Bethlehem

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
why do you assume anyone not agreeing with you doesn't believe in god?


why do you assume that sins are stopping you from seeing the "truth" behind the murder of the canaanites?

if a prophet would come today and tell all the americans that god wants them to invade iran and kill all iranians, would you say it is my sins that stop me from immediately who mark is, he might not be an apostle either). why aren't but three of them in the bible?

=======================================
why do you assume that sins are stopping you from seeing the "truth" behind the murder of the canaanites?
================================

I do not think that from beginning to end, EVERYTHING God did in the Bible will be something I personally agree with, without exception.

The idea that God created creatures which are superior to Himself in morality, and need to sit Him down and teach Him, is faulty.

I do not think out of a less moral Being a more moral creation could be produced.

I expect that for the time being, there will be acts of God with which I do not agree. It doesn't mean I will not come to see it God's way in the future.

I expect that in the end there will be many things in which God will prove that He was right and I was wrong.

And I believe there will be some instances in which God may say "I was right. But you were right also."

================================
if a prophet would come today and tell all the americans that god wants them to invade iran and kill all iranians, would you say it is my sins that stop me from immediately joining(as a volunteer i am not really an american) the slaughter? would you join?
================================

False analogy to what I wrote.

You do not have to agree with the Canaanite Conquest to touch and taste the Heavenly Father.


==================================
why believe that anything written in the bible is 100% real? it was written by men, and men decided out of a ton of these writings what should be put in the bible. do you think only 3 apostles and a doctor wrote gospels? (don't know who mark is, he might not be an apostle either). why aren't but three of them in the bible?
=====================================

My acceptance the truth of all the Old Testament and much of the New came gradually. God did not wait for me to believe everything in the Bible before He cleansed me from my sins and brought me into an enjoyment of Himself.

Stuff I do not like in the Bible, I put on the back burner. I have witnessed my attitude change with the growth in spiritual life.

But the whole concept of a morally inferior God who needs to sit at our feet and learn some lessons in love and justice, I find illogical.

The Creator can only be AS good or far superior to His creations. An error prone and faulty Creator producing a superior to Himself creation, is to me illogical.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=======================================
why do you assume that sins are stopping you from seeing the "truth" behind the murder of the canaanites?
================================

I do not think that from beginning to end, EVERYTHING God did in the Bible will be something I personally agree with, without exception.

The idea that God c ...[text shortened]... r prone and faulty Creator producing a superior to Himself creation, is to me illogical.[/b]

hold the phone.


you are saying that you accept all of the old testament but only "much" of the new?

you are saying that you have no problem with the stonings and the murders in the old testament but that some teachings from the new might not sit well with you?

please say you mixed them up and you meant the opposite: all of the new and most of the old.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=======================================
why do you assume that sins are stopping you from seeing the "truth" behind the murder of the canaanites?
================================

I do not think that from beginning to end, EVERYTHING God did in the Bible will be something I personally agree with, without exception.

The idea that God c ...[text shortened]... r prone and faulty Creator producing a superior to Himself creation, is to me illogical.[/b]

you are flat out ignoring me. you constantly refuse to acknowledge that i do not disapprove with god, i disapprove with the men that wrote the bible. men who were quite capable of writing lies. or fairy tales intended as inventions but not signaled correctly as in "warning: the sun didn't actually stopped in mid air, it was just a metaphor".

also my analogy is not false. you seem to take everything written in the bible as fact simply because it is in the bible. do you believe nothing worthwhile can be said, ever? that god has spoken all that he has to speak? i claim to bring a new message, an amendment to the bible. why won't you believe me?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
hold the phone.


you are saying that you accept all of the old testament but only "much" of the new?

you are saying that you have no problem with the stonings and the murders in the old testament but that some teachings from the new might not sit well with you?

please say you mixed them up and you meant the opposite: all of the new and most of the old.

===============================
you are saying that you accept all of the old testament but only "much" of the new?
======================================

No. I thought I tried to convey simply that I came to believe many things in the whole Bible gradually.

The key to the Old Testament belief was seeing that Jesus took it seriously. I decided that if Jesus took it seriously then I should also.

That is how I came to believe in many things in the Old Testament like the flood of Noah. If it was good enough for Jesus Christ it is good enough for me.

This was a gradual evolution of attitude.

===============================
you are saying that you have no problem with the stonings and the murders in the old testament but that some teachings from the new might not sit well with you?
=====================================

The things I was speaking of were more of the miraculous nature.

If a flood of Noah was taken seriously by Jesus, I eventually decided that I should take it seriously.

I did not come with a prepared strong doctrine of innerancy.


==================================
please say you mixed them up and you meant the opposite: all of the new and most of the old.
====================================

I am speaking mostly of the supernatural and miraculous, some of which was in the Old Testament and some of which is in the New.

I was a caller on the name of Jesus FIRST. Then I humbled myself to begin to read the Bible, with a naturalistic filter.

Gradually, concerning the supernatural, I decided that the whole history either stands together or falls together. Attempts to "de-mythogize" the Old or New Testament largely did not impress me.

Spiritual nourishment of my spiritual hunger encreased as my attitude towards the whole Bible opened up.

Having said that, I would add that even among evangelical scholars, I think, there are some debates about possible textural additions. None of these possible additions has any significant impact on the central themes of the Bible.

Ie. is the 16th chapter of Mark an addition or in the original autograph ? It's disputed in some places.

Ie. is the account of the angel's stirring water in John Five an addition or in the original autograph. Some dispute the matter.

Neither instance seriously effects the major tenets of my faith.

As for the Canaanite matter, I will sometime write a post dedicated to how I deal with that harshness of divine judgment. All I will say at this point is that I believe a Christian NEEDS to see that account.

We .... DO.... NOT ... REALIZE ... HOW ....EFFECTIVELY ... SATAN can USE our sentiments of human PITY against our spiritual progress.

Today, I do not beleive God is ANYWHERE telling Christians to go out and commit genocide.

I DO however think that in executing the terminating power of the Holy Spirit on our own sinful nature, many times, human self pity can cause the Christian to be defeated.

The lesson of the Canaanites helps me to stand against Satan using subtle SELF PITY to preserve certain dangerous aspects of the Adamic sinful nature.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And you seem to be suffering from the delusion that unbelievers do not exist. ie you believe that by claiming to be an atheist I am lying and deceiving. You believe I do not believe what I say. You are incorrect. I wouldn't label your delusion a mental disorder though. Maybe wishful thinking would be a better term.

[b]Jesus was born in Bethlehem just l ...[text shortened]... d reason to think you know your statements are false and posted them with intent to deceive.

No

You misunderstand what I mean.

I didn't say that unbelievers "suffer from a mental disorder" so that an unbeliever would think I was trying to insult their intelligence.


It is said that there is "no truth" or that there is "no God" or that there are "no absolutes". And, the opposite is said as well.

Somebody is suffering from a mental disorder!

Peace

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I did read it. I would have responded, but I can't see any point in arguing with somebody whose baseline is that anybody who doesn't share their views and beliefs is mentally ill.

You misunderstand my intent.

I said nothing about mental illness.

If you are going to understand me you are going to have to read my posts from a more objective perspective.

Originally posted by josephw
Unbelievers have a mental disorder.

This is surely the antithesis of a 'spiritual' stance. You should take this assertion to the Science Forum.

Originally posted by josephw
You misunderstand my intent.

I said nothing about mental illness.

If you are going to understand me you are going to have to read my posts from a more objective perspective.

Let's just recap what you did say then:

Unbelievers suffer from a mental disorder. They assume that because they lie and deceive so does everybody else.

You say that everyone who disagrees with your views is suffering a 'mental disorder', but you now say that this is not the same as a mental illness? Ok, tomato tomato. Then you go on to assume that all people who do not share your views 'lie and deceive', which comes across as pretty insulting - and I am trying to be objective here.

Jesus was born in Bethlehem just like it says in the Bible. Maybe so. The men who wrote the books contained in the Bible weren't liars. How do you know? Lots of people have been proven to lie. So far as I am aware none of them have been proven to be able to work miracles or rise from the dead. The liars are those who say the men who wrote the books of Bible lied. Well, maybe they're both liars? Or maybe neither are. Maybe some of them are mistaken, misled or misinformed.

Now don't go getting all riled up because you think I called you a liar. None of us were even here when the liars said the Bible is wrong. You simply believe a lie. Quite a few of them in fact.

On this subject I remain unconvinced either way, so it's hard to see how that equates with believing a lie. Or quite a few of them. You, conversely, believe a whole heap of ancient stories without reserve. It seems likely to me that some of what you believe may therefore be untrue.

I try to read all posts from as objective a perspective as I can muster, but it is difficult to remain so when faced with people who insist that their beliefs are incontrovertible fact and that those who disagree with them are suffering from a mental 'disorder'.

Originally posted by josephw
I said nothing about mental illness.

Saying "Unbelievers have a mental disorder" is something about mental illness. I think you may have had a surge of exuberance. An apology would be one option for you.

Originally posted by josephw
You misunderstand my intent.

I said nothing about mental illness.

If you are going to understand me you are going to have to read my posts from a more objective perspective.

Have you ever considered that people who don't believe in the Bible may just consider it a story? And therefore don't consider the authors liars?

I don't consider J K Rowling a liar because Harry Potter isn't true. I don't consider J R R Toklein a liar becuase The Lord of the Rings isn't true.

Think about it.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===============================
you are saying that you accept all of the old testament but only "much" of the new?
======================================

No. I thought I tried to convey simply that I came to believe many things in the whole Bible gradually.

The key to the Old Testament belief was seeing that Jesus took it seriously. ...[text shortened]... using subtle SELF PITY to preserve certain dangerous aspects of the Adamic sinful nature.[/b]

but jesus didn't take it seriously.

he basically ends the mosaic law.
he introduces the "odd" idea that we should be kind to our enemies. he preaches love and forgiveness. throughout the OT god forgives some but not until he punishes them in quite gruesome ways. except for the temple scene where jesus lets his stress (he was gonna die shortly, its understandable) get to him, not once does jesus say : "i will not cure your daughter because you were evil at some point. i am going to let her die so you can learn your lesson"


just because jesus at some point makes a remark that may have sounded like he supported adam and eve story (to make a point to the doods asking about divorce) doesn't mean he supports a young earth, all the massacres and so on.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===============================
you are saying that you accept all of the old testament but only "much" of the new?
======================================

No. I thought I tried to convey simply that I came to believe many things in the whole Bible gradually.

The key to the Old Testament belief was seeing that Jesus took it seriously. ...[text shortened]... using subtle SELF PITY to preserve certain dangerous aspects of the Adamic sinful nature.[/b]

"Gradually, concerning the supernatural, I decided that the whole history either stands together or falls together. Attempts to "de-mythogize" the Old or New Testament largely did not impress me."

no it doesn't. in no way is jesus' message lessened if some part or all of the ot is proven fake. all jesus needs is the fact that indeed god exists and indeed god is his father. that's all.

many unbelievers have trouble grasping this very thing: how can a god of love, god represented by jesus would do all the atrocities in the OT? in fact it would help christianity if the OT is proven to be mostly fake.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
but jesus didn't take it seriously.

he basically ends the mosaic law.
he introduces the "odd" idea that we should be kind to our enemies. he preaches love and forgiveness. throughout the OT god forgives some but not until he punishes them in quite gruesome ways. except for the temple scene where jesus lets his stress (he was gonna die shortly, sking about divorce) doesn't mean he supports a young earth, all the massacres and so on.

================================
but jesus didn't take it seriously.
====================================

Explain to us why Jesus said " ... Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). What "Scripture" is Jesus refering to but the Hebrew Bible at the time?

Jesus had to have taken the story of Tyre and Sidon to have been true or He would not have taught this:

"Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the works of power which tookd place in you had taken place in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes." But I say to you, It will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in teh day of judgment than for you." (Matt. 12:21,22)

It make no sense that Jesus would say it would be more tolerable for mythical people than for real historical people on the day of judgment.

Jesus also took the account of the judgment of Sodom as history:

"And you, Capernaum, who have be exalted to heaven, to Hades you will be brought down. For if the works of power which took place in you had taken place in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

But I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you." (Matt. 12:23,24)

For Jesus to teach that Sodom would have remained until that present day proves His regard for the judgment of Sodon in Genesis 19 as history. And He would not teach that it would be more tolerable for a mythical people than for real historical people in the last judgment.

You have no case that Jesus did not take these Old Testament stories as fact.

=======================
he basically ends the mosaic law.
==========================

The sense in which "Christ is the end of the law" as the Apostel Paul wrote, could not be unless Christ took the law seriously. He came to fulfill its demands on behalf of the rest of us.

He had to have taken the law of Moses seriously for Him to fulfill the law's demands and say: "For this is My blood of the covenant, which is beeing poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matt. 28)

To offer Himself as the propitiatory sacrifice for sins, He had to have taken the law of Moses seriously to the extent that He alone qualified to redeem sinners. He alone could be that spotless Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world which was under the condemnation of Moses's law.

==============================
he introduces the "odd" idea that we should be kind to our enemies.
===========================

What He does is show that God cares more than just the outward action. God cares for the innermost motive of the heart. Whereas, it was the law that your repayment for evil not exceed that which was owed - "eye for eye, tooth for tooth", Jesus revealed a more penetrating and higher way - to love your enemies.

He is going deeper into man's being. When can conform to many outward legalities. But Christ teaches that men should live the highest level of human morality on earth out from the deepest part of the personality.

To do this requires another divine life to be imparted into our life. It requires an organic union with God through regeneration. Christ Himself, Who alone lives the highest level of morality, must come to live a mingled life with His people.

This economy was prophesied to come as the "new covenant" by the prophet Jeremiah in Jeremiah 31:31-33 which includes not only words about forgiveness and not remembering sins anymore, but also having God's nature imparted into His people:

"And they will no longer teach, each nab gus beighbor and each man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah; for all shall know Me, from the liuttle one among them even to the great one among them, declares Jehovah, for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." (Jer. 31:33)

Both the law of Moses and the prophets were taken seriously by Jesus Christ.
His work of salvation is built upon the law and the prophets.

==============================
he preaches love and forgiveness. throughout the OT god forgives some but not until he punishes them in quite gruesome ways.
==============================

This is not always true. This is a superfiscial apprehension of the Old Testament with generalizations that do not always prove true. For example, David writes in the Psalms

"He [God] has not dealt with us according to our sins, Nor has He recompensed us according to our iniquities.. As compassionate as a father is toward his children, So compassionate is Jehovah toward those who fear Him. For He knows our frame; He remembers that we are dust." (Psalam 103:10,13)

You are making some generalizations but they do not impress me as coming from one who has read the the Bible that much.

========================================
except for the temple scene where jesus lets his stress (he was gonna die shortly, its understandable) get to him, not once does jesus say : "i will not cure your daughter because you were evil at some point. i am going to let her die so you can learn your lesson"
=======================================

The Bible has a perculiar effect on some people. The less they read it, the more they fancy themselves to know all about it. Your generalizations do not always hold true for God's actions in the Old Testament.

I could spend all day showing examples of God's mercy, longsuffering, compassion in the Old Testament. David knew this, and he wrote "Jehovah is compassionate and gracious. Long-suffering and abundant in livingkindess. He will not always contend with us, Now will He keep His anger forever. He has not dealt with us according to our sins."

It would be good if you read the Bible more thoroughly without the colored glasses of a kind of Humanism eager to pit Jesus against the God of the Old Testament.

===============================
just because jesus at some point makes a remark that may have sounded like he supported adam and eve story (to make a point to the doods asking about divorce) doesn't mean he supports a young earth, all the massacres and so on.
==================================

Maybe that is true concerning the time of creation.
I, for one, mentioned nothing that I recall about YEC or OEC.
That sounds like a debate you are having with someone else.

For this discussion, Jesus could not teach that He quaified to be either Son of God or Messiah or Son of David or the Prophet that Moses said was to come unless He tool the law and the prophets as God's word in truth.

God's revelation of His will is progressive. And at the appropriate time this God became flesh in incarnation to redeem man and enter into His people as "life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45).

No one took the law and the prophets more seriously then Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"Gradually, concerning the supernatural, I decided that the whole history either stands together or falls together. Attempts to "de-mythogize" the Old or New Testament largely did not impress me."

no it doesn't. in no way is jesus' message lessened if some part or all of the ot is proven fake. all jesus needs is the fact that indeed god exists and indee ies in the OT? in fact it would help christianity if the OT is proven to be mostly fake.

=================================
Gradually, concerning the supernatural, I decided that the whole history either stands together or falls together. Attempts to "de-mythogize" the Old or New Testament largely did not impress me."

no it doesn't. in no way is jesus' message lessened if some part or all of the ot is proven fake. all jesus needs is the fact that indeed god exists and indeed god is his father. that's all.
===================================

Apparently, you have not read all of "Jesus' message".

Perhaps, you are only thinking about the so-called "Golden Rule" and ignoring completely Christ's references to Daniel, Isaiah, Deutoronomy, Exodus, Genesis, and many other OT passages.

Let me guess that you do not regard Jesus speaking and actions in the book of Revelation as actually representative of Himself.

Let me also assume that Jesus' teaching in Matthew 24 and 25 are not representative of His message.

My attitude is that of Paul's "Behold the kindness and severity of God" (Rom. 11:22).

The full character of God in all its aspects is seen in the Bible. The kindness and the severity BOTH belong to the same Divine Person.

I will grant this. God is so willing to receive a person. There is nothing in the NT suggesting that anything other then believeing that God raised Jesus from the dead and that He is one's Lord is required to be born of God.

But birth, as you know, is only the beginning of a new life. To grow and mature how can we cut off the Old Testament ? From the treasure we must bring forth some things old and some things new.

==============================
many unbelievers have trouble grasping this very thing: how can a god of love, god represented by jesus would do all the atrocities in the OT? in fact it would help christianity if the OT is proven to be mostly fake
========================================

Nonsense. Theological qwackary.

I think your problem is actually more with Jesus then you realize.

And Jesus Christ is going to put some people into the fire of eternal damnation according to Matthew 25:41.

The good news is that He is the Savior. We can trust Him to save us from the wrath of God.

Besides, Jesus Christ is God. The redemption of Calvary really involves two parties and not three. The two parties are God and man.

God is represented by the Father and the Son. So this is the same God as in the entire Bible.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]================================
but jesus didn't take it seriously.
====================================

Explain to us why Jesus said " ... Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). What "Scripture" is Jesus refering to but the Hebrew Bible at the time?

Jesus had to have taken the story of Tyre and Sidon to have b ...[text shortened]... he law and the prophets more seriously then Jesus Christ.[/b]

do you often think that if you prove one item in a set, the whole set is proven?

what manner of kindergarten logic is this?

i don't think jesus meant sodom literally. he did exactly like a parent would when teaching a small child : "remember the boy who cried wolf? that is why it is wrong to lie".
but even if jesus meant the sodom reference as literary that still doesn't lead to jericho's wall being downed by the awesome sonic power of horns, or noah's flood to have actually happened and so on.


The sense in which [b]"Christ is the end of the law" as the Apostel Paul wrote, could not be unless Christ took the law seriously [...]
He had to have taken the law of Moses seriously for Him to fulfill the law's demands and say: "For this is My blood of the covenant, which is beeing poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

I often find myself without patience but i must remember that you don't function quite the same as normal people and i should not overload you with info.
you believe that if jesus said that passage it means that he takes the laws of the old testament seriously? just to be clarified, i don't believe the laws didn't exist, i just say they weren't given by god and that jesus would have nothing to do with them
In your opinion, what does it mean when jesus stoped that woman from being stoned? he didn't even cared if she is guilty or not. he just refused to punish her and gave her a chance to repent. Does this mean he supported the mosaic law in all its splendor?

Sure he kept some customs from it. But isn't that what i have been trying to tell you? don't be afraid to follow your heart and to use just some parts of some teachings? that if one law is flawed that doesn't mean the whole set from which that law is is flawed.