The Bible

Legionnaired · March 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Mar 28 2005, 01:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> And you didnt answer my point about the idol; why does Yahweh not want an idol, but he's ok with copied scripture? As far as I'm concerned you can claim absolutely no knowledge of Yahweh at all then except that He is incosistent in his actions, which also opens the afore-mentioned can of worms. IMO it speaks volumes about Yahweh; that he is about as real as Baal for one thing.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Simply because an Idol is an <i>object</i> of worship, where copied scripture is a <i>means</i> of worship.

God did condemn other means of worship used by the followers of Baal, child sacrifice and orgiatic worship, for example. However, words expressing the greatness of a diety aren't inherantly sinful, so the means of worship in this case can be carried over with none of the original connotations.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
If I were to start my own religion taking a bunch of stuff from the Bible but twisting a bit here and there and adding some of my own ideas you would be jumping up and down telling me how my religion is just a blatant copy of yours and how I stole ideas etc.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Actually, no I wouldn't.

To expound on C.S. Lewis, <i>Religion</i>, if true, is of infinate importantce, and if false, is of no importance.

If you did go and start a religion on a whim, you'd show no signs of divine inspiration, and thus, no truth, copied scripture or not. While you may only choose to copy out the parts that contain universal truisms, it'd be simply irrelevant because it's common sense. Any way you slice it, a faith made up on a whim is nothing to get all huffy about.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Then who does? God? Because, and I might be mistaken on this, being a lowly heathen and all, but I'm pretty sure that Jesus never said it was Ok to kill anybody. Ever.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Mmmm, half correct.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (John 8)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Since God's perfect, he created us, and we've screwed up, he'd be acting rightously to kill people. Enter OT smiting of corrupt and or morally disgusting cultures. However, it is not OK for us to kill people, as we've sinned.

BTW: Eye for an Eye and capital punishment is geared for government-level thinking. Jesus wasn't preaching to government officials in Matthew 5, he was preaching to normal people. In our own everyday lives, we should turn the cheek constantly, but on the governmental level, there are differences.

Bottom line is, Eye for an Eye is still in effect, the thing is, God's the one that's going to take care of it, not us. Which, of course, begs the question:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Then are you agreeing with me? That it is hypocritical of Christians to support capital punishment?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes but sort of no. The Bible does contain provision for </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Genesis%209:5 @ 6;%20Numbers%2035:16-21,30-33;%20Deuteronomy%2017:6)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>capital punishment for murder.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> Yet, we're not allowed to kill anyone ourselves.

The obvious synthesis of these two facts yields the statement: Do not kill anyone for punishment for a crime, unless specifically outlined in scripture.

But, then again, that damn government plays into it. If the government simply finds that capital punishment for a certain crime is too extreme, then the Lord will take care of it later. <a href='http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Hebrews%2010:30;&version=49;' target='_blank'>(Hebrews 10:30)</a>

And, it's complicated further by Romans 12, which says not to take vengeance into your own hands, but to leave room for the Lord's payment. It then quotes from Matthew 5 about blessing your enemies like heaping coals on their heads.

Condensed version: Christians should not advocate capital punishment, trusting in the Lord to take care of justice, yet should not rail against it when the government chooses to apply it for just(enumerated) offenses.

More than you'd hoped for in an answer, eh?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I remember arguing about this in a thread about Gnosticism many moons ago, I never got a straight answer, I'd like to hear one. Specifically, the gospels of Thomas and Marry were discussed. Why are they not the word of God?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well, the Gospel of Thomas is dated to about 200 AD, and it's not a biography of Christ, rather a collection of things he is supposed to have said. (none of which are echoed in the other scriptures.) So, first of all, it's not a Gospel, and it wasn't by the Apostle Thomas.

This second reason is sufficient enough that we should dismis it (The test for all scripture is that it was written by someone who had been spoken through and to by God directly, that the writer was confirmed by acts of God, and that the writings revealed truth about God's character.)

[1]The apostles were all spoken to by God, and could very, very easily all be considered prophets.
[2]They all had works that confirmed their authority. (Healing the sick by touch, etc.)
[3]Everything that was written reflected already known truth about God's character. ( Sending a messiah, righeouss, holy and blameless, etc.)

Now, the Gospel of Timothy by comparison:

[1]Was not written by someone that could have possibly known Jesus.
[2]Did not have any works attached to the writer that would authenticate them.
[3]Contradicts previous scripture. (Gnosticism, depicts Jesus as a vengeful brat in childhood, etc.)

The gospel of Mary, also:
[1]Was written by someone that knew Jesus, however, she was never one of his disciples nor did she ever recieve an apostolic mandate.
[2]Did not have any works attached to her that could authenitcate her as a prophet.
[3]Contradicts previous scripture. (Gnosticism, "The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin.")

Hope that answers about everything. And look, I did it all in one post this time! <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' />

SkulkBait · March 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Mar 28 2005, 04:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Then who does? God? Because, and I might be mistaken on this, being a lowly heathen and all, but I'm pretty sure that Jesus never said it was Ok to kill anybody. Ever.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Mmmm, half correct.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (John 8)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Since God's perfect, he created us, and we've screwed up, he'd be acting rightously to kill people. Enter OT smiting of corrupt and or morally disgusting cultures. However, it is not OK for us to kill people, as we've sinned. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I'll accept that for the purposes of this argument, even though I disagree with it (remember, Jesus was sinless yet neither did he stone her).

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
BTW: Eye for an Eye and capital punishment is geared for government-level thinking. Jesus wasn't preaching to government officials in Matthew 5, he was preaching to normal people. In our own everyday lives, we should turn the cheek constantly, but on the governmental level, there are differences.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Oh really? Does not a government official need to condemn a man to death? Does not a government official need to execute the condemned? Are they immune to the commandments because they are government officials? Or are they immune because the law allows them to kill? If you use the latter argument, then I refer to my previous hypothetical, is it ok for a man to kill his wife if the law allows it (he being the "government appointed" executioner for his wife in this case)?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Bottom line is, Eye for an Eye is still in effect, the thing is, God's the one that's going to take care of it, not us. Which, of course, begs the question:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Then are you agreeing with me? That it is hypocritical of Christians to support capital punishment?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes but sort of no. The Bible does contain provision for </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Genesis%209:5 @ 6;%20Numbers%2035:16-21,30-33;%20Deuteronomy%2017:6)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>capital punishment for murder.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> Yet, we're not allowed to kill anyone ourselves.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The link raises a few questions, this is especially interesting:
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Who is the avenger of blood? Now, not knowing much of anything about the context, I might assume that it is God, or some angle or other entity God appoints as his executioner. Why is it a human?

Also:
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Do not pollute the land where you are. Bloodshed pollutes the land, and atonement cannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
So... what is defined as "the land where you are"? Your state? Country? Some other boundry? So executions must take place outside of this boundry, or the executioner will also need to be executed (and his executioiner, and so on)? Don't hear that one very often from the christians, so I assume that it is ignored. Why?

Again, refer to the previous argument: someone has to do the killing, or at the very least, the condemnation.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The obvious synthesis of these two facts yields the statement: Do not kill anyone for punishment for a crime, unless specifically outlined in scripture.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I do not accept this synthesis. It is often said that the laws of the OT were meant specifically for certain groups, the isrealites or whoever, and that Jesus is the new way. Is this not the case? Or is that argument just something used when its convienient?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
But, then again, that damn government plays into it. If the government simply finds that capital punishment for a certain crime is too extreme, then the Lord will take care of it later. <a href='http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Hebrews%2010:30;&version=49;' target='_blank'>(Hebrews 10:30)</a>

And, it's complicated further by Romans 12, which says not to take vengeance into your own hands, but to leave room for the Lord's payment. It then quotes from Matthew 5 about blessing your enemies like heaping coals on their heads.

Condensed version: Christians should not advocate capital punishment, trusting in the Lord to take care of justice, yet should not rail against it when the government chooses to apply it for just(enumerated) offenses.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I don't agree at all. This sort of double standard is rather rediculous. Earlier arguemtns apply here and I don't have time to rehash them.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
More than you'd hoped for in an answer, eh?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Unfortunatly no. I had hoped for something far more solid.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I remember arguing about this in a thread about Gnosticism many moons ago, I never got a straight answer, I'd like to hear one. Specifically, the gospels of Thomas and Marry were discussed. Why are they not the word of God?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well, the Gospel of Thomas is dated to about 200 AD, and it's not a biography of Christ, rather a collection of things he is supposed to have said. (none of which are echoed in the other scriptures.) So, first of all, it's not a Gospel, and it wasn't by the Apostle Thomas.

This second reason is sufficient enough that we should dismis it (The test for all scripture is that it was written by someone who had been spoken through and to by God directly, that the writer was confirmed by acts of God, and that the writings revealed truth about God's character.)</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
But who decided those criteria, and why are they sufficient to dismiss what might possibly reveal truth about God?
I'll deal with this more later, no time right now.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
[1]The apostles were all spoken to by God, and could very, very easily all be considered prophets.
[2]They all had works that confirmed their authority. (Healing the sick by touch, etc.)
[3]Everything that was written reflected already known truth about God's character. ( Sending a messiah, righeouss, holy and blameless, etc.)</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
If I'm not mistaken, I did research on this for the gnosticism thread, and the earliest dating of a gospel was something like 150 AD. So the writers could not possibly have known Jesus personally.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Now, the Gospel of Timothy by comparison:

[1]Was not written by someone that could have possibly known Jesus.
[2]Did not have any works attached to the writer that would authenticate them.
[3]Contradicts previous scripture. (Gnosticism, depicts Jesus as a vengeful brat in childhood, etc.)</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
[3] Not from what I recall, but don't have time to do the research right now.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
The gospel of Mary, also:
[1]Was written by someone that knew Jesus, however, she was never one of his disciples nor did she ever recieve an apostolic mandate.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
IIRC, that gospel claims that she was an appostle. Is that not good enough? Are all the appostles acknoledging eachother as such trhought their own gospels (which they couldn't have written if IIRC)

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
[2]Did not have any works attached to her that could authenitcate her as a prophet.
[3]Contradicts previous scripture. (Gnosticism, "The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin.")</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Um... I don't see how taht contradicts anything. Its just a fancy way of saying that God didn't make sin, man did.

Anyway, I''ll try to deal with this more when I have more time.

Edit: The more I think about it, the less I want to bother with the gnosticism arguments here.

Legionnaired · March 2005

I agree with the point on Gnosticism, but I would like to assert a fact or two:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
If I'm not mistaken, I did research on this for the gnosticism thread, and the earliest dating of a gospel was something like 150 AD. So the writers could not possibly have known Jesus personally.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

<a href='http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefMedia.aspx?refid=461535768&artrefid=761566700&sec=-1&pn=1' target='_blank'> No. </a> The four gospels in the NT were all written easily in the life span of Christ's disciples.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I'll accept that for the purposes of this argument, even though I disagree with it (remember, Jesus was sinless yet neither did he stone her).</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

"I will have compassion on who I have compassion, and mercy on who I have mercy."

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Oh really? Does not a government official need to condemn a man to death? Does not a government official need to execute the condemned? Are they immune to the commandments because they are government officials? Or are they immune because the law allows them to kill? If you use the latter argument, then I refer to my previous hypothetical, is it ok for a man to kill his wife if the law allows it (he being the "government appointed" executioner for his wife in this case)?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I assume you're talking about the law as in, the law of the land, created by man.

The Law I refer to is the Law found in the OT, (I'll use caps from now on to differentiate.) and the Law has very specific punishments for very specific offenses. Who actually would carry out the offense is closely related to the avenger comment below, so I'll address it here also.

The "Agent of Blood" is the next-of-kin relative to the person that was slain. As I've already stated, the Law has specific provisions for capital punishment, and the word used in the ten commandments is 'murder.' Slaying for a unLawful (note the upper caps!) offense, in accordance with the Law is not murder.

And, I seem to have contradicted myself. Now that I think about it, I don't accept my systhesis either. If I were to re-write it, it'd read: "It is Lawful for capital punishment to be carried out in accordance with the Law. Christians are, however, called to respond to all insults and transgressions with kindness and love, just as Christ did for them."

My apologies for my faulty exogenesis.

Zaggy · March 2005

I rather try to hold on to something I'm (not very) sure about than not knowing anything about it.

The #1 reason I don't mind to die is to to know all, even if it's after life.

SkulkBait · March 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Mar 29 2005, 12:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I'll accept that for the purposes of this argument, even though I disagree with it (remember, Jesus was sinless yet neither did he stone her).</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

"I will have compassion on who I have compassion, and mercy on who I have mercy."
 </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Um.... ok... I would imagine so, by definition. Just WTH is that supposed to prove? It seems to me that Jesus basically countermanded the old Laws with that whole incident.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
And, I seem to have contradicted myself. Now that I think about it, I don't accept my systhesis either. If I were to re-write it, it'd read: "It is Lawful for capital punishment to be carried out in accordance with the Law. Christians are, however, called to respond to all insults and transgressions with kindness and love, just as Christ did for them."</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
This doesn't answer my question:
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> It is often said that the laws of the OT were meant specifically for certain groups, the isrealites or whoever, and that Jesus is the new way. Is this not the case? Or is that argument just something used when its convienient?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Do the old Laws still apply or not? (Be aware that your answer <i>will</i> be used against you in future arguemtns should the oportunity present itself <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />)

Also:
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
So... what is defined as "the land where you are"? Your state? Country? Some other boundry? So executions must take place outside of this boundry, or the executioner will also need to be executed (and his executioiner, and so on)? Don't hear that one very often from the christians, so I assume that it is ignored. Why?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

DarkATi · March 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Do the old Laws still apply or not? (Be aware that your answer will be used against you in future arguemtns should the oportunity present itself tounge.gif)</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

It is my opinion that the OT Laws are still in effect, they are still God's Laws. Most of the Law is specifically for the Israelites but many times the Law says, "you and any man that sojourns among you." So that would mean anyone, of course.

The point where the Law changes is when it comes to justification. Before Jesus a man had to be justified by the Law to be considered "clean", "holy", "worthy" or "righteous". Now, Jesus died for everyone and everyone can be righteous simply by accepting God's gift of his son - no one is unclean or unfit to stand before God if they stand upright in Christ Jesus.

Jesus said, "If you love me, you will obey my commandments."

So, yes, the old Laws DO still apply except for the Laws concerning justification. Topics like kosher meat, circumsicion, or any unclean disease, should (in my opinion) be disregarded - because it's no longer about justification by Law.

<b>I'm not trying to speak for Legionnaired, just stating my views.</b>

EDIT :::

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So... what is defined as "the land where you are"? Your state? Country? Some other boundry? So executions must take place outside of this boundry, or the executioner will also need to be executed (and his executioiner, and so on)? Don't hear that one very often from the christians, so I assume that it is ignored. Why?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The point is, when blood is shed, it contaminates everything, including the land.

This is not meant to be taken in a literal way so you can say, "hmm... where should I take someone so I can murder / execute them?" The land is everywhere.

The way I take it is, why worry about these laws and how they work? Just don't break them in their simplest form. Don't kill anyone and you have nothing to worry about. Let the government officials deal with it, let them deal with God, he'll hold them accountable.

This is one reason why I would never take the authority that allows someone to condemn a man to death.

~ DarkATi

Pepe_Muffassa · March 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Do the old Laws still apply or not? (Be aware that your answer will be used against you in future arguemtns should the oportunity present itself tounge.gif)</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Which laws specifcally? A lot of the dietary / cerimonial laws have their fulfillment in Jesus - and are therefore unnecessary. Jesus, being the ultimate sacrifice, nulified sacrificial laws.

Now, stepping away from that type of law, we get into "laws of the land" - what happens to a murderer? Rapist? - is capital punishment good, bad, who can exact it?

To those questions, the Bible has many answers, and even more guidelines. For instance, it never leaves room for someone to go exact revenge without some sort of trial situaiton (talking to the town elders, what have you.) However, neither is someone who murders allowed to get away with it.

The Bible makes a huge distinction between Murder and Killing. Killing is OK under certain circumstances - punishment and war are the two big ones, the third being when God specifically commanded it (usually ascociated in war - as in kill all the people, and their livestock and everything).

In terms of what Jesus did, or didn't do concerning the killing of people - some examples to look at are his own death, the prostitue (whom he spared), and his reaction to government authority.

When looking at the case of the prostitue, I think he was doing several things all at once. First of all, he was teaching mercy. Second, he was teaching the folly of the pharasaical law. Third, he was addressing the male oriented society (notice only the woman was brought before him - not the sinning males).

Now lets look at how Jesus reacts to government authority. At one point someone asked him people should pay taxes - and he replied "give to ceasar what is ceasars, and to God what is God's". The same thing applied when he was arrested - he did not resist those who arrested him - rather he healed one of them when his deciple cut of the guys ear. Even when he was being beaten he didn't speak out against the authority doing the beating. He protested innocents, but never undermined the authority.

When looking at his own death, we don't see him undermining the earthy authority there, either.

Ok, I'm just about done. I guess the main principle that I use is this: God reserves vengance for himself. At the same time, God uses humans to do his will (be it the Israelites to punish Caananites, or deciplels to preach the word). When it comes to government, it is an authority "under God" - and as such it is usable to carry out capital punishment on those found deserving of it.

SkulkBait · March 2005

Wow. Never before have I realised how truly maliable Christian "morality" can be when it needs to justify something. I am truely in awe. I didn't know it was possible, but I now hold even more contempt for scripture then I ever have before.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The point is, when blood is shed, it contaminates everything, including the land.

This is not meant to be taken in a literal way so you can say, "hmm... where should I take someone so I can murder / execute them?" The land is everywhere.

The way I take it is, why worry about these laws and how they work? Just don't break them in their simplest form. Don't kill anyone and you have nothing to worry about. Let the government officials deal with it, let them deal with God, he'll hold them accountable.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Maybe you missed my earlier arguments. Please go back and read the ones regarding why allowing government officials to kill is rediculously contradictory.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The Bible makes a huge distinction between Murder and Killing. Killing is OK under certain circumstances - punishment and war are the two big ones, the third being when God specifically commanded it (usually ascociated in war - as in kill all the people, and their livestock and everything).
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
So does the bible layout what constitutes a just war, or are you allowed to kill in any war, no matter the reason it started?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Ok, I'm just about done. I guess the main principle that I use is this: God reserves vengance for himself.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Yet, as we saw earlier, scripture allows for the killing of a man in revenge (under the right circumstances).

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>When it comes to government, it is an authority "under God" - and as such it is usable to carry out capital punishment on those found deserving of it.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I'm going to assume that you didn't read my earlier arguments, because if you did you'd be more clear about what "under god" means. I am forced to assume that you mean that <i>all</i> governments have the athority to execute whomever their law allows them too. You should also take a look at my earlier arguments in this regard.

No offense guys, but why don't you leave this one to Legion.

Legionnaired · March 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Wow. Never before have I realised how truly maliable Christian "morality" can be when it needs to justify something. I am truely in awe. I didn't know it was possible, but I know hold even more contempt for scripture then I ever have before.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Sorry if I've contributed to this, but keep in mind that the people interpreting the scriptures are fallen people.

Also, nobody on here has any sort of higher training on religious studies or hermanutical study. We're a bunch of amatures, so don't equate what we say with scripture at any level. Hell, I've already contradicited myself once on here.

Moving on...

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Um.... ok... I would imagine so, by definition. Just WTH is that supposed to prove? It seems to me that Jesus basically countermanded the old Laws with that whole incident. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

He had the full legal right to kill her, under the law. However, one could make the case that (since he was God, after all...) He saw her heart, saw she was repentant, and decided to have mercy on her. God is Love, so this isn't that much of a stretch. Any punishment that she would have recieved for that transgression, he paid for during his Crucifixtion. Let us not forget that the biggest single issue in the Bible is not any of these particulars we've been discussing, but the fact that Christ laid his own life down for all of mankind, redeeming them.

I personally believe in eternal security, an idea derived from several places in the NT whose references I won't bore you with, but basically it states that after a person has repented for their actions and asked for forgiveness through Christ's work on the cross, all their past and future sins are also paid for. If Mary deserved to die for what she did, yet repented later for her actions and recieved forgiveness through Christ's death, then it seems only logical that Christ could have chosen to delay her punishment until He Himself could bear it.

Some God we're talking about, eh?

And, now, the $100,000 question:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Do the old Laws still apply or not?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes .... in a sense <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /> !

We can roughly divide laws into three different types, Moral, Ceremonial, and Civil.

Where moral would include, basically, the 10 commandments: things like don't steal, don't murder, don't covet your neighbor's wive, and don't bear false witness. These are moral issues that present a standard to which we are still held. These things are never OK, in any sense, at any place, at any time.

Ceremonial Law, and Civil Law would include things like atonement offerings, different governmental issues, dietary law, etc. These things are considered specific to the Jewish people, in their culture, at their time. The reasons for this are multifold, the most striking example would be that when Paul preached to Gentile converts, he didn't tell them to change their diet, to start practicing ritual, or anything like that. God met those people where they were at, and that's exactly how he meets us. We don't have to clean up our act before we get to know him through Christ.

So, the moral issues are in effect still, but the Ceremonial and Civil laws are applicable to Jewish culture and the Jewish people.

But wait, there's more!

That whole Crucifixion thing really did muck up the law. Because simply, anyone, anywhere, any time can accept Jesus' sacrifice for their sins and be restored to God that very day. And, as I've already discussed, eternal security is eternal and absolute. Once a person is saved, they stay that way. Even though they may break a moral Law, Christ died for that transgression as well!

We're not dealing with a religion of laws and practices, but of a faith in a God that has paid our debt with his own blood. THAT is why people get so excited about it, because anyone can have it at any time, and we think they rather ought to.

SkulkBait · March 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Mar 29 2005, 03:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Um.... ok... I would imagine so, by definition. Just WTH is that supposed to prove? It seems to me that Jesus basically countermanded the old Laws with that whole incident. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

He had the full legal right to kill her, under the law.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Don't you mean the Law?
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>However, one could make the case that (since he was God, after all...) He saw her heart, saw she was repentant, and decided to have mercy on her. God is Love, so this isn't that much of a stretch.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I find that to be an interesting interpretation, considering all the people God didn't forgive, and in fact smited, for lesser crimes. But thats the topic for annother thread. You could also interpret this the way I have: Jesus is denouncing the old Law in favor of the new. Basically saying that the old Laws are wrong (or at least, wrongly interpreted). The new Law is the Law of forgiveness, not vengence. Of course, this requires you to accept some fundamental difference between the God of the OT and Jesus, which you and several other forum members would reject to the end.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Any punishment that she would have recieved for that transgression, he paid for during his Crucifixtion. Let us not forget that the biggest single issue in the Bible is not any of these particulars we've been discussing, but the fact that Christ laid his own life down for all of mankind, redeeming them.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I'm not saying otherwise. However, if this were the case, then why not delay the punishments of all who were smoten long before the crucifixion? If God is truely timeless, then surely this is possible.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I personally believe in eternal security, an idea derived from several places in the NT whose references I won't bore you with, but basically it states that after a person has repented for their actions and asked for forgiveness through Christ's work on the cross, all their past and future sins are also paid for.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Hold on a second there. All future sins? Regardless of wether or not that person later rejects Christ?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If Mary deserved to die for what she did, yet repented later for her actions and recieved forgiveness through Christ's death, then it seems only logical that Christ could have chosen to delay her punishment until He Himself could bear it.

Some God we're talking about, eh?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Yes, he shows an odd amount of favoritism. Read argument above about delaying the punishment.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
And, now, the $100,000 question:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Do the old Laws still apply or not?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes .... in a sense <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /> !

We can roughly divide laws into three different types, Moral, Ceremonial, and Civil.

Where moral would include, basically, the 10 commandments: things like don't steal, don't murder, don't covet your neighbor's wive, and don't bear false witness. These are moral issues that present a standard to which we are still held. These things are never OK, in any sense, at any place, at any time.

Ceremonial Law, and Civil Law would include things like atonement offerings, different governmental issues, dietary law, etc. These things are considered specific to the Jewish people, in their culture, at their time. The reasons for this are multifold, the most striking example would be that when Paul preached to Gentile converts, he didn't tell them to change their diet, to start practicing ritual, or anything like that. God met those people where they were at, and that's exactly how he meets us. We don't have to clean up our act before we get to know him through Christ.
So, the moral issues are in effect still, but the Ceremonial and Civil laws are applicable to Jewish culture and the Jewish people.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
But isn't that contradictory in and of itself? If "murder" is defined in terms of the Civil Law laid down for the jewish people, then how could it possibly be differentiated from "kill" in any other context?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
But wait, there's more!</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
You mean I get the solid flavor injector, a $30 value, for free as well!?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
That whole Crucifixion thing really did muck up the law. Because simply, anyone, anywhere, any time can accept Jesus' sacrifice for their sins and be restored to God that very day. And, as I've already discussed, eternal security is eternal and absolute. Once a person is saved, they stay that way.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Same question as before: Does this also include one who later rejects Christ?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Even though they may break a moral Law, Christ died for that transgression as well!

We're not dealing with a religion of laws and practices, but of a faith in a God that has paid our debt with his own blood. THAT is why people get so excited about it, because anyone can have it at any time, and we think they rather ought to.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I would accept that, except that so many Christians aren't excited about the saving, but about the Laws and ceremony. Just take a look at the fervent outlash against homosexual marriage, abortion, capital punishment, or just about any issue that comes up in here and grows to 5 pages in under an hour.
And we keep it relatively civil in here (assuming the absence of certain unnamed individuals). Out in real life its much much worse.

Cyndane · March 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <b> Legionaried </b>
Also, nobody on here has any sort of higher training on religious studies or hermanutical study. We're a bunch of amatures, so don't equate what we say with scripture at any level. Hell, I've already contradicited myself once on here.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

There are a couple of us on here who actually do have quite extensive backgrounds in theological studies and hermeneutical studying.

Others simply refuse to accept that fact, and tend to insult as a result.

Pepe_Muffassa · March 2005

Legion brought up the doctrine of Eternal Security - and while it is a true doctrine, its application to life is hard to see.

Basically, the doctrine says "God will not drop those he holds" - once we are in God's grasp, there is nothing that we can do to get out of it.

this was countered by:
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Hold on a second there. All future sins? Regardless of wether or not that person later rejects Christ?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The response to this is - if the person rejected christ, then their prior commitment to Christ wasn't a true commitment, but rather that person trying to live a lie, both to themselves and God.

thats all for now.

theclam · March 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Mar 29 2005, 05:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> The response to this is - if the person rejected christ, then their prior commitment to Christ wasn't a true commitment, but rather that person trying to live a lie, both to themselves and God.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Someone can be completely sincere about something and still change their mind later.

Eternal Security is a strange concept. What about a Christian who converted to radical Islam and started killing Christians because of their religion? It doesn't make logical sense that a god would "save" someone like that, but not an agnostic who lived his entire life morally in every way but belief in a god. Then again, logic doesn't have much place in a religious debate.

Legionnaired · March 2005

Amazing. 4 Posts and we go from Gnosticism to Legalism vs. Grace, to Eternal Security. It's as if this discussion is actually going somewhere.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I find that to be an interesting interpretation, considering all the people God didn't forgive, and in fact smited, for lesser crimes. But thats the topic for annother thread. You could also interpret this the way I have: Jesus is denouncing the old Law in favor of the new. Basically saying that the old Laws are wrong (or at least, wrongly interpreted). The new Law is the Law of forgiveness, not vengence. Of course, this requires you to accept some fundamental difference between the God of the OT and Jesus, which you and several other forum members would reject to the end.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I ask, who was smitten for a lesser offense? The Caananites? The worshippers of Baal?

Sure, besides the infanticide, idol worship and occult practices, I'm sure they were also smitten for much less serious offenses than adultery.

When you look at the OT, you see God's judgement against humanity. What you don't see, probably because you've never looked for it, and I don't blame you, is how badly humanity messed up in the first place. It's this, and the fact that God promises he'll do something about it in the OT, foretells how it'll be done, and then it happens in the NT that I refuse to believe anything else about the continuity of the scriptures. Either they all, as a whole, are wrong, or they all as a whole are right. The only thing we cannot do is compartmentalize, pick and choose which books we like to hear about, and form our beliefs around those.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I'm not saying otherwise. However, if this were the case, then why not delay the punishments of all who were smoten long before the crucifixion? If God is truely timeless, then surely this is possible.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

This did happen, in fact, on numerous occasions. Rahab the prostitute surely deserved death, but she was spared through her faith in God. Abraham was considered righeous through that same faith, as was Ruth, as was even the city of Ninevah. Those people that chose to believe what God was saying, and God always gave them a chance, were always spared. They are saved through faith just as much as Paul was.

The only difference was, they put their faith in a messiah they had no name for yet, in God to forgive them.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
But isn't that contradictory in and of itself? If "murder" is defined in terms of the Civil Law laid down for the jewish people, then how could it possibly be differentiated from "kill" in any other context?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The murder is defined and forbidden in the moral Law. Provisions for manslaughter and accidental death, and the treatment of them, are handled in civil Law. Certain things are wrong, no matter who is around to say anything about them.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I would accept that, except that so many Christians aren't excited about the saving, but about the Laws and ceremony. Just take a look at the fervent outlash against homosexual marriage, abortion, capital punishment, or just about any issue that comes up in here and grows to 5 pages in under an hour.
And we keep it relatively civil in here (assuming the absence of certain unnamed individuals). Out in real life its much much worse.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

That's why the number one cause of Atheism in this country is ChristiansX. The 'Body of Christ' is a spiritual organization, not a political one. I look at all believers as brothersX and sisters; but I have to vehemently disagree, nay, condemn the way that theyX attempt to use God in political situations. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Same question as before: Does this also include one who later rejects Christ?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Though I see some of the reasoning in Pepe's response, I have to disagree.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Romans 8)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> 35Who will separate us from (CB)the love of [e]Christ? Will (CC)tribulation, or distress, or (CD)persecution, or (CE)famine, or (CF)nakedness, or (CG)peril, or sword?

36Just as it is written,
"(CH)FOR YOUR SAKE WE ARE BEING PUT TO DEATH ALL DAY LONG;
WE WERE CONSIDERED AS SHEEP TO BE SLAUGHTERED."

37But in all these things we overwhelmingly (CI)conquer through (CJ)Him who loved us.

38For I am convinced that neither (CK)death, nor life, nor (CL)angels, nor principalities, nor (CM)things present, nor things to come, nor powers,

39nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from (CN)the love of God, which is (CO)in Christ Jesus our Lord. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ephesians 1)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> 13In Him, you also, after listening to (AI)the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were (AJ)sealed in Him with (AK)the Holy Spirit of promise,

14who is (AL)given as a pledge of (AM)our inheritance, with a view to the (AN)redemption of (AO)God's own possession, (AP)to the praise of His glory. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

God promises, quite simply, that when we have the relationship with Him, we're set that way. Ephesians uses 'sealed,' to imply a pledge. Later on, we see circumstancial evidence that when someone accepts Christ, the lines between Jesus and them even become blurred a little...

Paul, before he became an apostle, persecuted the church, killed christians, put them in jail, had their property taken away. When Christ confronted him, He didn't say 'Why are you persecuting my church," or "my followers," or "my people," not even "my family." He asked, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute <i>me</i>?"

If you think about it, apostasy, rejecting Christ, is a sin in and of itself. If Christ did die for all our sins, and we've recieved that forgiveness for all of our sins, then hasn't that sin already been paid for as well? Didn't Christ know full well that on the cross, he was paying for someone betraying Him?

And talk about betrayal. Peter denyed Christ three times, and he later became an apostle!

But I'm rambling, you get my point.

SkulkBait · March 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Mar 30 2005, 12:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I ask, who was smitten for a lesser offense? The Caananites? The worshippers of Baal?

Sure, besides the infanticide, idol worship and occult practices, I'm sure they were also smitten for much less serious offenses than adultery.

</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Genesis, chapter 38:
And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.

And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.

And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I don't know about you, but that seems rather petty to me. Believe it or not I wouldn't even know this passage existed if I hadn't tried to read the bible at one point in my life. In fact, it sticks out in my mind because of the sheer rediculousness of the whole thing. (Especially since that technique is <i>not</i> an effective form of birth control).

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
When you look at the OT, you see God's judgement against humanity. What you don't see, probably because you've never looked for it, and I don't blame you, is how badly humanity messed up in the first place.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Don't get me wrong, I know that humanity messed up, we still do. What bothers me is that this supposedly "timeless" entity requires some 3000 before the indroduction of the savior, who completely changes the way God interacts with humanity forever.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It's this, and the fact that God promises he'll do something about it in the OT, foretells how it'll be done, and then it happens in the NT that I refuse to believe anything else about the continuity of the scriptures. Either they all, as a whole, are wrong, or they all as a whole are right. The only thing we cannot do is compartmentalize, pick and choose which books we like to hear about, and form our beliefs around those.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Sure you can, it all depends on how you interepret them. For instance, one could interpret the majority of the OT as parable. Or one could interpret things the way the gnostics do and regard the OT as the work of a lesser deity. But lets not go there. One of the things I dislike most about scripture is its overall maliability through interpretation, as evidenced in this forum on countless occasions. Also remember that the books that are included in "the bible" were selected by human (read as: flawed) hands. You are already picking and choosing which books to hear about.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I'm not saying otherwise. However, if this were the case, then why not delay the punishments of all who were smoten long before the crucifixion? If God is truely timeless, then surely this is possible.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

This did happen, in fact, on numerous occasions. Rahab the prostitute surely deserved death, but she was spared through her faith in God.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Let me ask you something, even if she had no faith in God, do you think Jesus would have killed her? Jesus, the man who forgave his betrayer who had no faith?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Abraham was considered righeous through that same faith, as was Ruth, as was even the city of Ninevah. Those people that chose to believe what God was saying, and God always gave them a chance, were always spared. They are saved through faith just as much as Paul was.

The only difference was, they put their faith in a messiah they had no name for yet, in God to forgive them.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
But as evidenced, Jesus spared even those who had no faith, forgave them even. Why could this same forgiveness not be extended to pre-christ humanity?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
But isn't that contradictory in and of itself? If "murder" is defined in terms of the Civil Law laid down for the jewish people, then how could it possibly be differentiated from "kill" in any other context?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The murder is defined and forbidden in the moral Law. Provisions for manslaughter and accidental death, and the treatment of them, are handled in civil Law. Certain things are wrong, no matter who is around to say anything about them.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
You refered to moral Law as "Basically, the Ten Commandments". As I recall, they do not define murder. It seemed to me that the term was defined as part of the civil Law, based on earlier passage citings. Where is it defined?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I would accept that, except that so many Christians aren't excited about the saving, but about the Laws and ceremony. Just take a look at the fervent outlash against homosexual marriage, abortion, capital punishment, or just about any issue that comes up in here and grows to 5 pages in under an hour.
And we keep it relatively civil in here (assuming the absence of certain unnamed individuals). Out in real life its much much worse.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

That's why the number one cause of Atheism in this country is ChristiansX. The 'Body of Christ' is a spiritual organization, not a political one. I look at all believers as brothersX and sisters; but I have to vehemently disagree, nay, condemn the way that theyX attempt to use God in political situations. I agree with you wholeheartedly.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
So we can agree on something, will wonders never cease?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Same question as before: Does this also include one who later rejects Christ?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Though I see some of the reasoning in Pepe's response, I have to disagree.

...

God promises, quite simply, that when we have the relationship with Him, we're set that way. Ephesians uses 'sealed,' to imply a pledge. Later on, we see circumstancial evidence that when someone accepts Christ, the lines between Jesus and them even become blurred a little...

Paul, before he became an apostle, persecuted the church, killed christians, put them in jail, had their property taken away. When Christ confronted him, He didn't say 'Why are you persecuting my church," or "my followers," or "my people," not even "my family." He asked, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute <i>me</i>?"

If you think about it, apostasy, rejecting Christ, is a sin in and of itself. If Christ did die for all our sins, and we've recieved that forgiveness for all of our sins, then hasn't that sin already been paid for as well? Didn't Christ know full well that on the cross, he was paying for someone betraying Him?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Or was he? If judas had no faith in the savior, then he never accepted Christ and wasn't saved, or am I wrong?

Also, I don't like this interpretation because it is, as one who rejects God (the word I often use is "hate"), it is scarry to think that in my past I might have had sufficient faith to be granted salvation (assuming of course that the christian God accualy exists, which is highly inprobable IMO). To me, the prospect of serving a being who committed genocide is not a good one. Moreover, what about those who are worse then me? What about ones who had faith and achieved salvation, but later committed haneous attrocities? It seems to me that if what you say were true, then christians could get away with anything, provided that they were saved at some point earlier in their life, and know that they could get away with anytihng. Why resist remptation when God will forgive you anyway?

theclam · March 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Mar 30 2005, 01:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Don't get me wrong, I know that humanity messed up, we still do. What bothers me is that this supposedly "timeless" entity requires some 3000 before the indroduction of the savior, who completely changes the way God interacts with humanity forever.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Quoted for truth. The day before Jesus died, you're supposed to act in one way, but the day after Jesus died, you're supposed to act a completely different way. It bothers me that God supposedly takes actions that are so important, but are also so arbitrary. It also suggests that God was the one who screwed up, if he feels the need to change his policy towards us so drastically. After all, he created us, he has perfect knowledge over us, he should have known that we are predisposed to screwing up, so he should have crafted his policy in order to prevent these screw ups. This seems to fall more in line with either a practical joker god or a god who isn't so omnipotent or omniscient.

These are silly discussions in the first place, because Skulkbait and I (and others, too) try to argue about the morality of the actions of a hypothetical entity (God), while our opponents define morality itself as actions that are advocated by that entity. In their view, our arguments are completely trumped by a higher authority, but in our view, they take a really really silly cop-out stance.

Breakthrough · March 2005

<span style='color:white'>Stay on topic.</span>

Pepe_Muffassa · March 2005

<span style='color:white'>Snip.</span>

@Legionnaired

I think you and I are arguing 2 sides of the same thing (when it comes to eternal security). I believe in eternal securtiy - I don't belive in "back-sliding christians". Either you are, or your not. You can't profess one day, and then live like you aren't the next. As Paul (I think) says: "you shall know them by their fruits".

The passage you gave is a huge argument for eternal security - and your right, nothing can separate us from God - except ourselves. The passage was aimed at those who were being persecuted in the early church - with the idea being that no matter how bad the persecution, nothing can separate you. If you fast forward that to today to the individual who openly rejects God - even though they may have "accepted" Christ at an earlier date - heck, even if they were a pastor at a Bible believing church... That individual having rejected Christ has no hope for their eternal security.

Here is where the doctrinal problem lies. We have God, who promises not to let his own fall. We have a person who previously accepted God, now rejects God. The situation is one of three things then - either God is a liar, and can let fall those who are his - or the person was never truely a follower of Christ in the first place, or people in those situations have found a loop hole where they can get to heaven and still live a sinful life. Being that I am a failable human, and God is an infailable God, I find the second explanation the most plausable and doctrinally sound.

Nemesis_Zero · March 2005

<span style='color:white'>Admin's note:</span> Tidied that last part up a bit. TheJim, Spacer, you are being restricted for balantly spammy and improductive posts. If you want to have this restriction removed, contact me to make your cases.

Cagey · March 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Mar 26 2005, 05:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This isn't about <i>my</i> beliefs now is it? Christians seem to believe that abortion is wrong, even though it is a lawfull act, but execution (equally lawfull) is perfectly OK.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I don't see the point of getting into an Internet Argument about my religion, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't (incorrectly) generalize <i>my</i> beliefs that way.

Prominent people who label themselves Christians have what we apparently both see as inconsistant ethics, but that isn't a requirement to be a Christian. Ditto for hatemongering--the fact some jackass values one human over another for whatever bigoted reason doesn't mean I follow suit.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I would accept that, except that so many Christians aren't excited about the saving, but about the Laws and ceremony.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Does it suprise you that out of hundreds of millions of self-labeled Christians, some don't follow actual Christian tenets? There isn't any entrance requirement aside from the desire to call yourself Christian; it shouldn't be suprising that people who don't put effort into understanding what Chirst meant misrepresent Him--and yes, I do believe there are priests and ministers who are completely missing the point.

Many people assemble whatever makes them feel good under the banner of Christianity, and unfortunately for all of us many small-minded people feel good by feeling superior to others. Their vanity causes them to form cliques they feel are somehow better than those who don't believe. That attitude is contrary to the central Christian idea of Grace and also to its missionary calling.

Sky · March 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cagey @ Mar 30 2005, 04:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I would accept that, except that so many Christians aren't excited about the saving, but about the Laws and ceremony.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Does it suprise you that out of hundreds of millions of self-labeled Christians, some don't follow actual Christian tenets? There isn't any entrance requirement aside from the desire to call yourself Christian; it shouldn't be suprising that people who don't put effort into understanding what Chirst meant misrepresent Him--and yes, I do believe there are priests and ministers who are completely missing the point.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Um, I don't know how you join other Christian communities, but in order to become a Roman Catholic you need to go through a rather long "entrance exam", culminating in your baptism. Even children born into the RCC have to go to CCD before they can receive the first Communion, and then they have to go to CCD some more before they become Confirmed as full members of the Church. So, in order to officially become a Christian, there is quite a bit of preparatory work. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' />

Cagey · March 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Mar 30 2005, 04:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cagey @ Mar 30 2005, 04:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I would accept that, except that so many Christians aren't excited about the saving, but about the Laws and ceremony.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Does it suprise you that out of hundreds of millions of self-labeled Christians, some don't follow actual Christian tenets? There isn't any entrance requirement aside from the desire to call yourself Christian; it shouldn't be suprising that people who don't put effort into understanding what Chirst meant misrepresent Him--and yes, I do believe there are priests and ministers who are completely missing the point. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Um, I don't know how you join other Christian communities, but in order to become a Roman Catholic you need to go through a rather long "entrance exam", culminating in your baptism. Even children born into the RCC have to go to CCD before they can receive the first Communion, and then they have to go to CCD some more before they become Confirmed as full members of the Church. So, in order to officially become a Christian, there is quite a bit of preparatory work. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I went through that RCC prep work attending St. Cyprian's Elementary and am well aware of the sacraments, but I don't equate "official" Christians with the RCC--I believe that other congregations that accept the unaltered Gospel are also "official" if that's the term you want to use (I'm attending Protestant services instead of mass these days).

All of that aside, my point is that "official vs. unofficial" Christianity isn't a distinction that the world at large draws when groups label themselves Christian. David Koresh told his followers they were Christians, and while most sane people can see the difference in that extreme example, there are a full spectrum of other groups who have beliefs contradictory to the Gospel but use the name. My personal opinion of whether the label is legitimate on a case by case basis is irrelevant to the public perception of those groups and many won't question the association. I'll amend my statment to read, "There isn't any entrance requirement to calling yourself Christian aside from the desire to call yourself Christian," if that clarifies--I thought it redundant, but maybe it's not.

When someone says they're Christian in casual conversation, it doesn't mean they understand--or have even made an effort to understand--Christianity as I (or the RCC) define it. Some of the <a href='http://www.falwell.com/' target='_blank'>loudest voices</a> out there preach sermons I believe are contrary to what Christ taught. I'm not saying Falwell's church is necessarily heretical (to use the old school term), but some of his statements make me question his understanding of his text. I personally find his assertions embarrasing to the faith.

Sky · March 2005

Just to avoid confusion, I use the label "Christian" only in reference to people who are officially accepted into a Church. You can be a good person, give to the poor, do everything "right", but if you haven't been accepted into a Christian church you're not a Christian.

Of course, both the good non-Christian and the good Christian will go to Heaven, in my opinion, so in the end it doesn't really matter.

SkulkBait · March 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Mar 30 2005, 09:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Just to avoid confusion, I use the label "Christian" only in reference to people who are officially accepted into a Church. You can be a good person, give to the poor, do everything "right", but if you haven't been accepted into a Christian church you're not a Christian.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
But thats not the standard definition. The most widely accepted definition is one who accepts christ's sacrifice for their sins.

Abra · March 2005

Oh, the Bible.

To me, the bible is a book full of fictional stories that teach us the basic rules of a civilized community. It preaches about that we should not kill and that we should/must love our neighbors, family, ect. To me it isn't more than that.

I can see that growing up, being told that the Bible is right - and god exists, can make you belive it.

I don't believe in god, i don't belive in some, allknowing being. I might sound harsh to the hardcore Christians (and people of other religions) but i just can't trust in something that has no proof whatsoever. Furthermore the religions that are being worshipped startet out in a time, so long time ago!

Back then it was common knowledge that if, it wasnt just understandable - it was god. If there was a storm - gods wraith. If people died from sickness, that we today can cure - it was gods wraith.

ANYTHING that couldnt be explained by hitting it with a sword - was god. Today we can explain alot of these things, through scientific research. However people still hold on to religion, why? Becourse its ancient! becourse they have been told by there parents that it is true, and their parents have been told by there parents - all way back in the family till we reach the time when people thought the earth was round.

Is it wrong to belive that everything out there have a reasonable explanation wich dosnt shortcut, through religion?

Thats my 15 yearold danish look at it.

Nadagast · March 2005

So many logical errors and just plain bad arguments from the religious people in this thread it's ridiculous.

One of them...
Who would die for a lie? I assume since you're Christian you believe Islam is false? The suicide bombers and hijackers on 9/11 died for a lie then right? Come on.
and quoting two people who are essentially rehashing Pascal's wager doesn't do anything for me.

The Bible isn't even a good book of morals anymore. It supports slavery and tells us to kill all homosexuals. It's quite obvious that it's a 2000 year old relic, not some divinely-inspired word of god. I'm sure it was a good book of morals 2000 years ago.

Edit: Seriously if someone wants to step up and defend a literal interpretation of the bible, please explain Noah's Ark. How is it possible? Do I really need to state all my questions again? Explain to me what happened exactly, without saying Goddidit. PLEASE.

kida · March 2005

God doesn't need to justify his actions, because his actions are right and set for whatever true purposes. Supposing he is the God we describe as, there is a question that alot of people are willing to forget, and that is, "inorder for evil to have existed, God had to imagine it first, or given the capicity," "individual freedom does not exist, because God is past, present, and future," and finally, "if God is what we are able to only describe with nomilies, then because the potter creates a bent plate, it is not technically our fault that we are sinners in the sense of complete lack of circumspection from God's insight. Basically, people are predestined to murder, just like God consecrated Jeremiah before he was born, or when he commanded Saul to slaughter every human, woman and child of the enemy. Perhaps the idea that I am getting around to, is that God, supposing he exists affirmatively, it is only possible that the conclusion of his "tough" love, is rather sadistic yet justified in his will. The new covenant with man that God created, is the ultimate contradiction in itself, which makes Christianity so unique. After all though, the main proposition of the bible is salvation, and throughout we can see that, but there are human inconsistincies that often do not line up, and that do not make sense with today's standards of ethics, in the sense that that i have mentioned earlier.

kida · March 2005

On another note, it is impossible to argue with someone of experience; more importantly, I am talking about people who have supposedly experienced God in their lives. It's probably that they're experiencing a sort of causual side-effect from wanting to believe in something so strongly, unconsciously, maybe not aware at the time (for example people who become believers when not raised in that circumstance), or it could be that what they say is true experience, subjectively objective to their perception. Those are the only two propositions I see with the experience arguement that has me usually pinned down when trying to discuss God with people of relgious demeanor. They can really suck you in by saying, "just look at the cross...Jesus..."

Nadagast · March 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SmoodCroozn @ Mar 28 2005, 02:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> You can criticize my beliefs, but you can't change them. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
What an awful, <b>awful, <i>awful,</i></b> attitude.

Question for Christians: I believe that Christianity says that babies are born in sin, and therefore need to be baptised/give in to Christ/whatever, before they can go to Heaven. Is this correct?
If so, can you tell me what happened to the new born babies who were killed when the tsunami hit back in December? Did they go to hell? Why? From what I can see, they were innocent, but Christianity says that we are born guilty. How is it fair for these babies who have literally done nothing to be punished to eternal damnation?

kida · March 2005

Okay, let me slip another thing in while i'm on my carving wheel...Hmm...It's quite strange or maybe ironical how people who strongly believe in God, and I respect these type of people by all means, because of their adherence to conduct and behavior; but what intrigues me is that they expect me to believe in something without trying to understand what it is i am possibly going to believe. That's the problem; alot of these kind of people, and I don't mean to be partial to myself, are just accepting without examining what it is they believe. The love that, let's say... imagine something so spectacular, for example, imagine sitting on the dock when a slow breeze and the twilight of evening sets in...imagine that splendour and beauty from some God...Right? Well, to say someone truly loves God, or truly desires this object without selfish motivation, is absolutely impossible; because, God created suffering for that set purpose, to possibly bring us closer to the realization of salvation. There is no man, who is so powerful or beautiful, that would enter the kingdom of God so easily, but perhaps when he enters the hell of sin, he will look back up and want to perceive the beauty of humility that is heaven. This is perhaps proof of God in a quasi-metaphysical way, that there is a sort of real love out there, a sort of understanding which we cannot possibly conceive - an awareness of the unaware, when one does that last dance on the docks. That is what I believe impels me to want to believe, or perhaps I already do, when God is mentioned. God is just something that is beyond my possible and wildest of imaginations, and maybe he is just sort of grinning at us in a sort of, "sad and benign" way. The question that I present, is do we really understand what we know and believe?

The Bible

Comments