100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Making judgments vs. judging people | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
We make judgments about people we see and meet, but is that the same as judging them? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We make judgments about people we see and meet, but is that the same as judging them? the million dollar question....lol along with 'if you believe in the 'races' and aknowledge the social impact of race,,,are you racist?' |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Thu 03/10/11 05:31 PM
|
|
We make judgments about people we see and meet, but is that the same as judging them? As your question stands I would have to say 'yes'. But that's only because you're question is not detailed enough. If you had instead asked: "We make non-moral judgments about people we see and meet, but is that the same as morally judging them?" Then obviously the answer is no. For example, if you see someone who behaves in a way that you don't care to be associated with, and you "judge" them to be someone that you'd prefer not to be around. Have you passed any moral judgment on them? I don't think so. You've simply made an "assessment" that you'd personally not like to be associated with them. No moral judgment was required. Of course, if you are judging their behavior to be "immoral", then perhaps you are passing moral judgment on them. However, in in that case it doesn't necessarily need to be true. Maybe you can feel that their action was not necessarily on purpose. Maybe you allow that they are mentally ill, or acting out of some sort of uncontrollable frustration or fear. In that case you could judge their action to be "immoral" without necessarily judging them to be an immoral person. I have a hard time judging anyone to actually be 'immoral' and the reason being that if they are doing something that I feel is that immoral I probably also give them the benefit of the doubt of being insane and therefore not even responsible for their immoral act. Acquittal by insanity.  It's pretty rare that I actually judge a person to truly be an immoral person. They really need to show me that they are fully aware that they know that what they are doing is wrong and they are bent on doing it anyway with absolute premeditated desire to commit the immoral act. And even then I need to believe that they KNOW that what they are about to do is indeed "immoral". If they don't, then doesn't that go right back to acquittal by insanity? Or at least acquittal by utter stupidity? I personally have a hard time imagining a sane intelligent person doing an immoral act knowingly and purposefully. Thus I would have extreme difficulty in finding any guilty of being an immoral person. I would be more likely to proclaim them to be simply insane.  Or just pathetically stupid and misguided. If I were a judgmental God, everyone would be given the benefit of the doubt right now to the very last straw. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Thu 03/10/11 07:22 PM
|
|
We make judgments about people we see and meet, but is that the same as judging them? Making an opinion of someone and making a judgment are two totally different things. A judgment has a verdict and a punishment if the verdict is not positive. Someone goes before court for a crime, if they are JUDGED and found guilty of this crime, they are sent to prison and or many other possible punishments. That's a judgment, that's not just the judge not liking the person. We aren't to make judgments cause then that would make us superior to the person being judged. That would mean what they have done is worse then what you have done and or that you have done nothing. Cause if it didn't say that, then what would give you the right to judge the other person? Are your morals greater then someone else? Are you greater then another? No, neither of those are or would be true. That is why we are not to make a judgment and or persecute people for what they have done. For what we have done in our lives is not any better. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We make judgments about people we see and meet, but is that the same as judging them? Making an opinion of someone and making a judgment are two totally different things. A judgment has a verdict and a punishment if the verdict is not positive. Someone goes before court for a crime, if they are JUDGED and found guilty of this crime, they are sent to prison and or many other possible punishments. That's a judgment, that's not just the judge not liking the person. We aren't to make judgments cause then that would make us superior to the person being judged. That would mean what they have done is worse then what you have done and or that you have done nothing. Cause if it didn't say that, then what would give you the right to judge the other person? Are your morals greater then someone else? Are you greater then another? No, neither of those are or would be true. That is why we are not to make a judgment and or persecute people for what they have done. For what we have done in our lives is not any better. I personally feel that the main reason Jesus had to teach people not to judge others is because the people he was speaking to had already been taught to judge others by the God of the Old Testament. So he had to counter-act that bogus religious myth. After all, the things that Jesus was teaching were in total opposition to the things that had been taught in the Old Testament. He was in an extreme uphill battle preaching against the ways of the Torah and the God of Abraham. The ways of Jesus were in complete opposition to all of that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We make judgments about people we see and meet, but is that the same as judging them? Making an opinion of someone and making a judgment are two totally different things. A judgment has a verdict and a punishment if the verdict is not positive. Someone goes before court for a crime, if they are JUDGED and found guilty of this crime, they are sent to prison and or many other possible punishments. That's a judgment, that's not just the judge not liking the person. We aren't to make judgments cause then that would make us superior to the person being judged. That would mean what they have done is worse then what you have done and or that you have done nothing. Cause if it didn't say that, then what would give you the right to judge the other person? Are your morals greater then someone else? Are you greater then another? No, neither of those are or would be true. That is why we are not to make a judgment and or persecute people for what they have done. For what we have done in our lives is not any better. I personally feel that the main reason Jesus had to teach people not to judge others is because the people he was speaking to had already been taught to judge others by the God of the Old Testament. So he had to counter-act that bogus religious myth. After all, the things that Jesus was teaching were in total opposition to the things that had been taught in the Old Testament. He was in an extreme uphill battle preaching against the ways of the Torah and the God of Abraham. The ways of Jesus were in complete opposition to all of that. Matthew 5:17 17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. So yes Jesus' teachings and the old law(s) were totally different, they are totally different laws. The old one he fulfilled. And in the new law given, we are not to judge others. Simple as that, nothing about any bodus religious myth or anything. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew 5:17 17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. So yes Jesus' teachings and the old law(s) were totally different, they are totally different laws. The old one he fulfilled. And in the new law given, we are not to judge others. Simple as that, nothing about any bodus religious myth or anything. That's your view obviously. My view is quite simple. The Bible is filled with contradictions and inconsistencies and this is just another one. It claims here that Jesus did not come to destroy the law, but clearly he does. So it's just another inconsistency in the stories is all. Nothing new there as far as I can see. These stories are riddled with inconsistencies and conflicting statements all the way through. If Jesus was going to change the laws he should have just said so. Why lie about what he was planning on doing? I don't trust Matthew to speak the verbatim words for Jesus anyway. I personally believe that if Jesus truly was a special only begotten son of an all-wise all-powerful God sent to deliver a message to all of mankind, then Jesus would have written it all down himself in his very own words rather than leaving it up to a bunch of belated hearsay rumors. So I see no reason to put any trust in any of this stuff. Besides, these same authors all agree that Jesus said that everything he prophcised would come to pass before their current generation ended. Matt.24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Mark.13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. Luke.21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Moreover, nowhere, even in the gospels do any of these authors claim that Jesus told anyone to write anything down for future generations. If Jesus was the only begotten son of an all-wise God, surely Jesus himself would have written down the message that he was to deliver to mankind. All we have is confused and often conflicting hearsay rumors. The idea that Jesus was a misunderstood Jewish Buddhist who actually rejected the horrible morals that had been given in the Old Testament makes far more sense to me.  That's fits what Jesus actually taught far better than anything else. And many Jews at that time did indeed have a mystical and pantheistic view of "God", so this would not be uncommon for Jesus to also hold a pantheistic view of God as well. After all, isn't the biblical "God" supposed to be omnipresent and omniscient? That certainly fits a pantheistic view of God. God is everywhere and in everything. That's as pantheistic as it gets. The view that you seem to be peddling requires an egoistical Zeus-like Godhead. A "fatherly" image of a God who will somehow condemn some of his individual and separate "Children" and never allow the few that he 'saves' to ever mature into Gods themselves. He keep them forever immature for all of eternity, because if he ever allows them to mature into Gods in their own right, then there would be more than one God, and that's a bit no-no in Christianity. The the "father/child" analogy breaks down. It would need to be an eternal master/slave analogy instead. And that's not very pretty. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Thu 03/10/11 08:54 PM
|
|
Matthew 5:17 17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. So yes Jesus' teachings and the old law(s) were totally different, they are totally different laws. The old one he fulfilled. And in the new law given, we are not to judge others. Simple as that, nothing about any bodus religious myth or anything. That's your view obviously. My view is quite simple. The Bible is filled with contradictions and inconsistencies and this is just another one. It claims here that Jesus did not come to destroy the law, but clearly he does. So it's just another inconsistency in the stories is all. Nothing new there as far as I can see. These stories are riddled with inconsistencies and conflicting statements all the way through. If Jesus was going to change the laws he should have just said so. Why lie about what he was planning on doing? I don't trust Matthew to speak the verbatim words for Jesus anyway. I personally believe that if Jesus truly was a special only begotten son of an all-wise all-powerful God sent to deliver a message to all of mankind, then Jesus would have written it all down himself in his very own words rather than leaving it up to a bunch of belated hearsay rumors. So I see no reason to put any trust in any of this stuff. Besides, these same authors all agree that Jesus said that everything he prophcised would come to pass before their current generation ended. Matt.24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Mark.13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. Luke.21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Moreover, nowhere, even in the gospels do any of these authors claim that Jesus told anyone to write anything down for future generations. If Jesus was the only begotten son of an all-wise God, surely Jesus himself would have written down the message that he was to deliver to mankind. All we have is confused and often conflicting hearsay rumors. The idea that Jesus was a misunderstood Jewish Buddhist who actually rejected the horrible morals that had been given in the Old Testament makes far more sense to me. That's fits what Jesus actually taught far better than anything else. And many Jews at that time did indeed have a mystical and pantheistic view of "God", so this would not be uncommon for Jesus to also hold a pantheistic view of God as well. After all, isn't the biblical "God" supposed to be omnipresent and omniscient? That certainly fits a pantheistic view of God. God is everywhere and in everything. That's as pantheistic as it gets. The view that you seem to be peddling requires an egoistical Zeus-like Godhead. A "fatherly" image of a God who will somehow condemn some of his individual and separate "Children" and never allow the few that he 'saves' to ever mature into Gods themselves. He keep them forever immature for all of eternity, because if he ever allows them to mature into Gods in their own right, then there would be more than one God, and that's a bit no-no in Christianity. The the "father/child" analogy breaks down. It would need to be an eternal master/slave analogy instead. And that's not very pretty. It claims here that Jesus did not come to destroy the law, but clearly he does. So it's just another inconsistency in the stories is all. Nothing new there as far as I can see. These stories are riddled with inconsistencies and conflicting statements all the way through. Jesus CHANGED nothing. Jesus fulfilled, completed, finished the old law. All prophecies were fulfilled. And is why we were given a new law and new prophecies. When all prophecies are fulfilled from the new testament, he will return. Matt.24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Mark.13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. Luke.21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Moreover, nowhere, even in the gospels do any of these authors claim that Jesus told anyone to write anything down for future generations. We are still in the same generation. In generation here we're not talking about mom/dad to the child. We're talking about fulfilment of prophecies. Not all prophecies have been fulfilled, therefore we're still in the same generation. This Hebrew word is used 167 times in the Hebrew Bible and usually translated as "generation". While the Hebrew word דור and the English word "generation" are similar in meaning, it is important to understand the differences in order to have a clearer picture of the authors understanding of the word which may impact how the passage is understood. A generation is time from one birth to the birth of the next generation. While the word דור has the same meaning, there are differences. In our Greco-Roman culture we see time as a line with a beginning and an end while the Eastern mind sees time as a continuous circle. While we may see a generation as a time line with a beginning and an end, the Hebrews saw a generation as one circle with the next generation as a continuation of the circle. There is no beginning and no end. The word דור is a child root derived from the parent root דר (meaning generation in Aramaic). In the ancient pictographic script this word is written as daletresh. The dalet is a picture of a tent door and has the meaning of an in and out or back and forth movement. The resh is the head of a man meaning man. When combined these mean "the movement of man", a generation is the movement through the circle of one man while the next generation is the movement of man through the following circle. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jesus CHANGED nothing. Jesus fulfilled, completed, finished the old law. All prophecies were fulfilled. And is why we were given a new law and new prophecies. When all prophecies are fulfilled from the new testament, he will return. Like Jeanniebean asked. Where is he now? I thought you said he lived within us? You're all over the board my friend. And if you truly believe that Jesus CHANGED NOTHING, try tossing out the New Testament and abiding by the rules of just the Old Testament. I think you'll quickly discover that Jesus CHANGED a LOT! So as far as I can see the claims you make aren't anymore consistent than the contradictions in the stories you get them from. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jesus CHANGED nothing. Jesus fulfilled, completed, finished the old law. All prophecies were fulfilled. And is why we were given a new law and new prophecies. When all prophecies are fulfilled from the new testament, he will return. Like Jeanniebean asked. Where is he now? I thought you said he lived within us? You're all over the board my friend. And if you truly believe that Jesus CHANGED NOTHING, try tossing out the New Testament and abiding by the rules of just the Old Testament. I think you'll quickly discover that Jesus CHANGED a LOT! So as far as I can see the claims you make aren't anymore consistent than the contradictions in the stories you get them from. Jesus "changed" nothing. The laws of the old testament and the laws of the new testament are two totally different sets of laws. Both hold powers till their prophecies are fulfilled. Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the old testament. Thus it then has no more power cause it had been fulfilled. And he gave us a new set of laws. And those laws hold power till all prophecies are fulfilled. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: Jesus "changed" nothing. The laws of the old testament and the laws of the new testament are two totally different sets of laws. Both hold powers till their prophecies are fulfilled. Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the old testament. Thus it then has no more power cause it had been fulfilled. And he gave us a new set of laws. And those laws hold power till all prophecies are fulfilled. I'm sorry but you're not making any sense. If the Old Testament contained the laws of God. And Jesus brought New Laws from God. Then the LAWS OF GOD CHANGED. You can talk about things having been "fulfilled" until you are blue in the face. The bottom line is that you are asking me to believe that an unchanging God CHANGED his laws. God's LAWS were CHANGED. That is a blatant contradiction to the premise of these stories that God never changes and is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. On minute this God wants us to kill heathens, seek revenge as in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and judge our brothers to be sinners, and stone our sinning brothers and sisters to death! Then the next minute he CHANGES his mind and wants us to forgive our enemies, turn the other cheek, not judge others, and stop stoning sinners to death. That's a WHOLESALE CHANGE OF PERSONALITY for a supposedly UNCHANGING God to have undergone. It makes no sense within the premises of these stories. However, allow that Jesus was a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva and it makes PERFECT SENSE. Absolute PERFECT SENSE. So your continual screaming that the New Testament does not represent a CHANGE from the laws of the Old Testament simply has no merit. It's an EXTREME CHANGE. And my scenario explains that change perfectly. Jesus was a Jewish Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva and he was teaching the moral values of Buddhism and this is precisely why everything he taught flies in the face of what had been previously taught as the "word of God" in the Old Testament. In order for your views to work, the biblical God would need to have undergone a MASSIVE PERSONALITY CHANGE in what he expects from mankind in terms of behavior. My explanation works without a hitch. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: Jesus "changed" nothing. The laws of the old testament and the laws of the new testament are two totally different sets of laws. Both hold powers till their prophecies are fulfilled. Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the old testament. Thus it then has no more power cause it had been fulfilled. And he gave us a new set of laws. And those laws hold power till all prophecies are fulfilled. I'm sorry but you're not making any sense. If the Old Testament contained the laws of God. And Jesus brought New Laws from God. Then the LAWS OF GOD CHANGED. You can talk about things having been "fulfilled" until you are blue in the face. The bottom line is that you are asking me to believe that an unchanging God CHANGED his laws. God's LAWS were CHANGED. That is a blatant contradiction to the premise of these stories that God never changes and is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. On minute this God wants us to kill heathens, seek revenge as in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and judge our brothers to be sinners, and stone our sinning brothers and sisters to death! Then the next minute he CHANGES his mind and wants us to forgive our enemies, turn the other cheek, not judge others, and stop stoning sinners to death. That's a WHOLESALE CHANGE OF PERSONALITY for a supposedly UNCHANGING God to have undergone. It makes no sense within the premises of these stories. However, allow that Jesus was a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva and it makes PERFECT SENSE. Absolute PERFECT SENSE. So your continual screaming that the New Testament does not represent a CHANGE from the laws of the Old Testament simply has no merit. It's an EXTREME CHANGE. And my scenario explains that change perfectly. Jesus was a Jewish Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva and he was teaching the moral values of Buddhism and this is precisely why everything he taught flies in the face of what had been previously taught as the "word of God" in the Old Testament. In order for your views to work, the biblical God would need to have undergone a MASSIVE PERSONALITY CHANGE in what he expects from mankind in terms of behavior. My explanation works without a hitch. Then the LAWS OF GOD CHANGED. You can talk about things having been "fulfilled" until you are blue in the face. The bottom line is that you are asking me to believe that an unchanging God CHANGED his laws. God's LAWS were CHANGED. No it's not changing anything. They are two totally different sets of laws. The laws only hold power for a certain amount of time. Jesus fulfilled, completed, ended the old laws. They are done with, finished, hold no more power. Jesus then gives us a new set of laws. They are again two totally different sets of laws. Not amending to one, not changing, not altering. Again, totally completed one set of laws. And in turn he gave us a new set of laws. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: No it's not changing anything. They are two totally different sets of laws. The laws only hold power for a certain amount of time. Jesus fulfilled, completed, ended the old laws. They are done with, finished, hold no more power. Jesus then gives us a new set of laws. They are again two totally different sets of laws. Not amending to one, not changing, not altering. Again, totally completed one set of laws. And in turn he gave us a new set of laws. With all due respect Cowboy you're not making any sense at all. If there is only ONE God, and the Old Testament was God's Laws, and the New Testament did away with those previous laws and offered a NEW set of Laws, then GOD's LAWS WERE CHANGED! Your claim about things having been done and finished with and holding no more power is nothing more than meaningless semantic mumbo jumbo on your part. The bottom line is that the creator of humanity would have had to have CHANGE HIS LAWS and his EXPECTATIONS of mankind's behavior in order for your religion to be true. But your religion also holds out the premise that this God is DEPENDABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY, and that requires that he can be depended upon not to be radically changing his in his character and in his directives and commandments in what he expects from us. You religion fails miserably to uphold its very own deepest most important premise. You religion has God CHANGING HIS PERSONALITY DRAMATICALLY. Like I say, my conclusions concerning who Jesus was solves all these problems completely without a hitch. So, I have a theory that actually WORKS, whilst your theory does not work, it contains extreme contradictions and violations of the very premise of what this God is supposed to be like. (i.e. UNCHANGING) So these Hebrew stories totally break down at that point. Of course, IMHO, they broke down so many times within the Old Testament already that there's really no reason to even bother considering their "New Testament". If Jesus existed at all, he was most likely a misunderstood Jewish Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva. That conclusion had no problems at all and answers all problems completely. So is we apply Occam's Razor here it works twice. First, Occam's Razor says that if you have two "working" theories then the simplest theory that explains everything is all you need. Well, gee, your theory isn't even a "working" theory because it gives rise to more paradoxes and contradictions and doesn't solve anything. My theory answers all questions, and solves all problems without a hitch, plus, my theory is also clearly simpler. Jesus was just a mortal man who taught the moral values of Buddhism and rejected the absurdities of the Torah. My theory WORKS and it's simple. Easy to understand and makes perfect sense. You theory fails twice over. First it doesn't even work because it requires that an unchanging God changes his rules, and that flies in the face of the very premise your religion is built upon in the first place. And secondly your theory is extremely complex and requires a belief in extremely unlikely miracles and events to have taken place. Such as a virgin birth, and the voice of God speaking from the sky, and a multitude of saints being jostled from their graves and entering a city to show themselves to the people there, yet there is no independent historical record of any such events. So Jesus as a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva wins by a landslide, IMHO. There's just not contest here worth considering. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As an example, you cannot take a verse and read it out of context. For example:
"Matt.24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." If we look at one or two verses without reading the whole passage, it is misleading, and also illogical. You would not do this with other types of literature, would you? Usually, people do this when they are trying to show inconsistencies. And what you are quoting is from the PARABLE of the fig tree, which is a story used to have a meaning for the people of the day. Here's the WHOLE passage: “Now learn this PARABLE from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. So you also, when you see all these things, know that it[d] is near—at the doors! Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away." What things was Jesus talking about? Jesus was talking about the fact that He is the Christ and His time was near. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As an example, you cannot take a verse and read it out of context. For example: "Matt.24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." If we look at one or two verses without reading the whole passage, it is misleading, and also illogical. You would not do this with other types of literature, would you? Usually, people do this when they are trying to show inconsistencies. And what you are quoting is from the PARABLE of the fig tree, which is a story used to have a meaning for the people of the day. Here's the WHOLE passage: “Now learn this PARABLE from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. So you also, when you see all these things, know that it[d] is near—at the doors! Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away." What things was Jesus talking about? Jesus was talking about the fact that He is the Christ and His time was near. A sentence should in itself have meaning in or out of context. A statement of truth should also. First sentence: “Now learn this PARABLE from the fig tree: (referring to the next sentence:) Sentence two: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. Interpretation: When you start to see new buds or new leaves on a tree, it means that summer is near. Sentence three: So you also, when you see all these things, know that it[d] is near—at the doors! ("these things" is referring to something previously said, not mentioned here. Probably some sort of signs. Sentence four: Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. ("These things" meaning these predictions, prophecies, signs or what ever that was mentioned in previous text not included in this post. ..this generation will by no means pass away... means that you people whom I am speaking to right now, will not pass away (This generation) .. before all of these things will happen. (What ever they were)...I don't know as you did not include them. Sentence five: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away." That is open to interpretation. It does not seem to fit in with the context of what is being said. That is my interpretation of what you posted. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeanniebean, if you were here right now, I would give you a hug. You are missing the good news. THAT is the whole point. Jesus died for us, and went to Hell for us, so we wouldn't have to. Now, when we die, we relocate to a better place.
That is what Jesus was referring to. He paid the price for YOU. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 03/11/11 12:10 PM
|
|
Jeanniebean, if you were here right now, I would give you a hug. You are missing the good news. THAT is the whole point. Jesus died for us, and went to Hell for us, so we wouldn't have to. Now, when we die, we relocate to a better place. That is what Jesus was referring to. He paid the price for YOU. The text above says nothing of the sort. Is that honestly what you got out of it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: No it's not changing anything. They are two totally different sets of laws. The laws only hold power for a certain amount of time. Jesus fulfilled, completed, ended the old laws. They are done with, finished, hold no more power. Jesus then gives us a new set of laws. They are again two totally different sets of laws. Not amending to one, not changing, not altering. Again, totally completed one set of laws. And in turn he gave us a new set of laws. With all due respect Cowboy you're not making any sense at all. If there is only ONE God, and the Old Testament was God's Laws, and the New Testament did away with those previous laws and offered a NEW set of Laws, then GOD's LAWS WERE CHANGED! Your claim about things having been done and finished with and holding no more power is nothing more than meaningless semantic mumbo jumbo on your part. The bottom line is that the creator of humanity would have had to have CHANGE HIS LAWS and his EXPECTATIONS of mankind's behavior in order for your religion to be true. But your religion also holds out the premise that this God is DEPENDABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY, and that requires that he can be depended upon not to be radically changing his in his character and in his directives and commandments in what he expects from us. You religion fails miserably to uphold its very own deepest most important premise. You religion has God CHANGING HIS PERSONALITY DRAMATICALLY. Like I say, my conclusions concerning who Jesus was solves all these problems completely without a hitch. So, I have a theory that actually WORKS, whilst your theory does not work, it contains extreme contradictions and violations of the very premise of what this God is supposed to be like. (i.e. UNCHANGING) So these Hebrew stories totally break down at that point. Of course, IMHO, they broke down so many times within the Old Testament already that there's really no reason to even bother considering their "New Testament". If Jesus existed at all, he was most likely a misunderstood Jewish Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva. That conclusion had no problems at all and answers all problems completely. So is we apply Occam's Razor here it works twice. First, Occam's Razor says that if you have two "working" theories then the simplest theory that explains everything is all you need. Well, gee, your theory isn't even a "working" theory because it gives rise to more paradoxes and contradictions and doesn't solve anything. My theory answers all questions, and solves all problems without a hitch, plus, my theory is also clearly simpler. Jesus was just a mortal man who taught the moral values of Buddhism and rejected the absurdities of the Torah. My theory WORKS and it's simple. Easy to understand and makes perfect sense. You theory fails twice over. First it doesn't even work because it requires that an unchanging God changes his rules, and that flies in the face of the very premise your religion is built upon in the first place. And secondly your theory is extremely complex and requires a belief in extremely unlikely miracles and events to have taken place. Such as a virgin birth, and the voice of God speaking from the sky, and a multitude of saints being jostled from their graves and entering a city to show themselves to the people there, yet there is no independent historical record of any such events. So Jesus as a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva wins by a landslide, IMHO. There's just not contest here worth considering. If there is only ONE God, and the Old Testament was God's Laws, and the New Testament did away with those previous laws and offered a NEW set of Laws, then GOD's LAWS WERE CHANGED! Your claim about things having been done and finished with and holding no more power is nothing more than meaningless semantic mumbo jumbo on your part. The bottom line is that the creator of humanity would have had to have CHANGE HIS LAWS and his EXPECTATIONS of mankind's behavior in order for your religion to be true. But your religion also holds out the premise that this God is DEPENDABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY, and that requires that he can be depended upon not to be radically changing his in his character and in his directives and commandments in what he expects from us. God did not change his mind. There are prophecies in the old testament of this happening. This is all part of God's plan. The forthcoming of the new laws "testament" was prophesied about in the old testament. So if God spoke of this, how is exactly that he changed his mind when all along it was all part of his plan and followed exactly as he told us? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: No it's not changing anything. They are two totally different sets of laws. The laws only hold power for a certain amount of time. Jesus fulfilled, completed, ended the old laws. They are done with, finished, hold no more power. Jesus then gives us a new set of laws. They are again two totally different sets of laws. Not amending to one, not changing, not altering. Again, totally completed one set of laws. And in turn he gave us a new set of laws. With all due respect Cowboy you're not making any sense at all. If there is only ONE God, and the Old Testament was God's Laws, and the New Testament did away with those previous laws and offered a NEW set of Laws, then GOD's LAWS WERE CHANGED! Your claim about things having been done and finished with and holding no more power is nothing more than meaningless semantic mumbo jumbo on your part. The bottom line is that the creator of humanity would have had to have CHANGE HIS LAWS and his EXPECTATIONS of mankind's behavior in order for your religion to be true. But your religion also holds out the premise that this God is DEPENDABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY, and that requires that he can be depended upon not to be radically changing his in his character and in his directives and commandments in what he expects from us. You religion fails miserably to uphold its very own deepest most important premise. You religion has God CHANGING HIS PERSONALITY DRAMATICALLY. Like I say, my conclusions concerning who Jesus was solves all these problems completely without a hitch. So, I have a theory that actually WORKS, whilst your theory does not work, it contains extreme contradictions and violations of the very premise of what this God is supposed to be like. (i.e. UNCHANGING) So these Hebrew stories totally break down at that point. Of course, IMHO, they broke down so many times within the Old Testament already that there's really no reason to even bother considering their "New Testament". If Jesus existed at all, he was most likely a misunderstood Jewish Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva. That conclusion had no problems at all and answers all problems completely. So is we apply Occam's Razor here it works twice. First, Occam's Razor says that if you have two "working" theories then the simplest theory that explains everything is all you need. Well, gee, your theory isn't even a "working" theory because it gives rise to more paradoxes and contradictions and doesn't solve anything. My theory answers all questions, and solves all problems without a hitch, plus, my theory is also clearly simpler. Jesus was just a mortal man who taught the moral values of Buddhism and rejected the absurdities of the Torah. My theory WORKS and it's simple. Easy to understand and makes perfect sense. You theory fails twice over. First it doesn't even work because it requires that an unchanging God changes his rules, and that flies in the face of the very premise your religion is built upon in the first place. And secondly your theory is extremely complex and requires a belief in extremely unlikely miracles and events to have taken place. Such as a virgin birth, and the voice of God speaking from the sky, and a multitude of saints being jostled from their graves and entering a city to show themselves to the people there, yet there is no independent historical record of any such events. So Jesus as a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva wins by a landslide, IMHO. There's just not contest here worth considering. If there is only ONE God, and the Old Testament was God's Laws, and the New Testament did away with those previous laws and offered a NEW set of Laws, then GOD's LAWS WERE CHANGED! Your claim about things having been done and finished with and holding no more power is nothing more than meaningless semantic mumbo jumbo on your part. The bottom line is that the creator of humanity would have had to have CHANGE HIS LAWS and his EXPECTATIONS of mankind's behavior in order for your religion to be true. But your religion also holds out the premise that this God is DEPENDABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY, and that requires that he can be depended upon not to be radically changing his in his character and in his directives and commandments in what he expects from us. God did not change his mind. There are prophecies in the old testament of this happening. This is all part of God's plan. The forthcoming of the new laws "testament" was prophesied about in the old testament. So if God spoke of this, how is exactly that he changed his mind when all along it was all part of his plan and followed exactly as he told us? And what changed wasn't God's mind. We have always been judged by the word. In the old testament, the word gave procedures on how to judge someone in certain circumstances. Now the word has been made flesh and can carry out the judgment on it's own. That is the ONLY thing that changed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 03/11/11 12:16 PM
|
|
This is all part of God's plan. Sure it is. Another unbelievable an irrational statement. I have plans too, unfortunately individuals have "free will" and sometimes plans don't alway pan out. I don't believe in determinism. If such a thing were true, free will would not exist. |
|
|
|
|
