100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: If you break Gods Commandment did you sin? | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Sun 11/21/10 07:24 PM
|
|
You forget God works through people. That may be why I have such a drive to come in here and defend our father... There it is again, the intervening God. God works through poeple - but which people? Some may think that Gods' work comes through people who tell others what is necessary to please God and find salvation? And which set of ideas pertaining to those objectives would any other believer or a non-believer have to embrace? Of course if God works through 'people' than God works through all people. So how can you know that God is not working through Abra? How can you know that God is not working through Richard Dawkins, or even Hitler? Could it possibly be that God does not work through people so much as God intends his message to be ONLY for each individual? If the message you receive is contrary to that of another Christian individual does that make one you wrong? And how can anyone know if thier message is right or wrong for anyone, including self? Is it not possible for an individual to read the Bible and develop a stronger faith in God without coming to the same moral conclusions that another might accept as fundamental for belief and salvation? Could it be that the biblical message pertaining to judging others, is a warning implying that comparing individual beliefs can lead to MIS-judging the beliefs and behaviors of others based on a message that was meant for the individual alone? After all, if God works through people and people have no idea what God's intensions are, then wouldn't it be wrong to try to change what a person believes since that belief is guided by the will of God? There it is again, the intervening God. God works through poeple - but which people? Some may think that Gods' work comes through people who tell others what is necessary to please God and find salvation? And which set of ideas pertaining to those objectives would any other believer or a non-believer have to embrace? No, nothing with intervening. Intervening would be God literally taking over someone's body and forcing them to do something or not do something. Yes God helps us through our lives, you can call that intervening if you wish. But God in no way do my first example, he doesn't take anyone's free will away, he doesn't "force" anyone to do anything. We ALWAYS have a choice. And with your comment on doing God's will. If you have on your heart to do something in particular, if it coincides with what is said in the bible then you can trust it is from our father. If it doesn't agree with his teachings and or laws then you can guarantee it is Satan tempting you to do something you ought not do. And what of my other questions? You say ...if it coincides with what is said int he bible... Either you are guided by the holy spirit or you are guided by the letter of the law - which is it? If an individual feels the holy spirit is guiding him to act in a particualar way, what need does that individual have of the bible? Is not the holy spirit God, and does not God work through all people and might God want an individual to take some action without consulting the bible - which that individual might interpret incorrectly, and decide NOT to follow his own feeling that was guided through the spirit of God????? I don't understand your question. Example ======= Someone is giving you hell all the time. Always finding something to pick at you about. Eventually a lot of people would end kicking the crap out of the person. But you know that little feeling inside of you where you feel it's wrong, but you're doing it any ways, that would be your conscience. In this scenario your conscience would tell you to just go on if your conscience is with the lord. And this can be personally verified for the word of God tells you to turn the other cheek... eg., walk away. Since both work together, your conscience and the word, then you can guarantee that it is what God wanted and that it was God speaking to your conscience and not Satan tempting you to do some sinful action. A better example: An individual is torn because the people most important to that individual are committed Christians who believe that being gay is a choice that is influenced by the devil and the gay person is a deviant and sinful person who is condemed unless they change. But the individual has been unable to change and has spend years praying and doing good works and praying some more - and suddenly one day the person has a dream and that dream persists and in the dream the person is told he is a loved child of God and that the love given to him is love worthy of extending. The person pushes the dream away but it persists and then signs appear that make him realize it is the voice of God and he feels called to the ministry and to a 'life-partner' and together they build a new church in a run down community. The church not only meets spiritual needs but creates a number of outreach programs that help many in the community. In this case the person ignored the letter of the law becasue to accept it (by someone elses interpretation) would have prevented him from accomplishing his mission. So in this case, was the letter of the law more important or the guidance of the spirit from within? ??? why would building a church and outreach have anything to do with sexual choices,, did not Jesus do all these things without a need for a sexual mate? I don't know if Jesus did all those things without a sexual mate or whether he was celebate or married. I thought the bible was silent on the issue. However, there are other points to consider such as, whom does God choose to work through and how? Can a sinner or non-believer do God's work for good? Can a believer do God's work and it be perceived as bad? And no matter what the answers are can any human actually judge people by the outcomes of their actions, when no one can know whether or not the person was doing the will of God? It only take 30 pcs of silver to do God's work, the real question is, would God have other's do bad works at his will and then punish the person who carried it out? And would God have a sinner do good works, only to punish the sinner on other accounts? When is it God's work and when is it not, and when is it good work and when is it bad? As Cowboy seems to suggest, God only works through the bible so only those who read the bible and follow the laws within it can do God's work. But of course that is problematic, because if anyone could actually follow all the laws in the bible there would be no need of a Jesus sacrifice - would there? But maybe Cowbow has an explanation for the inconsistency in his postings. there is a lesson in all that we touch and experience, that is Gods working through us and others to deliver those messages but they have the choice in their actions just as we have the choice in receiving the message if Cowboy stated that the bible was the ONLY way to God, I would think he is mistaken as not everyone receives their message with the same senses,,,but indeed , however they receive the message,,it ends up with Jesus who holds the ultimate power to decide who enters his Fathers house just as a degree is not the ONLY way to a career, neither is the BIBLE, but also like a degree, the BIBLE provides the practice and structure and guidelines which make the career more accessible than it would be without it,,,, Are you suggesting the if Judas had "chosen" not to accepted the message from God, that God would have just kept trying other people till someone did his bidding and turned Jesus in? What would that say of Jesus prophacy? Or perhaps you are suggesting that Jesus fate, as a sacrificial lamb, was not sealed from the beginning? And what about the Jews the Romans who HAD TO PLAY thier roles flawlessly to pull off God's will in this matter? Where they condemed for succeding in "choosing" to do God's will? Or simply condemed to do God's will? Is that how God uses people, as pawns in a game of chess? How can anyone know if they are manipulated by God or by the ungodly? Would it be bad behavior to reap the good benefits of the actions of a 'bad-sinful' person while condeming the sinfilled person at the same time? After all, there are only two knowns - sinfilled personal behavior with beneficial rewards to others? But if the rewards are the work of the ungodly, should anyone feel justified in reaping the ill-gotten gain? Who is glorified in that senario and who is punished? If it's good it must be of God??? If it's bad it must be a poor choice of a sinful person??? If it's good but the person is known sinner it must not be of God??? If it's bad but the person is a believer, it must be evil forces??? But when is it ever God's will? And by what right does a believer have to make the determination? Gods will is explained in the Bible, throughout the experiences and sermons that make up the Bible,, part of Gods will is the consequences it is his will that we seek him and find him and his will that if we refuse him we will be lost he gives us the choice God's will was that of prophacy through others and that of the Old Covenant and the New. Since the Old Covenant has been fulfilled it seems all of it's prophacy and Law has been as well. That leaves only the New Covenant to indicate what God's will is - but few seem able to agree on exactly when the New Covenant went into effect and most important WHAT IS the New covenant and how does it determine what God's will is? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: Where is the bad thing about Christianity? It's the epitome of religious bigotry. You claim that it's all about loving others. Well, if you truly love others then respect them for what they believe. Otherwise your concept of "love" is a false concept. Ab, do you love others? I love others as I love myself. Just as Jesus had suggested people should. I'm in agreement with him on this point. This is the wisdom of the Eastern Mystics as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redykeulous wrote: Since the Old Covenant has been fulfilled it seems all of it's prophacy and Law has been as well. That leaves only the New Covenant to indicate what God's will is - but few seem able to agree on exactly when the New Covenant went into effect and most important WHAT IS the New covenant and how does it determine what God's will is? I'd just like to comment on this because I've been down this road many times. The idea that Jesus brought a New Covenant is an extremely vague interpretation at best, IMHO. That really doesn't work very well for those who wish to cling to things like the idea of God hating homosexuality (Which comes entirely from the Old Testament). There are several reasons why I reject the "New Covenant Theories" Jesus said that he did not come to change the laws, but if that was indeed his main purpose then why lie about it? Why not be straight-forward and clear that this was indeed his mission? Secondly, to maintain a theory of a "New Covenant" you'd need to toss out just about everything that was written by Paul. Because Paul's writings were constantly dredging up things from the Old Testament (i.e. the Old Covenant) and trying to support them in Jesus' name. Paul's writings represent about 75% of the entire New Testament. Take that away, and you're down to basically Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. If a religion could be built from those four books alone without any reference to the Old Testament, or to the writings of Paul, I might be tempted to support the religion myself. But clearly that's not going to happen. So any talk of a "New Covenant" whilst the "Old Covenant" is still being used to support bigotry in the name of Jesus does not sit well with me. It just seems like Hypocrisy with a capital "H" to me. It's a "Have your cake and eat it too" religion when it claims that Jesus represents a "New Covenant" yet it continues to use the "Old Covenant" to support judgmental bigotry against people as being 'sinners' based on laws from the Old Covenant. So as far as I'm concerned, if anyone wants to speak to me about Jesus having brought a "New Covenant" they better have in their hand, the books of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, ONLY. Bring the Old Testament, or the writings of Paul along, and I'll reject the whole theory as being a contradiction in terms. That's my stance on that.  Please note that I'm just offering why I wouldn't buy a particular theory. If someone else wants to buy it, that's up to them. I don't believe in a God who communicates through hearsay rumors anyway. So I wouldn't be very impressed even if the theory was offered properly. I'd still be more inclined to continue to go with my own theory that Jesus was simply a misunderstood Buddhist. Because after all, even if the Old Testament can be tossed aside as being 'fulfilled' and no longer applicable, it would STILL represent how God had interacted with mankind in the past. And I dismiss the Old Testament entirely as being ungodly. So in other words, to accept it as a 'fulfilled covenant' doesn't change the fact that it was STILL a covenant that God supposedly had with men. I have difficultly in believing that an all-wise God would have ever had such a covenant with mankind at any point in history. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redykeulous wrote: Since the Old Covenant has been fulfilled it seems all of it's prophacy and Law has been as well. That leaves only the New Covenant to indicate what God's will is - but few seem able to agree on exactly when the New Covenant went into effect and most important WHAT IS the New covenant and how does it determine what God's will is? I'd just like to comment on this because I've been down this road many times. The idea that Jesus brought a New Covenant is an extremely vague interpretation at best, IMHO. That really doesn't work very well for those who wish to cling to things like the idea of God hating homosexuality (Which comes entirely from the Old Testament). There are several reasons why I reject the "New Covenant Theories" Jesus said that he did not come to change the laws, but if that was indeed his main purpose then why lie about it? Why not be straight-forward and clear that this was indeed his mission? Secondly, to maintain a theory of a "New Covenant" you'd need to toss out just about everything that was written by Paul. Because Paul's writings were constantly dredging up things from the Old Testament (i.e. the Old Covenant) and trying to support them in Jesus' name. Paul's writings represent about 75% of the entire New Testament. Take that away, and you're down to basically Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. If a religion could be built from those four books alone without any reference to the Old Testament, or to the writings of Paul, I might be tempted to support the religion myself. But clearly that's not going to happen. So any talk of a "New Covenant" whilst the "Old Covenant" is still being used to support bigotry in the name of Jesus does not sit well with me. It just seems like Hypocrisy with a capital "H" to me. It's a "Have your cake and eat it too" religion when it claims that Jesus represents a "New Covenant" yet it continues to use the "Old Covenant" to support judgmental bigotry against people as being 'sinners' based on laws from the Old Covenant. So as far as I'm concerned, if anyone wants to speak to me about Jesus having brought a "New Covenant" they better have in their hand, the books of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, ONLY. Bring the Old Testament, or the writings of Paul along, and I'll reject the whole theory as being a contradiction in terms. That's my stance on that. Please note that I'm just offering why I wouldn't buy a particular theory. If someone else wants to buy it, that's up to them. I don't believe in a God who communicates through hearsay rumors anyway. So I wouldn't be very impressed even if the theory was offered properly. I'd still be more inclined to continue to go with my own theory that Jesus was simply a misunderstood Buddhist. Because after all, even if the Old Testament can be tossed aside as being 'fulfilled' and no longer applicable, it would STILL represent how God had interacted with mankind in the past. And I dismiss the Old Testament entirely as being ungodly. So in other words, to accept it as a 'fulfilled covenant' doesn't change the fact that it was STILL a covenant that God supposedly had with men. I have difficultly in believing that an all-wise God would have ever had such a covenant with mankind at any point in history. I'd just like to comment on this because I've been down this road many times. The idea that Jesus brought a New Covenant is an extremely vague interpretation at best, IMHO. That really doesn't work very well for those who wish to cling to things like the idea of God hating homosexuality (Which comes entirely from the Old Testament). Lev. 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." ========================================== Jesus said that he did not come to change the laws, but if that was indeed his main purpose then why lie about it? Why not be straight-forward and clear that this was indeed his mission? He changed nothing, he fullfilled the old and gave us the new. If you are writing a paragraph on a piece of paper, you can either erase and change things eg., changing the covenant. Or you could through the piece of paper out and get a new one to write the new paragraph on eg., the new covenant. So any talk of a "New Covenant" whilst the "Old Covenant" is still being used to support bigotry in the name of Jesus does not sit well with me. It just seems like Hypocrisy with a capital "H" to me. Just because they may contain some of the same laws does not mean they are using the laws from one another. As in just because the old covenant said not to do something and so does the new does not mean the new got that instruction from the old. Just merely has the law as well and holds power for it is also in the new. ======================== It's a "Have your cake and eat it too" religion when it claims that Jesus represents a "New Covenant" yet it continues to use the "Old Covenant" to support judgmental bigotry against people as being 'sinners' based on laws from the Old Covenant. No it does not. The new covenant in particular tells us not to judge one another. And no one can profess you as a sinner in a negative way for we ALL sin everyday, we ALL fall short of the glory of God. =========================== So in other words, to accept it as a 'fulfilled covenant' doesn't change the fact that it was STILL a covenant that God supposedly had with men. I have difficultly in believing that an all-wise God would have ever had such a covenant with mankind at any point in history. And that is purely opinionated. Opinions hold no factual power. And you have not shown how it is not intelligent in any way. Just again merely opinionated statements, nothing substantial. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote:
LoL. What do you think your conscience is? Your conscience is God speaking to you. EVERYTHING I said works together, no contradictions. No, you misunderstood me. Your conscience, that guilty feeling you have while doing something you aren't to do is God speaking to you. I said BOTH are equally important. Cause if you had just that guilty feeling you wouldn't know what you're feeling guilty for and or that you were even feeling that it was wrong. That is where the bible comes in, the bible tells us straight up what is right and what is wrong, and why we feel guilty for doing certain things. Previously you said [Our obedience is to the law, therefore he listened to his conscience to obey the law. When you realized you had misread you corrected your statement to include: This was NOT the works of the father, for God states plainly that homosexuality is sinful and we are not to do as such, so no he was not OBVIOUSLY doing the work of God. The man had not originally sinned according to the law you speak of, and was conflicted by what others told him the bible meant, he had prayed about the issue. In other words, as a believer and as sinless as anyone else, the spirit inside called him to pursue the path he took. You say it could not have been God because God can only enforce the law as it is written in the Bible. That means that God cannot work through a non-believer or anyone who does not obey the letter of the law in the bible. For if a person sins, his works - no matter how beneficial to others those works may be - are not of God and cannot be good. It sounds like God is trapped in a box called the bible! Do you REALLY believe that God is restricted as to how or to whom he can instruct or influence? Do you REALLY believe that God cannot do good works through a sinner, or a non-believer regardless of their adherence to the letter of the law? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd just like to comment on this because I've been down this road many times. The idea that Jesus brought a New Covenant is an extremely vague interpretation at best, IMHO. That really doesn't work very well for those who wish to cling to things like the idea of God hating homosexuality (Which comes entirely from the Old Testament). Lev. 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." ========================================== That is from the Old Testament. Jesus said that he did not come to change the laws, but if that was indeed his main purpose then why lie about it? Why not be straight-forward and clear that this was indeed his mission? He changed nothing, he fullfilled the old and gave us the new. If you are writing a paragraph on a piece of paper, you can either erase and change things eg., changing the covenant. Or you could through the piece of paper out and get a new one to write the new paragraph on eg., the new covenant. I'm sorry but your putting this in terms of physical writing paper. If they laws are changed they're changed. It doesn't matter how you go about changing them. So any talk of a "New Covenant" whilst the "Old Covenant" is still being used to support bigotry in the name of Jesus does not sit well with me. It just seems like Hypocrisy with a capital "H" to me. Just because they may contain some of the same laws does not mean they are using the laws from one another. As in just because the old covenant said not to do something and so does the new does not mean the new got that instruction from the old. Just merely has the law as well and holds power for it is also in the new. ======================== Jesus never spoke of homosexuality. Therefore that could not be considered to be part of his "New Covenant". It's a "Have your cake and eat it too" religion when it claims that Jesus represents a "New Covenant" yet it continues to use the "Old Covenant" to support judgmental bigotry against people as being 'sinners' based on laws from the Old Covenant. No it does not. The new covenant in particular tells us not to judge one another. And no one can profess you as a sinner in a negative way for we ALL sin everyday, we ALL fall short of the glory of God. =========================== No no. If you are claiming that ALL are sinners, they you are judging everyone. You're not supposed to judge, remember? Besides, Jesus was supposed to have said that he did not come for the Righteous, but only for the sick. Therefore, there is no reason for us to believe that ALL are sinners. So in other words, to accept it as a 'fulfilled covenant' doesn't change the fact that it was STILL a covenant that God supposedly had with men. I have difficultly in believing that an all-wise God would have ever had such a covenant with mankind at any point in history. And that is purely opinionated. Opinions hold no factual power. And you have not shown how it is not intelligent in any way. Just again merely opinionated statements, nothing substantial. Yes, it's my opinion. That's correct. And this one reason why I reject Bible as the word of God. I have many other reasons as well, but I'm sure you've already heard most of them and you have simply disagreed with those as well. So we disagree. As always. What's the problem? Who is it that's out to PROVE something?  I'm saying that I don't believe the Bible represents the word of God. If you'd like to believe that it does then so be it. That's your freedom to believe whatever you like. But if you want to demand that I must also accept it as the word of God, then any PROOF that it is the word of God is on YOU, not me. I don't care whether you believe in the Bible or not. You're the one who seems to be obsessed with convincing me that it's the word of God. I'm quite happy believing that it isn't.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Sun 11/21/10 08:26 PM
|
|
Cowboy wrote: LoL. What do you think your conscience is? Your conscience is God speaking to you. EVERYTHING I said works together, no contradictions. No, you misunderstood me. Your conscience, that guilty feeling you have while doing something you aren't to do is God speaking to you. I said BOTH are equally important. Cause if you had just that guilty feeling you wouldn't know what you're feeling guilty for and or that you were even feeling that it was wrong. That is where the bible comes in, the bible tells us straight up what is right and what is wrong, and why we feel guilty for doing certain things. Previously you said [Our obedience is to the law, therefore he listened to his conscience to obey the law. When you realized you had misread you corrected your statement to include: This was NOT the works of the father, for God states plainly that homosexuality is sinful and we are not to do as such, so no he was not OBVIOUSLY doing the work of God. The man had not originally sinned according to the law you speak of, and was conflicted by what others told him the bible meant, he had prayed about the issue. In other words, as a believer and as sinless as anyone else, the spirit inside called him to pursue the path he took. You say it could not have been God because God can only enforce the law as it is written in the Bible. That means that God cannot work through a non-believer or anyone who does not obey the letter of the law in the bible. For if a person sins, his works - no matter how beneficial to others those works may be - are not of God and cannot be good. It sounds like God is trapped in a box called the bible! Do you REALLY believe that God is restricted as to how or to whom he can instruct or influence? Do you REALLY believe that God cannot do good works through a sinner, or a non-believer regardless of their adherence to the letter of the law? No just merely stating God would not have put on his conscience to do anything with a homosexual activity for God has told us not to embark in such activities. And yes that is included in the new covenant about homosexuality being immoral and sinful. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd just like to comment on this because I've been down this road many times. The idea that Jesus brought a New Covenant is an extremely vague interpretation at best, IMHO. That really doesn't work very well for those who wish to cling to things like the idea of God hating homosexuality (Which comes entirely from the Old Testament). Lev. 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." ========================================== That is from the Old Testament. Jesus said that he did not come to change the laws, but if that was indeed his main purpose then why lie about it? Why not be straight-forward and clear that this was indeed his mission? He changed nothing, he fullfilled the old and gave us the new. If you are writing a paragraph on a piece of paper, you can either erase and change things eg., changing the covenant. Or you could through the piece of paper out and get a new one to write the new paragraph on eg., the new covenant. I'm sorry but your putting this in terms of physical writing paper. If they laws are changed they're changed. It doesn't matter how you go about changing them. So any talk of a "New Covenant" whilst the "Old Covenant" is still being used to support bigotry in the name of Jesus does not sit well with me. It just seems like Hypocrisy with a capital "H" to me. Just because they may contain some of the same laws does not mean they are using the laws from one another. As in just because the old covenant said not to do something and so does the new does not mean the new got that instruction from the old. Just merely has the law as well and holds power for it is also in the new. ======================== Jesus never spoke of homosexuality. Therefore that could not be considered to be part of his "New Covenant". It's a "Have your cake and eat it too" religion when it claims that Jesus represents a "New Covenant" yet it continues to use the "Old Covenant" to support judgmental bigotry against people as being 'sinners' based on laws from the Old Covenant. No it does not. The new covenant in particular tells us not to judge one another. And no one can profess you as a sinner in a negative way for we ALL sin everyday, we ALL fall short of the glory of God. =========================== No no. If you are claiming that ALL are sinners, they you are judging everyone. You're not supposed to judge, remember? Besides, Jesus was supposed to have said that he did not come for the Righteous, but only for the sick. Therefore, there is no reason for us to believe that ALL are sinners. So in other words, to accept it as a 'fulfilled covenant' doesn't change the fact that it was STILL a covenant that God supposedly had with men. I have difficultly in believing that an all-wise God would have ever had such a covenant with mankind at any point in history. And that is purely opinionated. Opinions hold no factual power. And you have not shown how it is not intelligent in any way. Just again merely opinionated statements, nothing substantial. Yes, it's my opinion. That's correct. And this one reason why I reject Bible as the word of God. I have many other reasons as well, but I'm sure you've already heard most of them and you have simply disagreed with those as well. So we disagree. As always. What's the problem? Who is it that's out to PROVE something? I'm saying that I don't believe the Bible represents the word of God. If you'd like to believe that it does then so be it. That's your freedom to believe whatever you like. But if you want to demand that I must also accept it as the word of God, then any PROOF that it is the word of God is on YOU, not me. I don't care whether you believe in the Bible or not. You're the one who seems to be obsessed with convincing me that it's the word of God. I'm quite happy believing that it isn't. Ok, my error. Here's one from the new testament ===================================== Romans 1:26-27 26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. ======================================== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, my error. Here's one from the new testament ===================================== Romans 1:26-27 26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. ======================================== Paul wrote Romans and I reject the writings of Paul because much of his writings are nothing more than dredging up stuff from the Old Testament and spewing it in the name of Jesus. In fact, I have a HUGE problem with the whole Paul thing as well. You expect me to believe that Jesus had such an important message from God. An entire NEW COVENANT with God to mankind instead of writing it down himself he leaves it to extremely questionable hearsay rumors written by mortal men (whom you claim are ALL sinners) I'm supposed to believe that is a WISE means of communication for an all-wise creator? Sorry, but surely even you can see that to write down his own message would be WISER. Thus leaving it to hearsay rumors is LESS WISE, so you're expecting me to believe that a ALL-WISE God does less than ALL-WISE things? Why? Is he lazy or something? Also, Jesus then needs to come back as a ghost and haunt Paul into finishing his "New Covenant" because he never even completed it himself when he was here? Sorry, but no sale. Sounds like an extremely poorly written mythology based on rumors and the hearsay delusions of mortal men to me. That's just my honest assessment. I'm trying to be HONEST here. Surely you'll agree that if there is a God, God would want me to be HONEST above all else. And I honestly see the biblical cannon as being utterly absurd. That's my sincere honest perception of it. I also honestly believe that my theory that the Old Testament is total mythology, Jesus was a misunderstood Jewish Buddhist, and that the New Testament is either delusional rumors or outright devious fraud, makes far more sense. That's as sincere as it gets. For me to pretend to believe otherwise would be insincere. Surely you're not suggesting that God would expect me to be insincere? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no proof that any god has commanded anything Only as much proof as we've been to space and or walked on the moon. Just documented evidence provided by someone else. Well, first off many scientist would argue with your claim here since moon rocks were brought back. Plus they actually left a mirror on the moon that scientists use daily to track the moon's precise distance from Earth. Moreover, isn't this line of argument rather lame? If you are suggesting that we have no more proof of our recent history than we do of ancient fables, then all you are doing is demanding that the Biblical fables have no more merit than Greek mythology, or fairy lore, or any other religious myths including the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I'll be the first to agree with you on that point.  All you are doing is suggesting that we have no proof for anything.  That hardly gives us any reason to believe in the Biblical fables. However I disagree with your reasoning here anyway. Having been educated in the scientists I am fully aware that it's not all just hearsay. You can actually go into the lab and perform the experiments yourself to be sure that what the scientists say is true. Moreover the Biblical fables are full of contradictions and absurdities there's no reason to believe them at all. But the results of science are apparent, I'm typing on one right now. Have we all seen flying machines? I think everyone has. Have people seen rockets launched? I don't know about you, but I have. Can we understand all of the technology that it would take to get to the moon? Again, I don't know about you, but I can. The only thing preventing me from building a rocket that could fly to the moon is lack of finance. Now, turn to the Bible. Does it make sense that a human was born of a virgin woman? No. Does it make sense that he rose from the dead? No. Does it make sense that he walked on water without special equipment, raised people from the dead, and cast demons out of people, etc. No, not really. In fact, has anyone ever actually seen a demon being cast out of someone? I haven't. So even if we have no 'proof', one claim (i.e that we went to the moon) is reasonable, whilst the other claim (that our creator is a male-chauvinistic pig who solves all his problems using truly crude, ignorant, and violent means) is not. So forget about 'proofs', just recognize what's reasonable and what isn't. No we don't have more evidence for other history or even the landing on the moon. I've got a rock I got from my trip to mars last weekend if you wish to see it. NO evidence is accountable less one is will to accept it as true. However I disagree with your reasoning here anyway. Having been educated in the scientists I am fully aware that it's not all just hearsay. You can actually go into the lab and perform the experiments yourself to be sure that what the scientists say is true. ALL scientific evidence is hearsay. Everything about Science is hearsay with your way of thinking. It's all given to us by word of mouth of someone else's discovery. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, my error. Here's one from the new testament ===================================== Romans 1:26-27 26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. ======================================== Paul wrote Romans and I reject the writings of Paul because much of his writings are nothing more than dredging up stuff from the Old Testament and spewing it in the name of Jesus. In fact, I have a HUGE problem with the whole Paul thing as well. You expect me to believe that Jesus had such an important message from God. An entire NEW COVENANT with God to mankind instead of writing it down himself he leaves it to extremely questionable hearsay rumors written by mortal men (whom you claim are ALL sinners) I'm supposed to believe that is a WISE means of communication for an all-wise creator? Sorry, but surely even you can see that to write down his own message would be WISER. Thus leaving it to hearsay rumors is LESS WISE, so you're expecting me to believe that a ALL-WISE God does less than ALL-WISE things? Why? Is he lazy or something? Also, Jesus then needs to come back as a ghost and haunt Paul into finishing his "New Covenant" because he never even completed it himself when he was here? Sorry, but no sale. Sounds like an extremely poorly written mythology based on rumors and the hearsay delusions of mortal men to me. That's just my honest assessment. I'm trying to be HONEST here. Surely you'll agree that if there is a God, God would want me to be HONEST above all else. And I honestly see the biblical cannon as being utterly absurd. That's my sincere honest perception of it. I also honestly believe that my theory that the Old Testament is total mythology, Jesus was a misunderstood Jewish Buddhist, and that the New Testament is either delusional rumors or outright devious fraud, makes far more sense. That's as sincere as it gets. For me to pretend to believe otherwise would be insincere. Surely you're not suggesting that God would expect me to be insincere? Well then why don't you reject all history? You have no absolute way to know any of it is what it is. You have no way of knowing for sure that any of it is factual. ALL history is hearsay rumours with your way of thinking my friend. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote:
The law is inside everyone of us. If people are 100% honest and sincere with themselves, they know what they are to do and what they are not to do if they truly sit and think about it. Ponder on the idea. People KNOW it's wrong to murder, without anyone telling them as such, if they truly sat down and thought about what they were doing. That is why some forms of punishment governments use is solitary. This allows the person a LOT of time to sit and think about what got him/her in this situation they are in. And the same applies to all sins not just the previously used example of murder. According to the quote above – there is no reason to have a written law for the law is written inside of every person. I’m not saying that makes the bible a useless tool, it is still a historical document and many of the parables are open ended enough to be useful guides for moral conduct, even in today’s society. But the New Covenant is a ‘spiritual law’ that can only be found in the heart. Not even the priesthood is necessary (Heb 7:11-12) Hebrews 7:11-12 (King James Version) 11If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. Notice in Galations – Paul explains the difference between the old law and the new covenant. The Old covenant included the 10 commandments and as Paul says “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” – meaning, that following the least of the law, like circumcision (v5) makes a man a debtor to do the whole law all the law of the old covenant, but Paul explains that doing so is to fall from grace because adhering to the old law means salvation through Jesus is ineffectual and the man has profited nothing through Christ’s sacrifice. Galatians 5 (King James Version) 1Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. 2Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. 9A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. 18But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. So far in these posts there is a lot of information about fulfilling the Old Covenant – and we know the New Covenant is supposed to be a spiritual law that works from within and not according to the letter of the law. But where in – exactly – is the New Covenant given and to whom? And what does it say? For your entertainment - A couple other examples that indicate the Old Covenant, in total – yes with 10 commandments is fulfilled and down away with. 2 Corinthians 3 (King James Version) 3Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. According to Paul in Romans 7:6-12 (King James Version) 6But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. 7What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. 8But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. 9For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 10And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. 11For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no proof that any god has commanded anything, or rather, i have no belief that any man`s writings have been told to him by any god Yes! Even the bible says that things which are made from man are corrupt..so how can I trust a book written by several men whom I know nothing about? I'd rather not. You could say it is all about faith..but tell me, is it more faithful to follow this man made book? Or to see the truth (nature) that surrounds you and find your own love for God? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: LoL. What do you think your conscience is? Your conscience is God speaking to you. EVERYTHING I said works together, no contradictions. No, you misunderstood me. Your conscience, that guilty feeling you have while doing something you aren't to do is God speaking to you. I said BOTH are equally important. Cause if you had just that guilty feeling you wouldn't know what you're feeling guilty for and or that you were even feeling that it was wrong. That is where the bible comes in, the bible tells us straight up what is right and what is wrong, and why we feel guilty for doing certain things. Previously you said [Our obedience is to the law, therefore he listened to his conscience to obey the law. When you realized you had misread you corrected your statement to include: This was NOT the works of the father, for God states plainly that homosexuality is sinful and we are not to do as such, so no he was not OBVIOUSLY doing the work of God. The man had not originally sinned according to the law you speak of, and was conflicted by what others told him the bible meant, he had prayed about the issue. In other words, as a believer and as sinless as anyone else, the spirit inside called him to pursue the path he took. You say it could not have been God because God can only enforce the law as it is written in the Bible. That means that God cannot work through a non-believer or anyone who does not obey the letter of the law in the bible. For if a person sins, his works - no matter how beneficial to others those works may be - are not of God and cannot be good. It sounds like God is trapped in a box called the bible! Do you REALLY believe that God is restricted as to how or to whom he can instruct or influence? Do you REALLY believe that God cannot do good works through a sinner, or a non-believer regardless of their adherence to the letter of the law? I am going to comment on several of your previous post and give you some answers here. In the Old Testament times God used to speak to people on what seemed like a daily basis.When I say God is speaking to them I am saying people actually heard God talking to them just like he was standing in front of them.God talked to Moses frequently especially when it came time for Moses to free the Jews from Egypt.There is many more times and many more people that God spoke to.In Judges in speaks of the victory of 300 Jews against 135,000 Midianites in a battle.God warning one family to flee Sodom and Gomorrah before it's destruction and many more. I do not believe God spoke to people anymore after the death of Jesus with the exception of the Angels telling Mary that Jesus was not there at the tomb.God would not interfere with anyones life anymore regarding any issues good or bad. Not much was written in the first 30 years of Jesus but we do know he observed and practiced Jewish laws set forth by God.He dressed as a Jew,observed the Sabbath,did not eat unclean animals,and frequently read the Torah in the synagogues.In Luke 4:16 it speaks of how Jesus read aloud the scroll of Isaiah in a synagogue.He then spoke to the masses about what those bible verses meant. In the last 3 years of Jesus all he did was travel from place to place talking to them about what the bible meant and what is expected to of them from God and performing miracles.He had a huge following.So many people followed him his disciples said they couldn't even count that high.Jesus often had to leave in the middle of the night so he didn't have these huge masses of people following him. You keep mentioning is it wrong for a unbeliever to be doing Gods word or a evil person doing Gods word.I don't know of any unbelievers or evil people out there preaching Gods word or doing Gods work.I really don't see how they would tell people they have to believe in Jesus when they don't believe themselves.It would seem very strange to hear a evil person or unbeliever doing that kind of work.If they were doing it they might as well believe it so they were saved. You mention the idea of is it wrong for a homosexual to be doing the works of God and is this person good or bad for doing so?I think it's a dangerous game of cat and mouse and nearly always you are going to be exposed for what you really are.Many people including many famous pastors have had their lives destroyed because they were such hypocrites doing the very things they spoke of not doing.The bible says your sins will always find you out. Ecclesiastes 12:14 For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil. Luke 8:17 “For nothing is hidden that will not become evident, nor anything secret that will not be known and come to light. Jesus had it exactly right when he said "Pray for you enemies".It is much better for a evil and wicked person to be a born again Christian and give testimony to people because it holds so much more substance than a Christian who was just born into a Christian family.The key to Christianity is not wishing all your enemies drop dead.The key is for them to convert,have a change of heart,and have them on your side.What a powerful and great ally it would be if people like the prime minister of China became a reborn Christian.Or many of those famous movie stars and musicians. It's the same with the homosexuals out there.Christian churches want the homosexuals to come there to repent,change their lifestyle,and be born again.A church has a lot of firepower when you have ex homosexuals,ex Atheist,ex Muslims,ex drunks and murders,and all the others all saying that Jesus is the reason they had a change of heart.No other religion comes close to having the diverse followers as Christianity has as it will take anyone. For your final question...Do I believe that Jesus can do works through non believers?The answer in no I don't.God gave everyone free will to live their life anyway they want to.That includes God not making them do anything for any reason.God can't take a non believer and do works because... 1.)He doesn't know them. 2.)It would be taking away their free will which God has promised. Can a non believer seek the bible and Jesus and do great things?Of course.Believe it or not there is thousands of people who go to church ever Sunday and have for 20 years and still have not accepted Jesus.They actually follow the bible and do what the bible says but for some reason will not accept Jesus. This topic reminds of a friend I used to have who was not a Atheist but acted just like a Christian.After many years and many talks about Christianity I said "Your living a life better than most Christians out there.Your life will be the same in nearly all aspects except you will be promised heaven and eternal life".She thought that was a very good logic and decided being a Christian would only improve her life which it did. But the most important thing to remember is that if you do not accept Jesus it won't matter what you did in this life for God or Jesus.You will still go to Hell and you will still burn.It don't matter if you saved the entire nation of China.Your name is not written in the book of life and you did not accept the most important and crucial thing God asks of you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here, it seems clear, that God does not intend for ANYONE to teach others about Him by teaching LAWs in the old way of the old covenant, they did no good ELSE why would they need to be ‘fulfilled’ and replaced with the new covenant (the new law) to be inside of every man, written in his heart? How else could God forgive iniquity & forget sinful behavior unless the New Covenant could be found INSIDE (with) every man??? Cowboy continues a reply to the end quote (above) of a previous post The laws of the old covenant and the laws of the new covenanet are pretty much the same. The only real big difference between the two is when we will be judged. We've always been judged by the word, old and new testament. Just in the new testament is when the word was made flesh and dwelt with us, eg., Jesus. So now the word can carry out the punishment of disobediance on it's own and doesn't need us to do it like it was in the old testament. Here's some of the 10 commandments in the new testament, I can find all if needed. In Matthew 22, Christ summarized the first four commandments, saying, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment” (vs. 37-38). Centuries later, Christ said that anyone who wants to enter eternal life must keep these same commandments: “You shall do no murder [Sixth Commandment], You shall not commit adultery [Seventh Commandment], You shall not steal [Eighth Commandment], You shall not bear false witness [Ninth Commandment], Honor your father and your mother [Fifth Commandment]” (Matt. 19:18-19). Christ summarized these as “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” the second greatest commandment (Matt. 22:39). You are assuming that the birth of Jesus fulfilled all of the Old covenant, but that is not the case. In fact the Old Covenant could not be fulfilled and the New covenant replacing it until Jesus had been sacrificed and risen. This means that Jesus was born a Jew beholding to ALL the Law of the Old covenant, and he taught ALL the Law of the Old covenant, for it remained in tact until fulfillment of that law was complete. Therefore, what you claim to be a part of the New covenant is only the old one being taught and adhered to. It was necessary for Jesus to adhere to the OLD LAW in order to be a model of behavior for the New covenant that was to be written in the heart of man and not in a book. It was necessary that people understood WHAT the old law was, what it meant, and WHY IT was insufficient for salvation. Without that understanding the greatness of his sacrifice could not be recognized for what it was meant to accomplish. Where in the bible is the New covenant revealed and to whom – do you know? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: Where is the bad thing about Christianity? It's the epitome of religious bigotry. You claim that it's all about loving others. Well, if you truly love others then respect them for what they believe. Otherwise your concept of "love" is a false concept. It doesn't matter what belief one has, the colour of their skin, their height, their weight, or any other attribute, Christians LOVE all, treat all with the same respect, would care for all the same. There is no discrimination in the love of Christianity. Oh but they don't. "Christians" do not treat gay couples with the same respect that they give to heterosexual couples. So you're living a lie if you think that Christians treat everyone the same. They also don't respect other people's religions and spiritual views the same as they view their own. If I tell you that I worship God through the Goddess Cerridwen and other spiritual archetypes, do you fully respect that with the same love and respect you'd give to someone who claims to worship God through Jesus? If not, then you're in extremely denial of your bigotry and I hold that you are a hypocrite. If so, then what's your problem with me and my views? All I'm saying is that I believe the Old Testament is totally false mythology, Jesus was a Buddhist, and the New Testament was gossip. That's my BELIEF. Do you respect my beliefs the same as you respect the beliefs of your follow Christians? Or do you hold religious bigotry against me?  Because that seems to be our only point of disagreement. Show me the respect you're talking about and I'll believe you. Until then you're just blowing hot air. You are continually searching coming up with every god imaginable beside the True and Living One. You are free to believe what you will. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no proof that any god has commanded anything, or rather, i have no belief that any man`s writings have been told to him by any god Yes! Even the bible says that things which are made from man are corrupt..so how can I trust a book written by several men whom I know nothing about? I'd rather not. You could say it is all about faith..but tell me, is it more faithful to follow this man made book? Or to see the truth (nature) that surrounds you and find your own love for God? What book holds more truth.A book written by someone who said this is true because I wrote it and said so.Or several people writing a book about this person who said it was true because they saw it?It would be like going to court and saying I am not guilty because I say so.You have witness who saw and heard these things and that makes it more factual then someone just saying it's true because I say it is. If God wrote the bible and just gave it to man people would say anyone could have written it and claimed God gave it to them.But the fact you have all these people who wrote the bible at different times in history living in different places in the world who all seem to say the same story is not only incredible it's almost a miracle.It only gives the bible much more credibility since the bible wasn't written in one room with all the disciples present immediately after Jesus's death. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no proof that any god has commanded anything, or rather, i have no belief that any man`s writings have been told to him by any god Yes! Even the bible says that things which are made from man are corrupt..so how can I trust a book written by several men whom I know nothing about? I'd rather not. You could say it is all about faith..but tell me, is it more faithful to follow this man made book? Or to see the truth (nature) that surrounds you and find your own love for God? lol...you trust the Bible just enough to cling to that quote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: Where is the bad thing about Christianity? It's the epitome of religious bigotry. You claim that it's all about loving others. Well, if you truly love others then respect them for what they believe. Otherwise your concept of "love" is a false concept. Ab, do you love others? I love others as I love myself. Just as Jesus had suggested people should. I'm in agreement with him on this point. This is the wisdom of the Eastern Mystics as well. And just how is this love of yours exhibited? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here, it seems clear, that God does not intend for ANYONE to teach others about Him by teaching LAWs in the old way of the old covenant, they did no good ELSE why would they need to be ‘fulfilled’ and replaced with the new covenant (the new law) to be inside of every man, written in his heart? How else could God forgive iniquity & forget sinful behavior unless the New Covenant could be found INSIDE (with) every man??? Cowboy continues a reply to the end quote (above) of a previous post The laws of the old covenant and the laws of the new covenanet are pretty much the same. The only real big difference between the two is when we will be judged. We've always been judged by the word, old and new testament. Just in the new testament is when the word was made flesh and dwelt with us, eg., Jesus. So now the word can carry out the punishment of disobediance on it's own and doesn't need us to do it like it was in the old testament. Here's some of the 10 commandments in the new testament, I can find all if needed. In Matthew 22, Christ summarized the first four commandments, saying, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment” (vs. 37-38). Centuries later, Christ said that anyone who wants to enter eternal life must keep these same commandments: “You shall do no murder [Sixth Commandment], You shall not commit adultery [Seventh Commandment], You shall not steal [Eighth Commandment], You shall not bear false witness [Ninth Commandment], Honor your father and your mother [Fifth Commandment]” (Matt. 19:18-19). Christ summarized these as “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” the second greatest commandment (Matt. 22:39). You are assuming that the birth of Jesus fulfilled all of the Old covenant, but that is not the case. In fact the Old Covenant could not be fulfilled and the New covenant replacing it until Jesus had been sacrificed and risen. This means that Jesus was born a Jew beholding to ALL the Law of the Old covenant, and he taught ALL the Law of the Old covenant, for it remained in tact until fulfillment of that law was complete. Therefore, what you claim to be a part of the New covenant is only the old one being taught and adhered to. It was necessary for Jesus to adhere to the OLD LAW in order to be a model of behavior for the New covenant that was to be written in the heart of man and not in a book. It was necessary that people understood WHAT the old law was, what it meant, and WHY IT was insufficient for salvation. Without that understanding the greatness of his sacrifice could not be recognized for what it was meant to accomplish. Where in the bible is the New covenant revealed and to whom – do you know? The New covenant is revealed to everyone who reads about the death of Jesus and believes his is the son of God and accepts him as their Saviour.Because with out the belief in Jesus you are either a Jew still practicing the Old covenant,or a non believer who is not forgiven of his or her sins and who is not know by God. Many people ask "God had his temple in Jerusalem but where is Jesus's temple"?The answer is Jesus's temple is in his believers.We are his temple. The New covenant is a gift from God to make our lives easier,with more freedom,and to fulfill Old testament prophecy.God wanted to put a end to death by sin which he was never happy about.He didn't want death by law.He wanted repentance and forgiveness. You should also remember that despite the punishment for death for many of those Old testament laws Jews frequently broke them and did not suffer any punishment simply because many of the high priests who could give you the death sentence did not live in those towns or have a church there.You could also repentant of your sins to God and the people and promise to redeem yourself which has always been Gods preferred way.This would almost always spare your life from any death sentence regardless of what you were accused of. |
|
|
|
|
