The One True Religion

[ShaneMan]

But it could have because he was prepared to put his love for his God before that of his own child. Now call me an atheist if you like but my children and Grandchildren come before anybody and I don't need to go into a building full of icons to remind me or them of it.

Well, your almost right. Like I said before, the story goes way to deep to try and explain on a forum thread. BTW a correction. It was Abraham and Isaac not Isaac and Jacob (sorry). God had made a covenant with Abraham. That covenant was to be fulfilled through Abrahams seed. Abrahams faith was such that he believed God and if God did intend for him to carry through with the sacrifice then being Isaac was his only son that the promise would be carried through, then he also believed that God would raise Isaac from the dead or something, cause Isaac was who the promise was going to be fulfilled through.

 

[ColinEssex]

That's funny... You're really hung up on this 'worthless' thing aren't you...

yes, and in the context it was used

Don't worry - no one has to brand your comment as worthless, they're pretty much taken at face value as that -

ha ha -

Having a bad day pal?

I'm not your "pal" "buddy" or anything else and no I wasn't until now, we were having an interesting discussion.

Col

 

[Matt Greatorex]

Your memory is a little off but do bear in mind that where you are quoting from is in the law of the Old Testament. The Old Testament, basically is Jewish history. When Jesus Christ came he said that He fulfilled the Law. Bottom line. Old Testament is trying to live by the Law. The New Testament is living by grace (meaning unmerited favor). It's a new covenant. All that being said. Christians are not instructed to stone disobediant children.

So - and again forgive my ignorance - is there a 'line' in the Bible after which things are treated more as serious guidelines? Does this also mean that any 'instructions' (for want of a better word) from the Old Testament can be ignored?

I'm not a believer myself, but I do find this kind of thing interesting.

 

[Rich]

Does this also mean that any 'instructions' (for want of a better word) from the Old Testament can be ignored?

.

Not if you're looking for a quote to justify your actions, ie an eye for an eye etc. etc.

 

[jsanders]

I fail to see how I implied otherwise, but if I did I apologise.

Not at all Matt, that was directed at all who claim faith is based on a lack of logic.

As Spock said "Logic; is the beginning of wisdom".

 

[Rich]

As spock said "Logic; is the beginning of wisdom".

Belief in a fairy tale isn't logical

 

[jsanders]

Belief in a fairy tale isn't logical

So there it is. You cannot refrain from attacking that which you do not understand.

It’s only a fairy tale to you because you choose to ignore the signs.

 

[ShaneMan]

So - and again forgive my ignorance - is there a 'line' in the Bible after which things are treated more as serious guidelines? Does this also mean that any 'instructions' (for want of a better word) from the Old Testament can be ignored?

I'm not a believer myself, but I do find this kind of thing interesting.

No, not necessarily. I find it hard to explain and keep the post short too.
Jesus did introduce a new covenant and if a person would read the Old Testament compared to the New Testament, they should see a distict difference in God's dealing with man. Old Testament is under Law. New Testament is under grace (unmerited favor). Jesus said that he did not come to do away with the Law but to fulfill it. More as "serious guidelines" it could be stated that way. Looking at your first example. The Law said to stone a child for disobeying his parents. Jesus came upon a woman guilty of adultery and the crowd was in the process of gathering stones to stone her to death, according to Old Testament Law. Jesus to the crowd, "ye without sin, cast the first stone." The crowd broke up and went away and the lady lived. Jesus forgave her. Didn't stone her. Was she guilty of braking the Law. Yes, but how it was dealt with changed. Make sense?

 

[Rich]

So there it is. You cannot refrain from attacking that which you do not understand.

The only thing to understand as you put it, is your mental state at the time you went looking for something that was missing in your life at the time

 

[Rich]

No, not necessarily. I find it hard to explain and keep the post short too.
Jesus did introduce a new covenant and if a person would read the Old Testament compared to the New Testament, they should see a distict difference in God's dealing with man. Old Testament is under Law. New Testament is under grace (unmerited favor). Jesus said that he did not come to do away with the Law but to fulfill it. More as "serious guidelines" it could be stated that way. Looking at your first example. The Law said to stone a child for disobeying his parents. Jesus came upon a woman guilty of adultery and the crowd was in the process of gathering stones to stone her to death, according to Old Testament Law. Jesus to the crowd, "ye without sin, cast the first stone." The crowd broke up and went away and the lady lived. Jesus forgave her. Didn't stone her. Was she guilty of braking the Law. Yes, but how it was dealt with changed. Make sense?

Which law was she guilty of at the time ?

 

[ShaneMan]

Which law was she guilty of at the time ?

Adultery. I think I said "guilty of adultery."

 

[ShaneMan]

The only thing to understand as you put it, is your mental state at the time you went looking for something that was missing in your life at the time

My mental state "at the time" was parrrrtttyyy. I wasn't looking for anything but the next party.

 

[Rich]

Adultery. I think I said "guilty of adultery."

Yes sorry my eyes are tired after trying to read through Jenny's gibberish,
now I wonder why if Jesus stopped an execution, Americans carry on the practice with gay abandon, seems to me that the bible's message has not gotten through to America?

 

[Rich]

My mental state "at the time" was parrrrtttyyy. I wasn't looking for anything but the next party.

Sounds like fun to me

 

[jsanders]

The only thing to understand as you put it, is your mental state at the time you went looking for something that was missing in your life at the time

Maybe, But why did it last?

You're not going to maintain that I don't have the intellect to comprehend the value and viability of science are you?

I am first a scientist. But I understand science for what it is.

A system to evaluate, categorize, and measure, events.

It makes no attempt at proving or disproving the existence of any underlying power, as yet unseen. Only its practitioners with their preconceived prejudices; use it as a tool to disseminate their faith.

 

[Matt Greatorex]

Make sense?

I think so. Thanks for that.

Not at all Matt, that was directed at all who claim faith is based on a lack of logic.

But faith is able to exist entirely without the presence of logic, isn't it? Logic suggests proof and if something need be proven before someone can have faith in it, where is the trust? While faith isn't based on a lack of logic, I do think that the two can, indeed must, often be mutually exclusive.

If one believes that God created the universe and eveything in it from scratch, there isn't really a logical way to explain how He did it. Whatever method was used would have been so far beyond any human conceptions of 'logical' as to be outside the accepted definition of the word.

Also, one may have a family member who is suffering tremendous pain in spite of having lived a good life. One may also believe in a kind and merciful God. The fact that Logic - as humans understand it - can't really reconcile the belief with the physical evidence, doesn't mean that one's faith disappears.

 

[Rich]

Maybe, But why did it last?

.

Because you haven't found anything of true value in your life

 

[jsanders]

Because you haven't found anything of true value in your life

And you’re in a position to evaluate that?

As I have stated throughout this discussion. The non-believers are as adamant in their faith as the believers.

 

[Rich]

And you’re in a position to evaluate that?

As I have stated throughout this discussion. The non-believers are as adamant in their faith as the believers.

I'm not a non believer, I have every faith in my family thanks

 

[jsanders]

But faith is able to exist entirely without the presence of logic, isn't it? Logic suggests proof and if something need be proven before someone can have faith in it...

If one believes that God created the universe and eveything in it from scratch, there isn't really a logical way to explain how He did it. Whatever method was used would have been so far beyond any human conceptions of 'logical' as to be outside the accepted definition of the word.

Take for example the laws of the universe.

Now admittedly, as with most people, my ability to completely comprehend them drops off at some point or another (depending on how much sugar is in my blood at the time) they were devised in advance in a universe completely alien to this one. Whereby the very nature of this preexisting universe it had to have different laws because that universe does not exist any more, and could not exist in the one we live in. Namely that the speed of light was irrelevant because light cannot exist in that much gravity.

Yet from this universe a new one was instantaneously created. What conditions changed? Why had it existed for countless time then all at once metamorphed into what we now call the universe?

Only faith on the part of evolutionist will ever explain that one. We simply cannot go observe the pre big bang existence.