them down represents the desire to remove Christianity altogether. Since we believe that Christianity is truth, we'd rather not see that happen. I don't get all worked up about the 10 commandment thing, and you're right that Jesus fulfilled the old law. We are not bound to the old law, including some of the ridiculous things in Leviticus. Before Jesus came, and the Holy Spirit was given to believers, strict obedience to God was the way to be made right with Him. After Jesus' death and resurrection, and hence the forgiveness of our sins, our belief in Him makes us right w/ God. He declares us righteous b/c of His once and for all sacrifice for everyone, including you. Now, we obey b/c we have a relationship with Jesus and because He loved us first. Out of love and appreciation for His grace and mercy, we obey. That's the message of the New Testament. But it's His grace that saves, not our works. However, the O.T. is still God's Word and is still useful for us to apply to our lives. There are lessons about who God is and how He can direct our lives all throughout scripture. Yours was an intersting thought, but not THE question to be asking. I'll pray that God reveals Himself to you and that you will soon see that Jesus is the "way, the truth, and the life."
Welcome to the forum. I hope you stick around when your myths are exposed and ridicualed because they are NOT rational. How can one be rational and believe that people can walk on water, raise the dead, cure disease by touching a garment, etc.
Did Jesus follow and teach the law of the old testement? Taking them down does not represent the desire to remove Christianity. Ever hear of the seperation of church and state?
You think parts of the Old Testement are ridiculous? Which parts and how does one make this determination?
Like not boiling a calf in his mothers milk?
Jesus is a copycat of Mithras. You'd think the "son of God" would not plagerize.
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen048.html
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca
What is your criteria for something being rational? You didn't even offer an explanation for why cdurbin's beliefs that Jesus walked on water, healed diseases, etc are irrational. You asked how one can be rational and believe these things, but you didn't say why these things are irrational in your mind. I'm just wondering why you seem to think that your side of the intellectual camp gets to determine what is rational and what is not.
Is the argument logicaly valid.
These are examples of magical thinking. Would you accept the arguments as rational when they are based on the beliefs of a person that believed that Elvis was still alive.
I don't think this. The Greek philosophers laid down the rules centuries ago.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca
Randalllord, hope you don't think my many questions are an attack on your beliefs, I've just got lots of them. By "logically valid" do you mean according to the rules of logic accepted by most modern intellectuals or philosophers? If so, it does not seem logical or rational to me if you discard certain items simply because the person who believes them also believes things that you consider "magical." I assume there are some things that you and cdurbin both believe are true. Would you discredit anything he believes on the basis that he also believes something else that you don't? You seemed to imply that you wouldn't believe ANYTHING that someone who thinks Elvis is alive believes. You referred to the Greeks as laying down the rules for determining what is rational and what is not. Can you offer specifics on where to find these writings (not just names, but works)? Does this mean that before the classical Greek time period there was no way of determining rational from irrational? You said that you do not determine these rules, but the Greeks did. My question then changes to: what makes the Greek philosophers right?
Pardon the play on words, but there was nothing magical about the Greeks, and people had been using logic before they started writing down rules of logic. The Greeks were just quantifying what they saw.
Knowledge begins intuitively. In other words, some things are because they have to be. These things, are of course, represented by symbols in communication, and that's a whole 'nother can of worms, but once we get to the point of words having meaning, we can say things like, "All bachelors are unmarried." It seems trivial, but it's the beginning of logic. Without it, we couldn't say, "I am unmarried. Therefore, I am a bachelor." (Note that this is not necessarily true! You just used logic to poke a hole in my assertion!) A couple of hops, skips, and jumps, and we get to more advanced propositions. For instance, if I say, "All bachelors are male," then I might be tempted to say, "I am unmarried, therefore I am male." This is, of course, not good logic, because "All bachelors are male" is true, and "All bachelors are unmarried" is true, but we didn't establish that "All unmarried people are bachelors." Since this is demonstrably untrue, we have made a simple logical argument and exposed a fallacy.
At any rate, logic is not something that someone made up. It's simply the word we use to describe the process of acquiring knowledge. It's not a perfect analogy, but it's kind of like math. Regardless of whether you quantify things, they exist. There are two apples on the table, regardless of whether we invent a system of mathematics to tell us so. So, math is simply the description of things that already exist.
Please, no mathematicians jump on me. I said it wasn't a perfect analogy.
Anyway, when we say another person is being illogical, it's because we can demonstrate that there is a falsehood or fallacy in their argument, and if we had to, theoretically, we could reduce every argument down to the point where we have a fundamental, intuitive beginning. (This would be a very, very boring forum if that's what happened!)
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Atheism is a lack of belief. Ask away.
No. One can reach the correct answer even when it's reaced in illogical ways. Beliefs in general are based on desires of what one wishes to be rather than what is real.
I think we are getting to far off topic. There are forum topics on this already. For a belief to be rational there must be evidence for its existence.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca
Romans 13:9 reaffirms the 10 Commandments in the New Testament, as well as other verses. Thats just one reason why we keep them.
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!
Many verses in the New Testament (notably Romans 13:9) re-affirm the 10 Commandments. That's one reason why we keep them.
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!
The New Testament does not abrogate the Old Law, but perfects it. So, for example, we find that many of the old ceremonial precepts are merely prefigurations of the later revelation of the sacraments. They are, in a certain sense, contained "in" the New Law's sacraments.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
Very true. Jesus himself broke the Sabbath commandment more than once, claiming special divine exception each time he was caught.
And one of those times was about his stealing somebody else's grain on a Sabbath--wasn't accused of theft, tho. Just Sabbath-breaking.
You're confusing colonial America under Britain's Crown with the post-Constitutinal United States. Between the time of colonial America and the U. S. Constitution was the monumental failure of the Articles of Confederation, which occurred AFTER the Declaration of Independence was written.
I remind you again: The U.S. STOPPED being colonial as of the Revolutionary War and the Declaration of Independence STOPPED being any kind of governing document (as if it EVER was) with the Articles of Confederation.
I remind you that the U.S. government under the Articles FAILED.
And thus we have the far more successful SECULAR U.S. Constitution.
But doesn't one of those Commandments prohibit idolotry?
Oopsie--mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
I do have some questions I'd like believers to answer, as it happens:
1) Why didn't God create a Jesus like he created Adam? Was it because he's really Shiva in disguise?
2) God's Design is presumably Intelligent, and he made Woman to require sperm in order to get pregnant. Whose sperm did God use to knock up Mary?
3) If God's All Powerful and can Say But The Word and We Shall Be Healed, why did he require human bloodshed (and in the most inhumane way) for "redemption"?
4) Who the hell is Joses?
I see there's no takers on my questions, nor on my Apostles Quiz. Okay, here's an easier question for you believers:
If God's Design was so Intelligent, why do we need a rapidly growing pharma industry to keep fixing the growing number of things that keep going wrong with it?
St. Peter
St. Andrew
St. James of Zebedee (the greater)
St. John of Zebedee
St. James (the lesser)/"brother of Jesus"/ of Alphaeus
St. Phillip
St. Bartholemew/Nathaniel
St. Thomas
St. Matthew/Levi
St. Simon the Zealot
St. Jude Thaddeus/Lebbaeus
Judas Iscariot
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
Wrong. You cheated by listing what's in Matthew, and what's in Matthew doesn't square with the other gospels.
Take the quiz.
I listed the Apostles. That is the quiz. No reason why I ought not to use St. Matthew.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
RO.TFLMAO!!!
You just don't have enough nerve to admit that the Bible is ERRANT when it comes to identifying who all The Twelve were, relying exclusively on Matthew's ERRANT list.
OK, be that way--how 'bout instead name me the names of The Twelve contained in the Gospel of John, and then compare THAT to your list.
I never said that the Bible was errant at all. Nobody's list is wrong. All are correct. Different folks had different names in the Gospels. Matthew, for example, has the surname Levi. I could say John Tucker is likewise John and likewise Mr. Tucker; two names for the same person.
In St. John, the named apostles are:
Simon Peter
Andrew
the sons of Zebedee
Philip
Nathaniel
Thomas
Judas Iscariot
Judas, not Iscariot
He, however, does refer to the Twelve, but does not explicitly name the others outside of this list.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
Wrong again. You just flipped to the end of John's Gospel without actually reading that book. You didn't really read that book you say you believe in, did you?
PWNED.
If I am reading it incorrectly, show me where you pull the idea that Christ is still teaching and preaching on earth after St. John's Gospel. Just asserting that I am wrong is not proof in the least.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
I fully expect every believer to have actually read the book they claim to believe in--therefore you should already know where to find that scripture you're asking me to cite. If you've actually read it--you should already know. And if you don't know offhand, you, a believer, shouldn't have any qualms about reading your beloved scripture again.
I have a better idea--how about YOU come up with the scripture in John which claims that Jesus Ascended.
---rescinded----
I know quite well that St. John does not state that Christ ascended. However, it is clear that he supplements the other accounts, in which case it is clear that he held that Christ ascended.
Further, if you insist debating without supporting your accusations from Scripture, I have no way to continue. I have no idea what you are referring to. I have read my own Gospels but I am not obligated to defend your position as well as my own. I, of course, have no way to read your mind as to what you would have argued in the debate. It would be lunacy for me to argue for your position as well as my own. If you don't cite Scripture to prove your allegations, I cannot continue to debate with you.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
Not a problem. I no longer support this site or organization.