FirstSunday33ad:

Oh dear me, not much of a history buff are we?

That is entirely possible. I do not claim to have perfect knowledge in all things.

The Geneva Convention was penned to restrict warfare to within certain limits. It came about at the end of World War one in response to chemical warfare and other atrocities.

Actually, the first Geneva Convention came about in 1864.

"restrict warfare to within certain limits." sounds like a moral guideline, would you not agree?

It was basically an agreement that said “if you don’t we won’t, if you do we will”. It said little if anything about the treatment of non-combatants.

That is true of the 2nd Geneva Convention signed in 1929.

At the close of World War Two, when for the first time civilian deaths outnumbered military deaths, and in the face of the use of terror as a weapon of war, “Crimes Against Humanity” entered our lexicon. This was an statement that said regardless of the cause or the motivation, deliberately making war on civilians would be regarded as the rest of the world as a criminal act punishable by imprisonment or death.

And thus, we enter the age of the 4th Geneva Convention. As we see, we learn. Amounts to what I said earlier, except I called it the Geneva Convention instead of being more specific by calling it the 4th Geneva Convention. For that, I am sorry.

Crimes Against Humanity, however has no legislative power behind it. There is little the other nations of the world can or are willing to do to punish those who make war on civilians. Recent events in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Rwanda bear this out.

Well, I was not discussing the enforcement (or lack thereof) of the laws, I just mentioned that we realized the necessity of laws to protect civilians.

Yes it does. “WE DID” wage war and kill civilians by the thousands in order to stamp out a perverse evil. What we did in WWII was not wrong nor was it immoral. WE penned the statutes that defined CAH, we enforced them and we punished the Nazi’s and Japanese who broke them.

Again, "we did" does not amount to "it was morally okay to do all the things we did." It is perfectly normal to say 'look, both sides did some bad things that should not have been done." Because we asked questions like this, the 4th Geneva Convention was born. There may arise for a new GC in the future.

If you are going to try and say that saving the world from Fascism was in some way an immoral act, you will find yourself in a very tiny and very lunatic fringe.

Now this is getting ridiculous. Let me try to understand you. How does saying it's immoral to kill civilians in mass during warfare equate to saying "saving the world from Fascism was in some way an immoral act," ?

Hail Jimbo, Master of Gas and Space!

Take note, again, of the language: I am am described by you as an "opponent" who is "outmanuevered" (sic). To you this is not a discussion, but rather a game of some sort

That's all it can be, when my opponent has all the contextual education of Krusty the Klown. To call what Jimbo offers "critical examination" is like calling a pile of mud "modern art".

They are simple questions regarding your interpretation and understanding of the bible. You should have no problem answering them.

I had none to speak of. The problem is operator error.

So that you and anyone who may be reading this may compare and contrast your description of my questions with the questions themselves, I am reposting them:

Yes, we know, Jimbo. Repeating yourself is your favorite argument. I have already explained why these are manipulations of your part. Your act of "duh, I don't get it" will only fool those with cognitive problems.

Sometimes I do and sometimes I don't. I did not in the questions above.

Iwould recommend you get some education in the ANE instead of pretending there is a nit worth picking. But I can't blame you wholly; it's all the good news you seem to get. That you DID posit "yes or no" at all signals your intent.

You did not explain if you believe that God made the statements that are attributed to him by the bible writers.

I most certainly did, little man. You just can't figure it out. Maybe I need to dissest it into little eensy-beensy pieces for you? Let me start by asking you:

1) You know my material. Am I an inerrantist?

If you can answer this, we will move to question TWO.

apologist, it is puzzling that you are so reluctant to explain your position on what is clearly a very important topic.

It seems even a folded napkin puzzles you, little man.

you don't answer them is that you don't have any good reasons to suppose that these words actually came from God.

Hmmm. What reason do we have to suppose that Julius Caesar said, "Et tu, brute?"

Have a nice day.

Have a Hostess Ding-Dong ™.

Passant:

O.K. Let me ask both FS and J.P. this question,

If a nation is doing a sufficient amount of evil, then it is morally acceptable to attack their civilian population with say, biological weapons, attack their civilian population, including children, and kill women and unborn babies by violently aborting them?

Not today, because we have the social network to maintain their population that the ancients did not have, and we also have the ability to build up and maintain our defenses from future warfare. This is the vital difference that I have been trying to thump into people's heads here for the past umpteen years, as Farrell would say.

So you agree that there are disputed books. Thank you.

Your welcome. By the way, what your point?

Bold assumptions. Yet you avoided in answering the one that I brought up. I'll take that as an admission that there are inconsistencies that you are not willing deal with. Instead, you'll throw some unsupported "argue from ignorance" in avoidance.

Actually I didn’t avoid it, I forgot it. I was going to finish with the rest of my replies and come back to it and then forgot you had asked the question.

Please provide some background. You asked was it all right to divorce, with the implication that this is somehow contradicted in the Bible. Please provide the verses you think contradict each other.

Let's start with one. The NT argues that the "sacrifice" of Christ is necessary to take sins away and you must accept that, otherwise you are doomed to be judged under the 'law.' No such condition exists in the OT for it contains a complete system of redemption from sins, sans Jesus.

Oh dear, I do hope this isn’t the extent of your theological knowledge.

Accepting the sacrifice of Christ is necessary to take away the guilt of your sins.

The Law did not provide a system of complete redemption from sins since you had to regularly sacrifice. It also did nothing for the Gentiles. There was no redemption under the Law.

Hebrews:

11When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance--now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

Indeed, a fine continuation of Christian misinterpretations. Winding apologies aside, it was a conditional prophecy to King Ahaz, more proof of this is in scripture. If you read on to verse16, there remains no question to whom this prophecy is directed to.
In the very next chapter, we read about Emmanuel and how God has given the children for signs and wonders in Israel.

You know it would really help if you were a bit more expansive with your answers. Who was this verse directed to?

16:But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.

And how does it indicate that it was not referring to Jesus?

In the very next chapter we do not read about Immanuel at all but about Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, the son of the Prophetess. His birth is also stated as a measure: Before the boy knows how to say 'My father' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria."

It is clear that Matthew (or whoever wrote it) pulled a verse out of the OT, made some alterations to it and claimed that it was fulfilled by Jesus.

What alterations?

Isaiah:

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

Matthew:
23"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" --which means, "God with us."

Again, have you ever heard of the Septuagint?

Also, have you ever heard of paraphrase?

The author admits it is a typology. Ergo, not a prophecy to be fulfilled by "messiah."

Didn’t read it did you?

If you had you would have read this:

But this still doesn't answer the question of WHY Matthew used this passage-it DOES look a bit strange to 'Western minds'. We have seen that typology would be an appropriate vehicle for understanding this connection, but is there something MORE TO IT?
Indeed, in this passage we see the peculiar Semitic notion of 'corporate solidarity', that forms an ever-present substrate in biblical teaching, and which goes BEYOND typology.
That’s okay, it was a bit long and you probably would have been bored.
[quote] No, Hebrews says God turned away from them. Jeremiah has God saying "I was an husband onto them" having an opposite implication.[quote]

Hmmm…let’s see:

Jeremiah:

because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,"
declares the LORD .

Hebrews:
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
Granted the words are a little different (ever hear of the Septuagint?) but the implication is the same. J: You broke my covenant even though I was like a husband to you H: You broke my covenant so I turned away from you.
Your objection is pretty weak.

In Hebrews, the Law is done away with ("obsolete"), in Jeremiah, it is reintroduced into people's hearts so that all will know the law.

Jeremiah:

31 "The time is coming," declares the LORD ,
"when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.

33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time," declares the LORD .
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD ,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,"
declares the LORD .
"For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."

The New Covenant is Christ. The Old Covenant – the Law of Moses – was fulfilled in Christ and became obsolete. The New Covenant – the Redemption of Christ – took its place.

[quote]Jeremiah, by the way, also contains some end-time prophecies that were not fulfilled by Jesus, though according to Hebrews, Jesus apparently did fulfill these verses.[quote]

You don’t understand what Jeremiah is saying.

Yes, it would indicate something, unfortunately, Jesus was not that something, as I have pointed out. He failed to accomplish virtually all of the "in those days..." verses that follow the verse where coins are cast.

Actually you haven’t point anything out, you make a lot of assertions but don’t ever back them up with something of substance.

That aside, you will have to do a bit more reading before you can make statements like “Jesus failed to fulfill” because it is obvious you are interpreting them from a “fundamentalist” position. However, from within the fundamentalist position, the reply is “the verses refer to Christ’s second coming and are yet to be fulfilled”.

God and messiah are two separate entities in the OT, that Jesus is God is a claim hinted at in the NT and finalized in Church doctrine. As Jesus has been shown to be false, it follows that he was not God.

Except Jesus has not been shown to be false, saying it doesn’t make it so.

Hinted at eh? What do you make of this then:

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

He was killed by those who's authority he threatened. Yet the multitude followed him, they did not reject him as the OT verse claims.

Based on what you have already written, this shouldn’t surprise me but it still does. Are you claiming the Jews flocked to Jesus and followed Him? If so, why did they let the authorities kill Him? Some followers.

As you can see, the servant is Israel, and all these functions have been hijacked by Jesus. "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified." has changed into God being glorified in Jesus.
The context is clear. The servant is introduced as Israel, and then we read what will happen to the servant. Anything else is conjecture

You didn’t read the link did you? There is no point in objecting to something unless you actually know what it says.

Probably because the original psalm in Hebrew contains no reference of anyone being crucified.

Read Hebrew do we?

nya-ah. Boo-yah. You slam a barrage of verses that require long explanation that will drag this thread on forever. You should just pick one.

You should back you statements up with something other than “is not”. Simple statements deserve simple responses.

Because I am not trying to interpret the OT to make it fit around Jesus.

Ah yes…the conspiracy theory. The verses don’t say this, but dishonest and devious translators whose entire careers hang on correctly translating the verses, got together and agreed to twist the true meanings simply to continue the myth of Jesus.

BTW – Oswald killed Kennedy; alone; from the book depository window; and no the FBI isn’t trying to cover it up.

Indeed. The writers of the Talmud saw this as the suffering of the warrior-massiah, son of Joseph who will die. (B.T. Sukkah 52a).

Son of Joseph…You mean like Jesus was the son of Joseph? Still sounds like they are talking about the same person.

Apparently, when he returned as the 'comforter' he forgot to inform his followers of this, because even in John's visions, he continues to use the same rhetoric. He can't very well be talking about the quickness of his resurrection when he has already done so.

The ‘comforter’ was the Holy Spirit

Now you are getting it. The question is, who actually doctored the history? The original disciples, or a later authority that had come to power and murdered people like the original disciples?

Doctoring of history can only be done by those already in power, who have considerable control over the limited amount of historical material.

Ho…lee….crow…

Do you really think like this? Is this what our educational system has produced?

You know, crop circles are hoaxes, there is no monster in Loch Ness and the Air Force is not hiding a space ship that crashed at Roswell.

Temple destroyed in 70AD, the earliest known gospels arrive some time after that. I do not know for certain if it was an after prophecy, but neither can you prove that it was a before-the-fact prophecy. At the very least, it weakens the power of the prophecy.

So if an event is predicted in the NT and happens you say “written after the fact”. If it is predicted in the NT and hasn’t yet happened you say “failure”.

Little question for you; considering the writers of the Gospels and Acts had no reluctance to make up prophecies and change events from Jesus’ life – heck, let’s just call a spade a spade – seeing as they were complete liars and scoundrels, why wouldn’t they have made up a bunch more “prophecies” of events that happened and been a bit more clear about them?

The NT scriptures. I do not have the verses handy, I have already provided some of Jesus's own rhetoric. From the disciples, off the top of my head, there is a suggestion that since the end-times are here, people who are not married should not do so. I can dig up the verse and others, but time constraints do not allow it at this time.

I have already told you that Jesus did not say they were in the “end-times” as in the “end of the world”. The event He was speaking about – ie, the Kingdom of God – was His resurrection and the new covenant.

As to the disciples

Power. Control. Simple enough reasons given the context of many competing religions. The competition was no less fierce in those days.

They received none of these things; they were killed. And do you really think you can compete with a religion that allows orgies by saying yours has a dead criminal who came back to life?

There are other reasons: mental illness or personality disorders. Someone may think he sees visions of God or angles and be driven by them.
Moses thought he heard God speaking through a burning bush, Paul though he heard God in the desert, Mohamed believed he was conversing with Gabriel, Rasputin saw Mary, Jim Jones... the list goes on.

Oh brother. Yeah, Rasputin and Jim Jones are good additions. Mohamed had no ulterior motive for saying “guess what God just told me…?”

So let me see if I understand you correctly, Christianity was founded by a group of madmen and lunatics who just happened to share the same madness and managed to convince thousands of others that it wasn’t madness but revelation?

I will retire to bedlam…

Whether or not these are genuine visions or hallucinations, they are enough to drive a person beyond rational inhibitions. And if this person happens to be charismatic, he will draw followers and convince them of his distortions with ease.

Yeah, of course, this happens all the time doesn’t it? Great religions are always springing up due to some charismatic nut case. They don’t crawl off somewhere and commit mass suicide, they don’t run into the desert and set up communes. No, the evangelize, write letters and histories so profound they change the planet.

So, I cannot explain the mechanics of how mental illness causes hallucinations and motivates people beyond rational thought, I cannot completely describe why apparently normal, honest people are drawn to people of such dispositions. All I know is that it happens. What remains is to put a name on the phenomenon.

I have name for what you have constructed here…sad.

Good grief man, your brain isn’t a chew toy, you only get one, don’t waste it. Disagree with Christianity if you want, be convinced that it is false, but for pete’s sake, do so using logic, reason and some thought.

Otherwise you will end up believing just about any pile of nonsense simply because it says what you want to hear. Its not too late, open a book and start reading.

That is entirely possible. I do not claim to have perfect knowledge in all things.

Actually, the first Geneva Convention came about in 1864.

"restrict warfare to within certain limits." sounds like a moral guideline, would you not agree?

I agree about the dates but not the reason. The reason was a simple “you scratch my back I scratch yours” reciprocity arrangement. It was to the benefit of each combatant to have guarantees in place that would prevent the abuse and wholesale slaughter of their troops.

That is true of the 2nd Geneva Convention signed in 1929

And thus, we enter the age of the 4th Geneva Convention. As we see, we learn. Amounts to what I said earlier, except I called it the Geneva Convention instead of being more specific by calling it the 4th Geneva Convention. For that, I am sorry.

Well, I was not discussing the enforcement (or lack thereof) of the laws, I just mentioned that we realized the necessity of laws to protect civilians.

Which were the result of the actions of the GERMANS and not of the Allies.

Point made.

Again, "we did" does not amount to "it was morally okay to do all the things we did." It is perfectly normal to say 'look, both sides did some bad things that should not have been done." Because we asked questions like this, the 4th Geneva Convention was born. There may arise for a new GC in the future.

Now this is getting ridiculous. Let me try to understand you. How does saying it's immoral to kill civilians in mass during warfare equate to saying "saving the world from Fascism was in some way an immoral act," ?

You are slipping away from the question that was asked:

If a nation is doing a sufficient amount of evil, then is it morally acceptable to attack their civilian population?

My answer:

We did. It was called World War Two and we bombed Japan and Germany, killing tens of thousands of non-combatants. Hamburg, Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima were bombed into dust.

Unless you want to argue that the men who did it and those who ordered it were guilty of murder - and therefore should be arrested and imprisoned for this crime - you cannot say WWII was [not] immoral whereas Biblical accounts were.

Your objection:

"We did" does not answer the question of whether or not it was moral to do so. The correct answer is "no." What we did in WWII was wrong and the laws we penned in the aftermath show that most of civilization agrees.

My reply:

Yes it does. “WE DID” wage war and kill civilians by the thousands in order to stamp out a perverse evil. What we did in WWII was not wrong nor was it immoral. WE penned the statutes that defined CAH, we enforced them and we punished the Nazi’s and Japanese who broke them.

If you are going to try and say that saving the world from Fascism was in some way an immoral act, you will find yourself in a very tiny and very lunatic fringe.

Your second objection:

Again, "we did" does not amount to "it was morally okay to do all the things we did." It is perfectly normal to say 'look, both sides did some bad things that should not have been done." Because we asked questions like this, the 4th Geneva Convention was born. There may arise for a new GC in the future.

Now this is getting ridiculous. Let me try to understand you. How does saying it's immoral to kill civilians in mass during warfare equate to saying "saving the world from Fascism was in some way an immoral act," ?

So you see, the point is beginning to get away from you. Was it okay to attack Germany and Japan – nations that were doing sufficient evil – even if in doing so we killed thousands of non-combatants? Yes it was. We were saving the world from Fascism.

You say it was not; it was an immoral act to attack Germany and Japan. You further claim that the world today recognizes this fact and that is why we penned the “4th GC”.

Well that is not why we penned the “4th GC” and the world does not think that the attacking Germany and Japan were immoral acts. So I repeat, if you truly do think attacking Germany and Japan to end the evil they were inflicting was immoral, then you belong to a lunatic fringe.

That is not restating the question, that is asking an entirly different question

Its pulling out the propaganda. Use of emotive language indicates you really don’t have a position you can logically argue from, so you have to use the “puppy ploy” to win your case.

BTW - I am assuming you are accusing the Hebrews of having done these things and not just the Babylonians? This is the only reason you even bother to concern yourself with them. Correct?

Again, you are using a different argument.

First, we were attacked by Japan, and our allies were attacked by Germany.

Translation: So if J & G didn’t attack us, we should have sat back and done nothing while they butchered the Chinese and Jews? If we did, then that would have been immoral?

Second, we did not use biological weapons

We didn’t but were prepared to. If the Germans developed the Bomb first, the plan was to so contaminate Northern Germany that there wouldn’t be a living thing in the entire half of the country.

Third, we did not surgically strike at their children

No need to. Had there been a need, we would have.

Fourth. our soldiers on the ground did not intentionally kill women and children, or rip unborn babies from their mothers wombs, and if they did, they were guilty of murder.

Emotive language. What you are really objecting to is the style of warfare in the Bronze and Iron Ages verses today. Let me ask you this, if a bomb dropped from a plane hit a hospital in Berlin, ripping open the womb of a pregnant women, should the crew be charged with murder?

I really don't know of any cases like this in WWII, but in veitnam, soldiers did do some of these things, including killing innocent women and children, and were tried for murder.

Because again; victory did not require such behaviour. In war, everything is based on reciprocity. Is it worth the cost? Is there a cheaper way? Is this required? If survival of the unit, state or power is dependent on “ripping open the bellies of pregnant women” then that is what happens.

Strange that you are having trouble answering this question.

I don’t have trouble answering it, you have a problem understanding that the world is not lily white with peaches and cherries on top. Guess what, it’s a pretty cruel place where people do cruel things and sometimes the only way to advance the good is by getting your hands dirty.

You want a God who touches the bad guys with magic wands made of sugar and gumdrops rain down from the sky. You don’t want a God who limits His actions to within the scope of understanding and power of mankind. Well that is what God does. He lets us make our beds and he lets us lie in them. Whether you like or dislike this is beside the point.

Welcome to the real world in all its bloody glory.

Finally – the Hebrews didn’t do the things you so lovingly described. Where I come from saying they did is called liable.

FirstSunday33ad:

I agree about the dates but not the reason. The reason was a simple “you scratch my back I scratch yours” reciprocity arrangement. It was to the benefit of each combatant to have guarantees in place that would prevent the abuse and wholesale slaughter of their troops.

Our disagreements on this particular point do not have any impact on the discussion. The point of interest in this topic are the laws that followed WWII.

Which were the result of the actions of the GERMANS and not of the Allies.

Which were the result of actions by both sides. The Axis didn't drop atom bombs, the Allies did.

Point made.

If you call distortions a point.

You are slipping away from the question that was asked:

If a nation is doing a sufficient amount of evil, then is it morally acceptable to attack their civilian population?

My answer:

We did. It was called World War Two and we bombed Japan and Germany, killing tens of thousands of non-combatants. Hamburg, Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima were bombed into dust.

I have not slipped. You argue that because we attacked the civilian popultions of these nations, it was morally acceptable to do so. It may have been necessary given the technology and preparedness of the nations, but not moral in any way.

Unless you want to argue that the men who did it and those who ordered it were guilty of murder - and therefore should be arrested and imprisoned for this crime -

The men who did it were following orders to murder, that much is true. However, the secular laws governing the protection of civilians in warfare did not exist during the war (laws protecting all living beings existed in Christian theology, but nobody follows those anyway).

you cannot say WWII was [not] immoral whereas Biblical accounts were

You add things here that were simply not said. I used no argument protecting nor condemning biblical accounts of warfare. If you wish to extend the topic into biblical warfare, you may do so, without implying that I made such a statement.

[quote]My reply:

Yes it does. “WE DID” wage war and kill civilians by the thousands in order to stamp out a perverse evil. What we did in WWII was not wrong nor was it immoral. WE penned the statutes that defined CAH, we enforced them and we punished the Nazi’s and Japanese who broke them.[quote]

Were all the civilians also a perverse evil?

So you see, the point is beginning to get away from you. Was it okay to attack Germany and Japan – nations that were doing sufficient evil – even if in doing so we killed thousands of non-combatants? Yes it was. We were saving the world from Fascism.

It was never okay to kill the civilians. We just had to do it because we knew no other way and centuries of warfare had drilled into us a bitter acceptance of civilian casualties. Fortunately, after the dust settled, we learned from our errors and laws were penned to protect civilians.

You say it was not; it was an immoral act to attack Germany and Japan. You further claim that the world today recognizes this fact and that is why we penned the “4th GC”.

I have come to accept distortions as a normal pattern from you. I will repeat that I said no such thing. I said it was immoral to target the civilians. I claim correctly that the world recognizes this fact.

I'm sorry, but the world disagrees with you on this one, no matter how you want to distort my words.

So I repeat, if you truly do think attacking Germany and Japan to end the evil they were inflicting was immoral, then you belong to a lunatic fringe.

A typical response from someone who lacks a moral compass. Your strawman argument won't stand. You have been exposed as a pitiful liar.

[quote]Yesterday @ 07:25 PM post located here
FirstSunday33ad:

Your welcome. By the way, what your point?[quote]

My point is several posts up when I first wrote it. You asked me what I meant by it, I explained and apparantly by your reply, you accepted. You can review the history above.

Actually I didn’t avoid it, I forgot it. I was going to finish with the rest of my replies and come back to it and then forgot you had asked the question.

Please provide some background. You asked was it all right to divorce, with the implication that this is somehow contradicted in the Bible. Please provide the verses you think contradict each other.

I want to explore your doctrinal knowledge. In your Christian faith, is it acceptable for a divorced person to remarry? Simple question. You should have no difficulty for this, it is something Jesus said.

Oh dear, I do hope this isn’t the extent of your theological knowledge.

Accepting the sacrifice of Christ is necessary to take away the guilt of your sins.

The Law did not provide a system of complete redemption from sins since you had to regularly sacrifice. It also did nothing for the Gentiles. There was no redemption under the Law.


Hebrews:

11When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance--now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

I will expand upon only this one until it is settled.

To begin, I will quote you in describing your state:
"Oh dear, I do hope this isn’t the extent of your theological knowledge."

You say "Accepting the sacrifice of Christ is necessary to take away the guilt of your sins."

The Old Testament disagrees with you.

Psa 69:30 I will praise the name of God with a song; I will magnify him with thanksgiving. 31 This will please the LORD more than an ox or a bull with horns and hoofs.

Psa 51:14 Deliver me from bloodshed, O God, O God of my salvation, and my tongue will sing aloud of your deliverance.
15 O Lord, open my lips, and my mouth will declare your praise.
16 For you have no delight in sacrifice; if I were to give a burnt offering, you would not be pleased. 17 The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.

The sample offering of these two psalms shows all that is necessary for deliverance: a broken spirit: genuine repentence. In fact, it even goes on to say that sacrifice does not please God as much as repentence.

There is a lot more, the entire Olt Testament is strewn with a built in system of repentence and salvation.

Pro 21:3 To do righteousness and justice
is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.

Micah 6:6 "With what shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? 7Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?" 8He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

Hosea 6:6 For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

Isaiah 11:11What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the LORD; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats. 12When you come to appear before me, who asked this from your hand? Trample my courts no more; 13bringing offerings is futile; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and sabbath and calling of convocation-- I cannot endure solemn assemblies with iniquity. 14Your new moons and your appointed festivals my soul hates; they have become a burden to me, I am weary of bearing them. 15When you stretch out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood.
16 Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil, 17learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow. 18Come now, let us argue it out, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be like snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool. 19If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land; 20but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured by the sword; for the mouth of the LORD has spoken.

Isa 55:7 let the wicked forsake their way, and the unrighteous their thoughts; let them return to the LORD, that he may have mercy on them, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

The point of the above scripture is clear: God prefers repentence over sacrifice.

Can another take away your sin?

Deut 24:16Parents shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their parents; only for their own crimes may persons be put to death.

Jer 31:30But all shall die for their own sins; the teeth of everyone who eats sour grapes shall be set on edge.

Psa 49 7 Truly, no ransom avails for one's life, there is no price one can give to God for it.
...
15 But God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol, for he will receive me. Selah

The above makes it clear. Everyone is accountable for their sins. God needs only an offer repentence to forgive sins.

The OT invites the gentile to join in and become obediant to God, keeping them in the fold.

I have sufficiantly shattered your position. Christ is not necessary for attonement, God considers sacrifice the least important out of the three forms: sacrifice, works and repentence.

I have name for what you have constructed here…sad.

I gave you some real-life examples to explain motivations and the phenomenon of people flocking to visionaries. Yet you choose to dismiss it by calling it sad. Such a sad state of mind.

Good grief man, your brain isn’t a chew toy, you only get one, don’t waste it. Disagree with Christianity if you want, be convinced that it is false, but for pete’s sake, do so using logic, reason and some thought.

Otherwise you will end up believing just about any pile of nonsense simply because it says what you want to hear. Its not too late, open a book and start reading.

Excellent point. Apply it to yourself. Reason and logic have no meaning to you as I have found.

Hey Kain, please keep remember the campus decorum:

Moderated By: Undisclosed

Please allow the other person to respond to your post before making additional substantive posts and points directed towards that person. Multiple posts back-to-back responses to a single poster is not allowed. ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.*** Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

But since you're new I'll cut ya some slack! Just don't let it happen again :ham2:

Peace,
:sig:

nm

Mr. "Holding,"

Hail Jimbo, Master of Gas and Space!

Hail "JP Holding," rationalizer and excuser of biblical absurdities and atrocities!

JIMBO: Take note, again, of the language: I am am described by you as an "opponent" who is "outmanuevered" (sic). To you this is not a discussion, but rather a game of some sort

"HOLDING": That's all it can be, when my opponent has all the contextual education of Krusty the Klown.

Ad hominem. Note again the term "opponent."

To call what Jimbo offers "critical examination" is like calling a pile of mud "modern art".

Another ad hominem.

JIMBO: They are simple questions regarding your interpretation and understanding of the bible. You should have no problem answering them.

"HOLDING: I had none to speak of. The problem is operator error.

Then why are you playing word games and dancing around the questions rather than simply answering them? This is becoming comical.

JIMBO: So that you and anyone who may be reading this may compare and contrast your description of my questions with the questions themselves, I am reposting them:

"HOLDING": Yes, we know, Jimbo. Repeating yourself is your favorite argument. I have already explained why these are manipulations of your part. Your act of "duh, I don't get it" will only fool those with cognitive problems.

You have not explained why they represent "manipulations." If you think you have, simply cut and paste your explanation. For convenience sake, I will repost my questions:

JIMBO:

Hey "Holding"-since you're a self-proclaimed bible expert, could you tell me if you think that your god made the statements above that are attributed to him? And if you do think these quotes are genuine, please explain why you think they are genuine.

If you do not think they are genuine, would you say that they represent bible errors?

I will repost another question:

Please tell me again-or rather, for the first time-why these simple questions, my initial questions to you, are "manipulative" and why they deserve "scorn and contempt."

JIMBO: Misrepresentation. You are not limited to "yes" or "no" answers

"HOLDING": Then why do you always end you remarks with, "Yes or no?" ”

JIMBO: Sometimes I do and sometimes I don't. I did not in the questions above. I would recommend that you exercise more caution in making absolute statements. Please realize, also, that you are free to explain any "yes" or "no" answer you provide with as many words as your post will allow.

"HOLDING": I would recommend you get some education in the ANE instead of pretending there is a nit worth picking. But I can't blame you wholly; it's all the good news you seem to get. That you DID posit "yes or no" at all signals your intent.

Here are my questions to you again: Hey "Holding"-since you're a self-proclaimed bible expert, could you tell me if you think that your god made the statements above that are attributed to him? And if you do think these quotes are genuine, please explain why you think they are genuine.

If you do not think they are genuine, would you say that they represent bible errors?

You can use as much or as little space as you like in answering the questions above. If you still have problems answering the questions, let me know what I can do to make it easier for you to answer.

JIMBO: You did not explain if you believe that God made the statements that are attributed to him by the bible writers.

"HOLDING": I most certainly did, little man.

Where?

You just can't figure it out.

Feel free to cut and paste your previous answer then.

Maybe I need to dissest it into little eensy-beensy pieces for you? Let me start by asking you:

1) You know my material. Am I an inerrantist?

No, you are not an inerrantist. However, this does not answer my question, since-as an inerrantist-you may or may not believe that those statements actually came from God. So I will repeat my main question, yet again: Do you believe that God actually made the statements that I cited in the opening post to this thread?

Hmmm. What reason do we have to suppose that Julius Caesar said, "Et tu, brute?"

You tell me. These words are from a play that Shakespeare wrote in the 16th century.

To make things easier for you, I will repost the statements that my questions are based on. You are free to differentiate between these various statements in your answer-in other words, you are free to tell me that some of the statements are genuine and some are not genuine. By the way, if there is anything at all unclear in anything that I have asked you. feel free to ask for clarification.

"Behold, I will corrupt your seed and spread dung upon your faces..."

Christian god-Malachi 2:3

"Behold the day of the Lord is coming, when the spoil taken from you will be divided in the midst of you. For I will gather the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken and the houses plundered and the women ravished..."

Christian god-Zechariah 14:1


"...I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the light of this sun."

Christian god-2 Samuel 12:11


"Behold the day of the Lord comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger...Whoever is found will be thrust through and whoever is caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes, their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished."

Christian god-Isaiah 13:9, 13:15



"'Pass through the city after him, and smite; your eye shall not spare and you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women...'"

Christian god-Ezekiel 9:5



"Behold, I am against you, says the Lord of hosts, and will lift up your skirts over your face; and I will let nations look on your nakedness and kingdoms on your shame. I will throw filth at you...."

Christian god-Nahum 3:5


"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever; you may make slaves of them, but over your bretheren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness."

Christian god-Leviticus 25:44


"I will strew your flesh upon the mountains, and fill the valleys with your carcass. I will drench the land even to the mountains with your flowing blood..."

Christian god-Ezekiel 32:5


"I will fall upon them like a bear robbed of her cubs, I will tear open their breast, and there I will devour them like a lion, as a wild beast would rend them."

Christian god-Hosea 13:8


"And I will fill your mountains with the slain; on your hills and in your valleys and in all your ravines those slain with the sword shall fall...Then you shall know that I am the Lord."

Christian god-Ezekiel 35:8

So, again, do you believe that God actually made these statements or not? If you will not answer this question, simply say that you will not. It will save time for both of us.

Thank you.


Jimbo

Hail Jimbo, Master of Gas and Space!

Ad hominem.

Gospel truth. Learned by vast experience.

Then why are you playing word games and dancing around the questions rather than simply answering them

Because it is very gratifying to expose a manipulator who uses loaded questions, pretends ignorance to get out of tough arguments, baleful repetition, etc. Now let's see...we'll get to where I asked you to figure it out...

No, you are not an inerrantist.

Huh? Wrong answer #1, Jimbo.

However, this does not answer my question, since-as an inerrantist-you may or may not believe that those statements actually came from God.

HUH?

OK....so the Bible says that God said these things...but an inerrantist may not believe God said them.



Did you pick up your books on formal logic from the A and P, or what?

You tell me. These words are from a play that Shakespeare wrote in the 16th century.

Nice dodge. Let's try this, since your conceptual imagination is limited: Do we have reason to think any person recorded as saying something in Tacitus, actually did say it?

To make things easier for you, I will repost the statements that

To make it easier? Heck no. You repost them to make sure that the emotional impact on the irrational and gullible doesn't fade while I'm carving your guts out on the rational end. I got plenty of time, keep it up.

Mr. "Holding,"

"JIMBO": No, you are not an inerrantist.

JP HOLDING: Huh? Wrong answer #1, Jimbo.

Okay, you are an inerrantist then. I didn't realize you were that far gone.

JIMBO: However, this does not answer my question, since-as an inerrantist-you may or may not believe that those statements actually came from God.

"HOLDING": HUH?

I made a mistake. I meant to say that if you are an "errantist" then this does not tell me if you believe or do not believe that the the quotes are genuine. I did not realize that you were actually an inerrantist.

So you do believe those statements actually came from God then. Thank you.

"HOLDING":You repost them to make sure that the emotional impact on the irrational and gullible doesn't fade while I'm carving your guts out on the rational end. I got plenty of time, keep it up.

That's right, act cocky--it is all part of your "strategy" in this big game you are playing:

http://www.tektonics.org/madmad.html

"If you play the nice guy, you're likely to get swarmed, not by any irrefutable arguments, but rather, by a veritable skyscraper of excess and inflammatory verbiage. And unfortunately, there are those, on both sides of the argument, who are persuaded by such things. We are humans, not computers, and a show of confidence or arrogance does, to some, seem to equate with being the victor."

And "Carving your guts out"-this is a nice touch-even classy. It causes people to respect you as a Christian when you make statements like this. Thanks.

What "rational end" are you referring to? I have simply been asking you basic questions and you have danced around in a spastic frenzy trying to avoid answering them. I don't really see any reasoned arguments from you on this thread.

Now that we have finally established that you believe that your god made the statements I have cited, you can now explain why you believe these statements actually came from your god.

Thanks again for your help with this important matter.

Jimbo.

JPH,

It is vaguely amusing that you can keep Jimbo going so long over nothing, but why bother? He seems to keep on going even if no one responds, at least his posts read as if he would.

beeman

Beeman,

Notice how no Christian has yet endeavored to answer my very basic and simple questions?

Think about why this might be.

Jimbo

Jimbo, you need to learn what an ad hominem really is. Calling someone's argument a pile of mud is not an ad hom. Calling that person a pile of mud is.

Just thought you'd like to know.

Jinx,

Jimbo, you need to learn what an ad hominem really is. Calling someone's argument a pile of mud is not an ad hom. Calling that person a pile of mud is.

Let's review Mr "Holding's" statement, shall we?

To call what Jimbo offers "critical examination" is like calling a pile of mud "modern art".

This is a long-winded way of calling me an idiot. It is an ad hominem attack, an effort to poison the well.

Here are some typical examples of ad hominem attacks:

http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graph...hom/adhom.html

Among the most frequent ad hominem appeals are attacks on:

personality, traits, or identity:

"Are you going to agree with what that racist pig is saying?"

"Of course she's in favor of affirmative action. What do you expect from a black woman?"

affiliation, profession, or situation:

"What's the point of asking students whether they support raising tuition? They're always against any increase."

"Oh yeah, prison reform sounds great--until you realize that the man proposing it is himself an ex-con."

inconsistent actions, statements, or beliefs:

"How can you follow a doctor's advice if she doesn't follow it herself?"

"Sure, he says that today, but yesterday he said just the opposite."

source or association for ideas or support:

"Don't vote for that new initiative--it was written by the insurance lobby!"

"You can't possibly accept the findings of that study on smoking--it was paid for by the tobacco industry."

Do you want to try and answer my questions?

Cheers,

Jimbo