Self- Immolation

And? Does creating humans nature mean that God forced Adam and Eve to break the commandments?

Does the creation of the gun force people to murder?

xingu wrote:

Mindonfire wrote:

xingu wrote:

Mindonfire wrote:

neologist wrote:

mesquite wrote:

And not answered.

Trinitarians have a hard time with this. Perhaps it is because sacrifice in the days of the OT was dedicated to God. Jesus did indeed sacrifice himself to his father on our behalf because, as Paul noted, he became both king and priest (Hebrews 4:6) This makes it awkward to claim that Jesus was, in fact, God.

LOL! Who reads the Old Testament these days. What's in the Old Testament does not apply to today. We are under a better covenant. Christ did away with the Old Testament. Etc.... Isn't that the common posture of today's Christians?

Two things;
1. Christ did not say he was doing away with the OT. In Christ's day the Scriptures were the OT. In the days of Paul, Peter and James the Scriptures were the OT.

Quote:

2Timothy 3:14
But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned [them];

2Timothy 3:15
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

2Timothy 3:16
All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Tell us Mindonfire, what scriptures do you think the author was talking about here?

2. If the OT is to be trashed, as you suggest, than I suppose that goes for the Ten Commandments. They should be trashed as well.

I believe they should as the first four commandments do not represent what America and the free world stands for. God of the Bible, it appears, cannot live up to humanities concept of freedom and decency. He's way outdated. He's a throwback to the days of tyranny and unquestioned loyalty.

What we need today is a new God, one that reflects our new standards of tolerance, understanding and humanity. No more of this 'my way or no way' attitude.

Kind of like George Bush. Your either with us or against us. If against us I will attack and destroy you, provided I have the power to do so, which I currently don't because I'm to stupid and incompetent to conduct a successful war.

Quote:

1. You shall not worship any other god but YHWH.

2. You shall not make a graven image.

3. You shall not take the name of YHWH in vain.

4. You shall not break the Sabbath.

Excuse us, but in case you didn't notice, we were being facetious. We were pointing out the common posture of todays Christians.

Well excuse me but when it comes to today's Christians there are all kinds. You can't buttonhole them. There are many Christians who believe in the OT as fervently as the NT. Ever hear of Creationist, evangelicals, conservative Southern Baptist and so forth?

Where are those Christians who believe in the Old Testament? We are not talking about Christians who believe in some parts of the Old Testament. Where are the ones who really follow the Old Testament?

Who reads the Old Testament these days. What's in the Old Testament does not apply to today. We are under a better covenant. Christ did away with the Old Testament.

We are not talking about Christians who believe in some parts of the Old Testament. Where are the ones who really follow the Old Testament?

Mindonfire wrote:

And? Does creating humans nature mean that God forced Adam and Eve to break the commandments?

Certainly not. Why would God have to force them to do what was already in their nature?

Quote:

Does the creation of the gun force people to murder?

This question does not relate to my argument. (Someone help me out, here. What kind of fallacy is this?)

"Does creating humans nature mean that God forced Adam and Eve to break the commandments?"

MOF asks the question;

Quote:

"Does creating humans nature mean that God forced Adam and Eve to break the commandments?"

Yes, it does. Human nature has the element of curiosity. Curiosity is what leads us to ask, explore and experiment. It leads us to seek knowledge. Therefore we will, in our quest to seek knowledge, violate laws; any and all laws. In that way we learn form experience. How many times, as a child, do we test our parents rules by breaking them? How many times does science test its laws to see if they work, how they work, and why they work. The minute God gave us curiosity he gave us the means to break any and all laws. If God desired us to be obedient slaves he would never had given us curiosity, the desire to find knowledge.

God would have to be very, very stupid if he would think we would do otherwise. That's why I'm always amazed at those who say God wrote the Bible. Why would God want to make himself look so stupid?

xingu wrote:

MOF asks the question;

Quote:

"Does creating humans nature mean that God forced Adam and Eve to break the commandments?"

Yes, it does. Human nature has the element of curiosity. Curiosity is what leads us to ask, explore and experiment. It leads us to seek knowledge. Therefore we will, in our quest to seek knowledge, violate laws; any and all laws. In that way we learn form experience. How many times, as a child, do we test our parents rules by breaking them? How many times does science test its laws to see if they work, how they work, and why they work. The minute God gave us curiosity he gave us the means to break any and all laws. If God desired us to be obedient slaves he would never had given us curiosity, the desire to find knowledge.

God would have to be very, very stupid if he would think we would do otherwise. That's why I'm always amazed at those who say God wrote the Bible. Why would God want to make himself look so stupid?

That is your straw man, xingu.

As Christians were establishing what was in and what was out, they began compiling the New Testament in a book, or codex. In the physical and ideological heart of the exhibition are two stained parchment pages of meticulous Greek script from one of the most celebrated: Codex Sinaiticus, discovered in 1859 at St. Catherine's Monastery in the Sinai Desert.

Ever since it came to light, Sinaiticus has been a pivotal document -- and a theological challenge -- for scholars like Ehrman. Together with a few other documents, it forms the basis for the most authoritative modern versions of the Old Testament in the original Greek.

Ehrman noted that its version of the Gospel of John is missing the story of the woman taken in adultery, the famous parable in which Jesus says to those who would kill the woman, "Let the one among you who is without sin cast the first stone." He and many other textual scholars believe the adultery story was not introduced into John until the Middle Ages

and a 3rd-century papyrus known as the Sayings of Jesus, including this one: "Jesus says: A prophet is not acceptable in his own country, nor does a physician work cures on those who know him."

neologist wrote:

xingu wrote:

MOF asks the question;

Quote:

"Does creating humans nature mean that God forced Adam and Eve to break the commandments?"

Yes, it does. Human nature has the element of curiosity. Curiosity is what leads us to ask, explore and experiment. It leads us to seek knowledge. Therefore we will, in our quest to seek knowledge, violate laws; any and all laws. In that way we learn form experience. How many times, as a child, do we test our parents rules by breaking them? How many times does science test its laws to see if they work, how they work, and why they work. The minute God gave us curiosity he gave us the means to break any and all laws. If God desired us to be obedient slaves he would never had given us curiosity, the desire to find knowledge.

God would have to be very, very stupid if he would think we would do otherwise. That's why I'm always amazed at those who say God wrote the Bible. Why would God want to make himself look so stupid?

That is your straw man, xingu.

My opinion of the idea that God wrote the Bible. Not only does the Bible make God look stupid but barbaric as well.

mesquite wrote:

echi wrote:

I don't mean any disrespect, but is that it? Is that the best plan God could come up with to encourage his most beloved creations to repent? Two thousand years later and it seems to have not worked out too well. I tried real hard for about ten years to understand the sense in this story. Needless to say, I didn't find any. Did I miss something?

"Beloved creations"? Where do you get that? Right from the beginning God set up a sting operation on Adam and Eve, and then when they innocent as they are, fall for the trap, future he sentences them and their offspring to punishment in perpetuity.

Who said that they were innocent? How did God force them to break the commandment? How did God put them in a trap?

it was the ultimate sacrifice. God sent his son to die for us. what more could he have done to prove his love for us other than appearing himself which would have then denied free choice, which is what God promises to everybody. as for not being successful i think that the fact that millions upon millions are converted every week is proof enough that its working pretty well so far.

rockpie wrote:

Jesus sacrificed himself to give us all an opportunity to get to heaven, it doesn't say anywhere that he did it so we could sit bacj and relax.

One must sacrifice for all.

Mindonfire wrote:

And? Does creating humans nature mean that God forced Adam and Eve to break the commandments?

Certainly not. Why would God have to force them to do what was already in their nature?

Quote:

Does the creation of the gun force people to murder?

This question does not relate to my argument. (Someone help me out, here. What kind of fallacy is this?)

Wait a minute. You're comparing the creation of the gun to the creation of human nature, is that it?

It is still an invalid comparison. The gun is irrelevant. It is the murderer who is to blame.

In any case, according to this belief, God is the creator of both the gun and the murderer.

MOF
Previously you said;

Quote:

Who reads the Old Testament these days. What's in the Old Testament does not apply to today. We are under a better covenant. Christ did away with the Old Testament.

When I pointed out to you that your statements are incorrect you changed your stance and said;

Quote:

We are not talking about Christians who believe in some parts of the Old Testament. Where are the ones who really follow the Old Testament?

You made the statement "Who reads the Old Testament these days." Conservative Christians do. Look at the controversy between evolutionist and Creationist and tell me they don't apply the OT to their beliefs. BTW where do you think the Ten Commandments came from, the NT? Why do the Christians who hate homosexuals quote Leviticus?

There is a big difference between "Who reads the Old Testament these days" and "Christians who believe in some parts of the Old Testament."

You said, "Christ did away with the Old Testament." If Christ did away with the OT than why did Paul and James and others of that period of time use and believe in the OT. In case you didn't know they were the only scriptures around at that time. The NT did not exist.

Do Christians follow all of the OT? Of course not and so what if they don't. Not even Jews follow all of it.

Did any of this nonsense about Jesus replacing the OT come from Jesus himself or did it come from others after Jesus' death? Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian. He believed in the OT and he never stated, to my knowledge, that he was here to replace the OT because he was a God. That nonsense came from the from others, not Jesus.

Can you imagine Jesus standing in front of a crowd of Jews and saying; "Hey dudes, I'm God and I'm here to replace the OT." Bet that would go over big.

echi wrote:

Mindonfire wrote:

And? Does creating humans nature mean that God forced Adam and Eve to break the commandments?

Certainly not. Why would God have to force them to do what was already in their nature?

Quote:

Does the creation of the gun force people to murder?

This question does not relate to my argument. (Someone help me out, here. What kind of fallacy is this?)

This looks like a strawman. A strawman argument "is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

MOF asks the question;

Quote:

"Does creating humans nature mean that God forced Adam and Eve to break the commandments?"

Yes, it does. Human nature has the element of curiosity. Curiosity is what leads us to ask, explore and experiment. It leads us to seek knowledge. Therefore we will, in our quest to seek knowledge, violate laws; any and all laws. In that way we learn form experience. How many times, as a child, do we test our parents rules by breaking them? How many times does science test its laws to see if they work, how they work, and why they work. The minute God gave us curiosity he gave us the means to break any and all laws. If God desired us to be obedient slaves he would never had given us curiosity, the desire to find knowledge.

God would have to be very, very stupid if he would think we would do otherwise. That's why I'm always amazed at those who say God wrote the Bible. Why would God want to make himself look so stupid?

Mindonfire wrote:

mesquite wrote:

echi wrote:

I don't mean any disrespect, but is that it? Is that the best plan God could come up with to encourage his most beloved creations to repent? Two thousand years later and it seems to have not worked out too well. I tried real hard for about ten years to understand the sense in this story. Needless to say, I didn't find any. Did I miss something?

"Beloved creations"? Where do you get that? Right from the beginning God set up a sting operation on Adam and Eve, and then when they innocent as they are, fall for the trap, future he sentences them and their offspring to punishment in perpetuity.

Who said that they were innocent? How did God force them to break the commandment? How did God put them in a trap?

They had no knowledge of good and evil. How much more innocent can you get. Without that knowledge they could not understand that breaking the commandment not to eat the fruit was wrong. And just to make sure that his trap would succeed, God allowed the serpent to tempt them with the truth.

echi wrote:

Wait a minute. You're comparing the creation of the gun to the creation of human nature, is that it?

It is still an invalid comparison. The gun is irrelevant. It is the murderer who is to blame.

In any case, according to this belief, God is the creator of both the gun and the murderer.

Well if the murderer is to be blamed for his actions, then how is God to be blamed for Adam and Eve's actions? You and Mesquite are asserting that by placing them in the garden that he is partly to be blamed for their disobedience?