1
   

God is Irrelevant!

 
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Aug, 2005 12:01 am
Mesquite,

Yes, people do change wrongs to right also. I just don't understand why man is so quick to jump up and defend himself because he did change a wrong to a right, but will not admit his error in changing rights into wrongs.

Some things are just wrong and there is no getting around it. Oh, you can try. You can justify it anyway you want, but, it does not change the fact that if something is wrong it is just wrong.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Aug, 2005 12:15 am
Momma Angel wrote:
Things that were wrong, such as slavery (which you cannot equate to slavery in the Bible.), in decades past was wrong because of the way people were treated because they had a different color skin. Slavery in the Bible was a lot more complex than you seem to think it was.


You say you are learning Momma Angel, but you keep dropping those horse apples. How many times do you have to see some of these references.

The Bible says.
Quote:
"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess...such slaves
you may own as chattels, and leave to your sons as their
hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves." Leviticus 25:44
0 Replies
 
diagknowz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Aug, 2005 12:19 am
Mesquite wrote:
Mark Twain wrote:
Thoughts of God


ROTFL! I always enjoy Twain's saltiness. An inimitable wit. (Have you read his essay "The Awful German Language"? I was LMTO when I read that.)

What Twain fails to take account of in his criticism here is the horrendous damage done to the universe by what I call The Great Mutation (theologians call it The Fall). Originally, God's design was perfect, but to this day, we still suffer under The Curse that is the fall-out from The Primal Disobedience.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Aug, 2005 12:29 am
Hi Di!

Great to see you! Di, help me out here. We have tried and tried to explain how the Old Testament is more for historical purposes compared to the New Testament.

Mesquite,

I do not understand why you and others continue to stay locked into the Old Testament. The New Testament is what I, as a Christian, live by. The things we are supposed to do are clearly laid out in the New Testament.

So, continually pointing out these references will only cause me to reply that once Christ came, was crucified, and risen from the dead, things were totally different.
0 Replies
 
diagknowz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Aug, 2005 12:39 am
Momma Angel wrote:
Great to see you! Di, help me out here. We have tried and tried to explain how the Old Testament is more for historical purposes compared to the New Testament.


Momma, you and Real Life have already explained more than adequately; I can't improve on you guys' posts! You're doing a crack job!
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Aug, 2005 02:55 am
Momma Angel wrote:

So, continually pointing out these references will only cause me to reply that once Christ came, was crucified, and risen from the dead, things were totally different.


And you don't consider that god doing a complete 180 degrees? If Jesus is god (holy trinity) then god DID in fact change. Why the change?

Maybe religion changed the bible to suit it's needs? Why not? I think it's a question worth asking? What would the Christian religion have to GAIN from making it easier to walk with god in heaven? You have to admit that it's relatively easy to go to heaven now that Jesus has come and gone. Before if you screwed up once you were screwed; why even bother trying anymore? But now Jesus saved the day, all you have to do is believe and you will be saved....please pass the collection plate.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Aug, 2005 02:57 am
Momma Angel wrote:

We have tried and tried to explain how the Old Testament is more for historical purposes compared to the New Testament.


By the way, I understand that you believe this. I get it. What I don't understand is WHY you believe it.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Aug, 2005 04:59 am
maporsche wrote:
Momma Angel wrote:

So, continually pointing out these references will only cause me to reply that once Christ came, was crucified, and risen from the dead, things were totally different.


And you don't consider that god doing a complete 180 degrees? If Jesus is god (holy trinity) then god DID in fact change. Why the change?

Maybe religion changed the bible to suit it's needs? Why not? I think it's a question worth asking? What would the Christian religion have to GAIN from making it easier to walk with god in heaven? You have to admit that it's relatively easy to go to heaven now that Jesus has come and gone. Before if you screwed up once you were screwed; why even bother trying anymore? But now Jesus saved the day, all you have to do is believe and you will be saved....please pass the collection plate.


You are really trying to smplify something to the point of misinforming. Why the turn around? God sent His son as a saviour of the world. A world that had become corrupt. Easy to go to heaven? Nope. A simple believe in Jesus does not give you a place in heaven. Faith without works does not give you a place in heaven. Forgiveness of sin mean nothing without remorse and redemption. It's not a free ride. Loving God above all else and loving your neighbour as yourself is a start. One must strive to walk in the footsteps of the Saviour, not just scamper along in the general direction.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Aug, 2005 08:14 am
Momma Angel wrote:
Mesquite,

I do not understand why you and others continue to stay locked into the Old Testament. The New Testament is what I, as a Christian, live by. The things we are supposed to do are clearly laid out in the New Testament.

So, continually pointing out these references will only cause me to reply that once Christ came, was crucified, and risen from the dead, things were totally different.


The old text is still there and far too many people still draw from its venomous rantings.

I will simply respond by quoting a post by ebrown_p who said it much better than I could.
ebrown_p wrote:
I am very angry at Chistians.

This is not not because they use "faith" to inform their politics or their morality. I have a respect for the Jesus in the Bible and brave people in history who used the Christian faith for good.

I am angry at American Christians because they hold beliefs and policies that directly contradict the teachings of Christ. They use the Bible as a smokescreen for a repressive brand of politics.

What most Americans call "Christianity" today really stem from the Confederate social religion. This is why much of it is based on judgement, nationalism and policies to keep class differences. If you don't believe this, compare your religious positions with that of the KKK.

Most American Christians, while denouncing the KKK agree with them on most all issues. For the record if you oppose the UN, think the US is a Christian nation, oppose gun control because guns are a good way to stop crime, think homosexuals shouldn't have rights even in a democratic society, support capital punishment and are against any rights for undocmented immigrants I am talking about you.

Jesus cared about the poor, blessed peacemakers, taught forgiveness and compassion, stopped capital punishment and turned the other cheek.

The people running the joke called Christianity today accuse the poor of being welfare leeches, call for harsh sentences and imprisonment, champion capital punishment.

I think you can be a true Christian in a free democracy living under and respecting the Constition.

But I will say this very plainly-- Nationalism and Christianity don't mix. Jesus was very clear about that his Kingdom was in heaven. The current ideaology that most Americans call Christianity is a nationalistic call to a return to Confederate America... nothing less.

It angers me that people use the name "Christianity" to advance this regressive political agenda.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Aug, 2005 10:35 pm
mesquite wrote:
Momma Angel wrote:
Mesquite,

I do not understand why you and others continue to stay locked into the Old Testament. The New Testament is what I, as a Christian, live by. The things we are supposed to do are clearly laid out in the New Testament.

So, continually pointing out these references will only cause me to reply that once Christ came, was crucified, and risen from the dead, things were totally different.


The old text is still there and far too many people still draw from its venomous rantings.


One would think from reading the comments above that MA pays little to no heed to the Old Testament. Yet after I make my reply above, when browsing another topic, what do I see but MA drawing from some of the most barbaric stories to explain her world view. So, should you ask me that question again MA, I will refer you to this post.

Momma Angel wrote:
And as to taking God's laws out completely? Well, look at Sodom and Gomorrah, that is exactly what they did. They threw away God's laws and practiced every kind of immorality imaginable. But still, God would have spared the city if there were only ten righteous in it. There were not! So, I totally disagree with you on that point. God's laws, legal, then man. That is my stand on that and it won't change.


Momma Angel wrote:
Joshua 24:15

But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in who land you are living.


Momma Angel wrote:

Deuteronomy 30:19

Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to His voice, and hold fast to Him.

0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Aug, 2005 11:35 pm
Mesquite,

The Old Testament is mostly a book of history. But, you can't just throw it out. Those verses I posted were in response to someone asking about free will.

And I never said I pay little attention to the Old Testament. I said that I live by the New Testament where Christ's teachings are. And Mesquite, I am sorry if you don't like it, but that's just the way it was. Sodom and Gormorrah was the most decadent and immoral place on the face of the earth. They turned totally away from God. Yes, he would have saved the whole city if He could have just found ten righteous people. But there were none.

And as far as ebrown's post. I understand what kind of Christian he is talking about. But, he/she is lumping all Christians into one pot. I don't happen to belong in that pot.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2005 01:19 am
Momma Angel wrote:
if He could have just found ten righteous people.


Why not just one righteous person?
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2005 01:27 am
maporche,

Well, The first request was for the sake of fifty righteous then it was narrowed down to ten. Why not one? I don't know. The Bible doesn't say.

But, since the city was destroyed, I would say there weren't ten so the odds are, there weren't any.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2005 10:48 am
Momma Angel wrote:
But, since the city was destroyed, I would say there weren't ten so the odds are, there weren't any.


That would make it easier to justify wouldn't it? However that is not how the story goes. God was perfectly willing to destroy the cities if ten were not found.

A rational person might look at that story and wonder what percentage of the population would be children. Large families were the norm in those days. They might wonder if children, even down to and including infants, could be considered wicked and unrighteous? They might wonder how a god that would destroy innocent children out of anger could be considered a loving and merciful god?

A rational person might look at that story and wonder what was the point of including the part about turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt just because she looked back at what had been her home for all of her life?

A rational person might conclude that there was NO moral lesson to be learned from that story, but that it was designed to merely instill fear to keep the flock from straying.

A rational person might look at that story and conclude that such a god deserves all of the adjectives that Frank so aptly attributes to him.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2005 10:55 am
mesquite wrote:
Momma Angel wrote:
But, since the city was destroyed, I would say there weren't ten so the odds are, there weren't any.


That would make it easier to justify wouldn't it? However that is not how the story goes. God was perfectly willing to destroy the cities if ten were not found.

A rational person might look at that story and wonder what percentage of the population would be children. Large families were the norm in those days. They might wonder if children, even down to and including infants, could be considered wicked and unrighteous? They might wonder how a god that would destroy innocent children out of anger could be considered a loving and merciful god?

A rational person might look at that story and wonder what was the point of including the part about turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt just because she looked back at what had been her home for all of her life?

A rational person might conclude that there was NO moral lesson to be learned from that story, but that it was designed to merely instill fear to keep the flock from straying.

A rational person might look at that story and conclude that such a god deserves all of the adjectives that Frank so aptly attributes to him.



One might come to that conclusion, and then be accused of misinterpreting the bible to suit their own ends....but then say that they are completely impervious to misinterpreting their own bible to suit theres.

Then they will say something about how everything in the bible cannot be taken in it's literal sense, and they will tell you that the pillar of salt was really a metaphor for something. But then they believe in the great flood and Adam and Eve as the literal bible interpretation.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2005 08:44 pm
Well, I am back from my vacation. Seems like this didn't get very far while I was gone.

Everyone seems to be missing the whole point. The whole thing is God set forth laws and they were broken. You break the law you suffer the consequences. Not so different from today?
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2005 08:46 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
Well, I am back from my vacation. Seems like this didn't get very far while I was gone.

Everyone seems to be missing the whole point. The whole thing is God set forth laws and they were broken. You break the law you suffer the consequences. Not so different from today?


Welcome back MA. Yes, same old, same old.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2005 09:10 pm
Intrepid,

I see same old, same old is right. Well, I am back to offer my support! Missed you while I was away!
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2005 12:32 am
Momma Angel wrote:
Everyone seems to be missing the whole point. The whole thing is God set forth laws and they were broken. You break the law you suffer the consequences. Not so different from today?


(Shaking head in disbelief) No the point is, in the real world the punishment fits the crime. If you are of the opinion that Lot's wife committed a capital offense by looking back at her home, then what can I say other than repeat and ask you to reflect on your answer.

A rational person might look at that story and wonder what percentage of the population would be children. Large families were the norm in those days. They might wonder if children, even down to and including infants, could be considered wicked and unrighteous? They might wonder how a god that would destroy innocent children out of anger could be considered a loving and merciful god?

A rational person might look at that story and wonder what was the point of including the part about turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt just because she looked back at what had been her home for all of her life?

A rational person might conclude that there was NO moral lesson to be learned from that story, but that it was designed to merely instill fear to keep the flock from straying.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2005 06:44 am
Oh, I see the moral lesson, all right. Respect your guest or face the consequences.

Interestingly, in a book entitled the "Medieval Underworld", it is stated in one chapter that the earlier copies of the Old Testament have no comments related to sexuality in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Still, killing an entire city because its people didn't respect its guests? Killing the children as well? A bit of overkill, don't you think?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » God is Irrelevant!
  3. » Page 9
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/30/2022 at 01:32:54