Which Religion is the One True Religion?

Is this an example of a intellectually bankrupt statement? Just wondering.[/quote wrote:

Please read timber's response to real life. My response is the same.

Intrepid wrote:

Is this an example of a intellectually bankrupt statement? Just wondering.[/quote wrote:

Please read timber's response to real life. My response is the same.

You are so used to tagging along on other people's responses rather than forming your own, that you are now referring to a totally different item. Perhaps if you had left the quote in at the top, you would have known what I was referring to. I will re-quote for your edification.

cicerone imposter wrote in response to a reply from Timber:

Quote:

You call it "intellectually bankrupt ploy." I call it "intellectual masterbation." They will continue to "ejaculate" their stupid sperm/seed until they die.

To which I replied:
Is this an example of a intellectually bankrupt statement? Just wondering.

Frank Apisa wrote:

RexRed wrote:

Read Back Frank you are missing one or two of my posts...

I will repost them if you cannot find them...

Before posting the last time, I went back and read EVERY ONE of your posts since I asked those questions.

I DEFY YOU TO LINK ME TO A POST OF YOURS THAT RESPONDS TO MY REQUEST FOR YOU TO EXPLAIN HOW YOUR GOD FEELS ABOUT HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT....OR HOW YOUR GOD FEELS ABOUT SLAVERY.

I DEFY YOU TO DO THAT!

Frank you have got to be blind you didn't read my posts...
Read them again...

You just will not concede that something written on the OT can be changed or "revealed" by something in the NT.

You do not see the connectedness and spiritual evolution that happens in the scope of the Bible...

OT law was nearly blind because of the original sin... this was Adam and Eve's doing not God's... God tried to help the best he could (law) in a bad situation... This same God had a plan of redemption and initiated that plan in Jesus Christ... does that sound like a barbarian?

The New Testament is just that...New. The Old Testament is as the name implies...Old.

Jesus was sent to bring the love to man to lead us to redemption while replacing the harshness of the OLD ways as described in the Old Testament.

Those that use the Old Testament as their sole means of disputing Christianity are doing so because there is text that they can easily use to show how harsh God could be at that time.

Abrahamic Mythopaeia

The New Testament is just that...New. The Old Testament is as the name implies...Old.

Jesus was sent to bring the love to man to lead us to redemption while replacing the harshness of the OLD ways as described in the Old Testament.

Those that use the Old Testament as their sole means of disputing Christianity are doing so because there is text that they can easily use to show how harsh God could be at that time.

quote="Intrepid"]The New Testament is just that...New. The Old Testament is as the name implies...Old.

Jesus was sent to bring the love to man to lead us to redemption while replacing the harshness of the OLD ways as described in the Old Testament.

Those that use the Old Testament as their sole means of disputing Christianity are doing so because there is text that they can easily use to show how harsh God could be at that time.

Intrepid wrote:

The New Testament is just that...New. The Old Testament is as the name implies...Old.

That makes sense. I am with you so far.

Intrepid wrote:

Jesus was sent to bring the love to man to lead us to redemption while replacing the harshness of the OLD ways as described in the Old Testament.

This is where you completely lose me. Why would God need to send anyone to change his own harsh ways? And then why the need to torture and sacrifice the one he sent? You say that was a show of love? How do you explain to yourself the reason for this sudden change in Bible God? Anger management training? Prozac? Multiple personality disorder?

Intrepid wrote:

Those that use the Old Testament as their sole means of disputing Christianity are doing so because there is text that they can easily use to show how harsh God could be at that time.

You have got that right. Here we have stories that span thousands of years, describing absolutely horrific behavior on the part of Bible God. Then along comes the new guy. We get a whole new set of stories covering a span of just a few short years, stories written many years after his death and everyone jumps on the new bandwagon.

Now you have the best of both worlds. You can screw up big time and still have salvation, and you can still dip back into the old book to reinforce pet prejudices and bigotry.

What kind of mental contortions does it take to swallow this stuff?

timberlandko wrote:

Abrahamic Mythopaeia

I've googled and Yahooed, but can't find the term; so I would hesitate to take you up on your question. There are, however, many references in the bible to the persons, times and events you are asking about.

As far as the perceived differences between the Jehovah of the OT and the Jehovah of the NT: Remember that, according to the bible, there would have been no war, no crime, no sickness or death; no slavery, no divorce, no polygamy and no oppressive priesthood had it not been for the sins of Adam and Eve. And, there could be no remedy in place until the life and sacrifice of Jesus. So, the apparent harshness of the OT represents God's understanding of the consequences of sin. It also provides ample comparison between the effects of sin and the loving kindness of the God Jesus worshipped.

Jesus' life and death opened the way for God to fulfil the promise made at Genesis 3:15: that Satan's work would be undone and all who never knew God would have a chance to experience the life that Adam lost.

Then along comes the new guy. We get a whole new set of stories covering a span of just a few short years, stories written many years after his death..................

Now you have the best of both worlds. You can screw up big time and still have salvation, and you can still dip back into the old book to reinforce pet prejudices and bigotry.

mesquite wrote:

Now you have the best of both worlds. You can screw up big time and still have salvation, and you can still dip back into the old book to reinforce pet prejudices and bigotry.

Not to say the rest of your post wasn't good......but this comment is spectacular and 100% right on target.

I ask neologist, rexred, real life, and your ilk how you would respond directly to this quote?

Out with the old in with the new. How has the 2000 years after the appearance of Jesus been any better than those that came before? Is this how your God forgives by continued war, massacre, genocide, holocausts and murder?