yes and no. Unbelief is a general term. It is connected to unbelief in God in this instance. Not believing he exists. Not an unbelief in general, just unbelief in God who art in heaven and his only begotten son.

I see what you are saying, but they are believing in a theory of their own will as well...I do understand how you say it is a TERM. However it is still their belief, although different than another. But I get what you are saying.

so now i'm kinda confused...so if god directs me to kill someone, and it is against the law, and god tells us to follow the laws of the land....so wouldn't that make god to go agianst his own decree's?
and why doesn't god do it himself?

My take from the thread so far is that the advantages to unbelief are the ability to do whatever you want with no concern for the ramifications because there is nothing that can possibly happen to you that is any worse than a simple annoyance.

The atheist view on things is basically "you do ****, and **** happens".

It seems to be quite thought provoking..

mightymoe writes:

"so now i'm kinda confused...so if god directs me to kill someone, and it is against the law, and god tells us to follow the laws of the land....so wouldn't that make god to go agianst his own decree's?
and why doesn't god do it himself?"

Is God directing you to kill anyone? If so, it isn't coming from God.

That's what I would have told Joshua.

If you are not confused then the alternatives are brainwashed and insanity. Of course the brainwashed and the insane may never realize their condition.

How can you claim that God would NEVER instruct anyone to carry out a judgment when we have spoken in length about the story of Joshua killing without mercy?

And don't try to "cover" yourself with that "new covenant" crap because you did use the term NEVER which includes past, present, and future.

Also... how can you make any statements that begin with "God would never..." I don't think you are privy to what God will or won't ever or never do.

Are we talking about today, or back then? If it is back then, that is a WHOLE different kettle of fish.

No it isn't.

2000 years is NOTHING to an unchanging infinite God.

Don't be so small minded.

ditto! where do you get all your answers from, your demands for so much proof, where is yours--?

Sorry should have used different words since you like to take things literal. God from the start of the new covenant to now would NEVER instruct anyone to do anything as such.

Nor am I brainwashed or insane. I follow the teachings of our Christ on my own, my own decision. Not influenced by anyone else but Jesus.

You'd have to take that argument up with Jesus, not Hitler.

Jesus was the one who said that, "Till heaven and earth pass not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law".

So until you can get Jesus to recant his words, Hitler is in the clear.

In fact, these very differences in interpretations show clearly that moral values do not from from the Bible, but rather they are placed onto the Bible by the reader.

You place your moral values onto the Bible and then pretend that the Bible can only be used to support your moral values. But that's not true. Hitler could have made a very good case for his interpretations of things as well.

You like to believe that your interpretations should trump his because you feel that your interpretations represent higher moral ground. However, the problem with that line of reasoning is that your moral interpretations would then need to be on higher moral ground than the God of The Old Testament too!

Therein lies the problem Cowboy.

If Hitler's interpretations of the Bible are immoral, then so were the moral values of the God of the Old Testament, because all Hitler was doing was holding up those original directives.

What you're trying to do is justify the Old Testament God by placing Jesus BEFORE that God in importance.

All you're trying to do is used Jesus to renounce the God of the Old Testament, all the while attempting to demand that Jesus was the only begotten son of that very same God.

Then to even be more hypocritical, you use values from the Old Testament to renounce homosexual activity as being ungodly, yet you reject all other moral values and directives as being no longer valid. You're like Paul. Just pick and choose what you'd like to support and what you wouldn't.

This is where the READER becomes the GOD via how they choose to interpret things.

The bottom line is that Hilter's interpretations are equally valid to yours if not even more so! In fact, I think his interpretations are quite valid and cannot be disputed actually.

You just don't like them because they disagree what you YOU would like to the Bible to be saying about God.

This is why I prefer to recognize that Jesus was most likely a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva. I then get the best of the both worlds. I get moral value that far exceed those found in the Bible and I'm not bothered by all the conflicts and contradictions that you need to constantly deal with when you try to use Jesus to renounce the directives of the original God of that religion.

Especially when you are faced with the blatant conundrum of Jesus having stated in his own words: "Till heaven and earth pass not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law".

You're stuck with Jesus supporting Hitler whether you like it or not.

Matthew 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled
----------------------

Want you to take note of where this verse came from, just so you'll quit your desperate attempts at claiming the laws from the old testament of still hold power. This verse you are quoting is from the NEW TESTAMENT, the NEW TESTAMENT my friend. Him saying 5:18 is speaking about the laws HE was giving us, the NEW COVENANT between man and God. Has nothing to do with the OLD COVENANT which told people to judge others. The NEW COVENANT which is where this verse is in reference to tells us to Not judge and to turn the other cheek. Which in NO WAY was Adolf doing and or any other action(s) similar to this one.




Doesn't matter, we are no longer to follow those laws. They have been FULFILLED, COMPLETED, FINISHED, FINALIZED.

One does not need proof to compare 2000 years to infinity.

You are influenced by The Bible and by your teachers and preachers. I doubt that you have ever actually seen Jesus. But if you are insane, maybe you have.

See, now I told you that new covenant is not going to work. But if that is you answer, so be it. I remain unconvinced.

One does not need proof-but yet you demand it from every other poster besides yourself....so you dont need proof, but everyone else in the forums does...why is that?

I feel that it is unfair to you to even continue this discussion, so continue in your blissful state and be well.

You claims here are not supported by this verse.

Jesus said, not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law.

Jots and tittles refer to writings. Jesus never wrote down any laws or handed anyone any written new covenant. Therefore your interpretations here are totally unsupportable by this verse.

The only laws that had been written down at that time where the laws of the Torah (or Old Testament), therefore those are the only "jots and tittles" that Jesus could have possibly been referring to.



Where do you get such nonsense?

I just showed where Jesus said that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law and the only written laws at that time where indeed the laws of the Old Testament. Plus Jesus himself never jotted anything down much less write any new covenant for mankind.

So you're claims are simply not supported by these scriptures.

Hitler has a far better case than you do for his interpretations.

All you're trying to do is use Jesus as an excuse to destroy the God of the Old Testament. But that can never work because the only thing that gives Jesus as clout is the idea that he is the son of the God. So you're stuck with an overall religious picture that cannot be made to work. You would need to have Jesus himself rebelling against his own Father's ways!

Like I said before. The READERS place their own morals onto these scriptures by how they chose to interpret them. So the moral values must come from the readers, not from the scriptures themselves. Thus these scriptures are totally useless as a moral guide since the moral values can only come from the reader's very own interpretations of things.