How can we have a substantive conversation if you're not willing to put in any effort to actually understand the subject matter, either for or against? If you're content with your blind faith in whatever scientists tell you, then you're just as dogmatic as you accuse me of being. The video I provided is very good and it chronicles the history of deep time, as well as the science behind it, in exacting detail using the methodology of geologists. You could watch 10 minutes of it, and if you decided you didn't like it, you could turn it off.

As far as the paradigm shift goes, here is a quote from the father of uniformitarianism, Charles Lyell:

I am sure you may get into Q.R. [Quarterly Review] what will free the science from Moses, for if treated seriously, the [church] party are quite prepared for it. A bishop, Buckland ascertained (we suppose [Bishop] Sumner), gave Ure a dressing in the British Critic and Theological Review. They see at last the mischief and scandal brought on them by Mosaic systems … . Probably there was a beginning—it is a metaphysical question, worthy of a theologian—probably there will be an end. Species, as you say, have begun and ended—but the analogy is faint and distant. Perhaps it is an analogy, but all I say is, there are, as Hutton said, ‘no signs of a beginning, no prospect of an end’ … . All I ask is, that at any given period of the past, don’t stop inquiry when puzzled by refuge to a ‘beginning,’ which is all one with ‘another state of nature,’ as it appears to me. But there is no harm in your attacking me, provided you point out that it is the proof I deny, not the probability of a beginning … . I was afraid to point the moral, as much as you can do in the Q.R. about Moses. Perhaps I should have been tenderer about the Koran. Don’t meddle much with that, if at all.

If we don’t irritate, which I fear that we may (though mere history), we shall carry all with us. If you don’t triumph over them, but compliment the liberality and candour of the present age, the bishops and enlightened saints will join us in despising both the ancient and modern physico-theologians. It is just the time to strike, so rejoice that, sinner as you are, the Q.R. is open to you.

P.S. … I conceived the idea five or six years ago [1824–25], that if ever the Mosaic geology could be set down without giving offence, it would be in an historical sketch, and you must abstract mine, in order to have as little to say as possible yourself. Let them feel it, and point the moral.”

As you can plainly see, Charles was scheming to deceive the church into accepting his uniformitarian theories even though he knew they contradicted scripture. He wasn't interested in a scientific investigation of the facts:

From a lecture in King’s College London in 1832

I have always been strongly impressed with the weight of an observation of an excellent writer and skillful geologist who said that ‘for the sake of revelation as well as of science—of truth in every form—the physical part of Geological inquiry ought to be conducted as if the Scriptures were not in existence

He had an agenda and his bias is plain to see. He completely excluded the testimony of scripture apriori before he even began. That is the beginning of why there was a shift in geology as the intelligentsia embraced his theories and began to teach it at Universities. There was no spectacular confirmation of any of this; in fact the evidence he gave about Niagra Falls to supprt his theory has been completely falsified.

@shinyblurry

In the beginning, God created Adam and Eve … to maintain order in His kingdom.

I can't tell if you're disagreeing or off topic. I'll state again what I think I have heard you say or suggest: God gave us humans free will. He loves us, and knew what would be the best way for us to live, so, out of love, he gave us a set of laws to follow for our own good. In order to encourage us to follow those laws, he established hell as punishment for choosing to violate those laws: the worst possible eternal torture.

Have I made any mistakes in there?

[me:]What’s wrong with robots? You said elsewhere it’s because god wouldn’t want robots. How can he want anything? He’s perfect. Does his own existence not satisfy him? Is he lacking something? Was he bored and lonely? Are we his pets?

[you:]God created not out of need, but out of the abundance of His love.

I said and I meant "want" (not "need"). You've said many times that God wanted/desired us to exist and behave in certain ways, and you used words like "(un)satisfactory" to describe God's opinion of us/robots, and so forth. Any understanding of those words necessarily implies a lack of something. You cannot want/desire/be unsatisfied unless that thing addresses your lack of something that would make you better off in some way. Every single human action can be attributed to a lack or want (or need). But a perfect all-powerful God would have none of these. He would be at Nirvana, a persistent state of satisfaction with nothing but the self. So "want" and "perfect" make a contradiction. Can you address either my founding statements or my logic?

[me:]You didn’t answer my questions. I know the stated purpose of sending Jesus. My question is why the situation required exactly that. Surely God, at some point, decided, "Well, they’re bad, and I want to get closer, and the exact thing required is for me to have a son, for that son to be a perfect human, for him to preach for three years and then get executed by the other humans, and then we can be closer." God decided something like that. It’s a direct implication of saying that God created everything and that this was necessary.

[you:]Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world.

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Again, you didn't answer. Why did it have to be Jesus? God is all-powerful, so he could have sent a puppy or a bamboo plant or a paramecium to bear our sins and be killed. Or he could have decided it required 40 children of his to be sacrificed. Why just one man?

Before the world began, God knew that He would need to send His Son.

Because being in the image of God isn't about what God looks like, it is about being imbued with His personal attributes. We resemble Him in our better nature, not our appearance.

Cool. Is there Biblical reason to assert that this is the correct interpretation of "in his image"?

[me:]What I’m getting at is the arbitrariness of the consequences … forever, and they lost paradise. For one sin?

[you:]I understand what you're saying. You're not going to see the picture before you connect all of the dots. I'll keep supplying you the dots as I am able. I think I explained this particular question to you in more specific detail this time around, as to why the separation occurred.

I'm asking you all this to see if there's ever going to be an end or a logic to the trail of dots without having to presuppose the conclusion that gave rise to the dots in the first place. Every dot seems to give rise to another dot. Like you say about secular morality, it's a recursive chain of dots off to infinity, each dot raising more questions than it answers. Such a system would, by literal definition, not be rational: if it goes on to infinity, then it can never be rationalized.

He knew before He created that His creation would rebel at some point, and He took the necessary steps to reconcile it back to Himself at the end of time. He didn't screw up, but He did create beings capable of screwing up. To allow for the real possibility of good, He also had to allow for the real possibility of evil.

Are humans satisfying to God in whatever capacity we were created?

When scripture says "the law" what it is reffering to is the Mosaic law that was given at Mt Sinai … What we had in the beginning was not a law, but simply a choice.

So humanity had no laws from God for all that time (hundreds or thousands of years) until Mt. Sinai? We were allowed to do anything at all we wanted without fear of any punishment from God?

By your rhetorical suggestion: God created us with free will, then he created laws for us because following them is good for us and he loves us, then he said there would be consequences for not following those laws to encourage us to follow them because he loves us, then he determined that the consequences would be the worst possible thing that could happen, far worse than the real-life consequences for breaking the rules… because he loves us? It doesn’t add up. Don't give me some reductionist "let all rapists go free" argument. There's no way to explain the extreme severity of the consequences for breaking the law if the law itself was created so we would be better off. See?

In the beginning, God created Adam and Eve to be completely dependent on Him for everything. They relied upon God to make their decisions for them, and tell them what good and evil was. However, because He wanted His creatures to be free to love Him, ie just not just forced to obey Him, He gave them one command. That command was not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He told them that in the day they ate of it they would surely die.

What lay in the fruit of that tree for Adam and Eve was their own autonomy. The fruit represented an independence from God to decide on their own what is good and evil. Rather than sitting at Gods feet and learning from Him, they would become a law onto themselves through their own judgment. What eating this fruit did was destroy their innocence forever. It ruined the perfect relationship and fellowship they had with God by turning them into rebels who would make choices apart from God.

So, rather than the law being given for the reasons you are saying, it was given to offer them a choice between obedience to God and personal autonomy. The consequences of breaking that law not only changed their nature but brought sin and death into the world. God draws the line at His standard for goodness, which is perfection. It is a zero tolerance policy for rebellion, not only for moral guidance, but to maintain order in His kingdom.

What’s wrong with robots? You said elsewhere it’s because god wouldn’t want robots. How can he want anything? He’s perfect. Does his own existence not satisfy him? Is he lacking something? Was he bored and lonely? Are we his pets?

God created not out of need, but out of the abundance of His love. He regards us as His offspring, not His pets.

Act 17:22-31

Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

But he forgave us all our sins through the sacrifice of his son. Was that a compromise of his integrity? It seems he does choose to forgive us, at least once every 4000 years or so.

No, because He laid all of our sin on His Son, who bore the punishment we deserve. It is not a compromise of His integrity so long as the sin has been paid for.

Romans 4:25

He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification

You didn’t answer my questions. I know the stated purpose of sending Jesus. My question is why the situation required exactly that. Surely God, at some point, decided, "Well, they’re bad, and I want to get closer, and the exact thing required is for me to have a son, for that son to be a perfect human, for him to preach for three years and then get executed by the other humans, and then we can be closer." God decided something like that. It’s a direct implication of saying that God created everything and that this was necessary.

Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world.

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Before the world began, God knew that He would need to send His Son.

If you want to know more about what it means in the image of God, read this:

http://www.gotquestions.org/image-of-God.html

It told me almost nothing. It says that the definition of "the image of God" is everything that makes us different from other animals, and everything intangible about us, as if that’s what God looks like. It compared naming pets and enjoying music to being God. Weird.

Because being in the image of God isn't about what God looks like, it is about being imbued with His personal attributes. We resemble Him in our better nature, not our appearance.

What I’m getting at is the arbitrariness of the consequences and why God would have created such random consequences. Look at them with a critical eye, if you can: Adam and Eve committed one sin, and for that their nature was changed forever, and that of their descendents forever, and they lost paradise. For one sin? You believe that God created such a heavy consequence for the first offence ever committed by innocent people – and people without "knowledge" mind you, because they hadn’t eaten the fruit yet. I cannot.

I understand what you're saying. You're not going to see the picture before you connect all of the dots. I'll keep supplying you the dots as I am able. I think I explained this particular question to you in more specific detail this time around, as to why the separation occurred.

God got to enjoy his creation for about 45 minutes before it screwed itself up, and from then on we’ve been a disappointment to him. Yet, as you’ve stated elsewhere, God created us for his pleasure. He knew what would happen, so he screwed up. He couldn’t even create himself a pleasing race of pets. Dogs have free will, understand good and bad, and are extremely pleasing as companions. Why couldn’t God create as good for himself as he did for humans? The whole story doesn’t hold water.

He knew before He created that His creation would rebel at some point, and He took the necessary steps to reconcile it back to Himself at the end of time. He didn't screw up, but He did create beings capable of screwing up. To allow for the real possibility of good, He also had to allow for the real possibility of evil.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

That's a defence mechanism against whatever the opposite of apologia is. Reason, maybe.

Or it's absolutely true.

The only consistent model is that God himself created sin and evil by creating the laws, because if he hadn't created the laws, there would be no sin or evil in the world. This understanding is consistent with your statement A and in spirit with C, if you understand C to mean, "We created evil by breaking his law".

Sorry, I should have clarified this a lot more. When scripture says "the law" what it is reffering to is the Mosaic law that was given at Mt Sinai. This law was given because of sin, and sin was already in the world at that time. This really goes back to the beginning with what I described earlier. What we had in the beginning was not a law, but simply a choice. It was given not to keep us from evil but to give us freedom to choose to obey Gods will. You can't freely obey someone if you don't have a choice not to do it. You can't love someone without the choice not to love. The law came into play after all of this, and that is a whole other discussion.

>> ^messenger:

stuff

That's what scares me about Jews, they only follow the old testament which is fucking scary ass book and God of the old testament was a mean jealous God. Thank "god" I didn't live in old testament times I'd be stoned, burned, banished, etc...

Course Christians believe that the new testament nullifies the old testament laws, when Jesus changed the laws and allowed the eating of pork and reversed all the old laws.

course it's also why Catholics kept the Apocrypha in their bible and Protestants removed the Apocrypha from the bible. The Apocrypha helped explain the changeover from Old testament law to New testament law much much better.

So western christians which are primarily protestant do not have the apocrypha to help better explain the change over of laws and how the Torah or Mosaic laws were never meant for Gentiles.

Even Jesus himself said Gentiles do not follow Jewish Mosaic law.


So even though I'm not religious, I'm fucking glad to be a gentile, or i'd be stoned long ago.

Also if you look up mosaic law, Jews see all Gentiles as dogs to be ruled over and manipulated. Which is why century after century Gentiles have attacked Jews in retaliation for their teachings that gentiles are dogs. It's even in the old testament that gentiles are dogs and should be treated as such. It's why Jews got their stereotype of ripping the gentiles off... they were taught to by mosaic law.


Anyhow nonreligious gentile about to be flamed, even though I probably wont ever see these comments again.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Amazing video editing technique! - Microsoft Unwrap Mosaics. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

I'll get the ball rolling with one of my favorite albums "We Were Dead Before the Ship Even Sank" by Modest Mouse.

I picked this album for this list specifically because I think this album shows a wide range of the sounds the band is capable of. There are other albums they have that are a bit more on the morose/twangy sounding spectrum that I enjoy more; but intermingled in each of those albums is a variety of songs that seem more like experimental tracks rather than part of the collective piece of work. This album of theirs, I think, represents their best mosaic where every track still fits snugly together and doesn't fight for control. It's a pretty safe album for me in terms of "I need music just pick something already!" So I hope you enjoy!

No. Title
1. "March into the Sea"
2. "Dashboard"

3. "Fire It Up"
4. "Florida"
5. "Parting of the Sensory"
6. "Missed the Boat"

7. "We've Got Everything"
8. "Fly Trapped in a Jar"
9. "Education"

10. "Little Motel"
11. "Steam Engenius"
12. "Spitting Venom"
<object width="420" height="25<a rel="nofollow" href="http://image.lyricspond.com/image/m/artist-modest-mouse/album-we-were-dead-before-the-ship-even-sank/cd-cover.jpg">Your text to link...">
13. "People as Places as People"
14. "Invisible"

@kceaton1

I wholly agree that I detest these once atheists that have literally taken what is normally a balanced "naught" position as to God(s) existence barring evidence and instead these anti-theists ditch that stance and deem that not only is all religion a wash, but any God is as well. They're very "militant" in nature and seem to draw in those that are less secure about their own opinions; kind of like the Westboro Baptists. Unfortunately, they are also very pro-active, boisterous, and vitriolic in nature--worse of all they call themselves atheists still, giving the rest of us a bad rap.

And they're everywhere. The only place that I can go and say anything about Christianity without being ridiculed is a Christian forum. This goes from the obvious places like atheist forums, to a place like this, to even the comments section on CNN.com. Antitheists seem to outnumber thoughtful atheists at least 100-1.

Some of them though are just plain tired of the charades they have had to play with men they worked with, people they once respected--but, those same people might as well put their workmate, friend, and neighbors into brutal conditions for a simple principle held: atheism. It's happened before, not as ruthless as it may have been in the earlier centuries, but black listing someone in a community can happen. I've seen it happen innumerable times first hand! I can't blame some for their outrage and pointed damnation they hold for others; it was created by those that may complain that the volume and acidity of their words may be too strong--or too true.

Some have been mistreated, and some are just on the hate bandwagon because they are angry, insecure people who scapegoat religion for the evil in the world. Much like an anarchist blames all the evil in the world on governments.

Of course religion has it's share of idiots as well. They are almost always the fundamentalists, like the Westboro clan. Papa (George H. W.) Bush once said that atheists should have no rights in the U.S.--if he had his way--they would not be citizens nor would they be patriots. Because, this is a nation "under God"--atleast after that was added. Maybe Papa Bush didn't know that historical part. Religion also has a grand stand in politics and the media. That is yet another thing that must be remembered is that when an anti-theist does speak it will outrage the religious; but, atheists, anti-theists (even Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhism, etc...), endure the endless exposure and should be expected to remain quiet... Fox News is the epitome of which I speak as it is nothing more than a pulpit for the rich, white, Christian, American, white collar worker.

Stupidity, of course, is not exclusive to any particular group of people, but is common to all of them.

But, there is one more consideration that HAS to be mentioned. As this point gets me to go after religious people all the time. If this makes me anti-theist, because I voiced a concern over what is being said--then anti-theism is far more wide-spread and has NOTHING to do with atheism. I do think this may be a common misconception from just my general experiences on the messageboards, here and elsewhere.

The problem is: Science!

This is especially true for all of the fundamental type religions. They all have a huge laundry list of minor science flaws to HUGE science flaws. Fundamentalism Christianity in the U.S. tends to take the lead in this war of fact versus opinion. There are plenty of fully qualified scientists out there that are religious, but ones that tend to go against the full body of evidence and scientific community to prove a religious claim tend to be "not fully qualified". They tend to use full scientific data and factual evidence to create a new theor...I mean hypothesis (many will try to use "theory", but their reason for their arrival at the new understanding tends to have no basis) and inject a very large amount of opinion, sprinkled with some facts. One such example is the red-shift video provided above by @shinyblurry .

The video I posted does have a basis, the phenomena was legitimately observed:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606294

Obviously it isn't conclusive, but it definitely has merit and should be explored rather than dismissed. I would really like to know the difference between something like this and the pure speculation accepted as fact in big bang cosmology, such as the existence of dark matter and dark energy. They are little more than fudge factors, as well as cosmic inflation, to account for the glaring holes that don't fit observation. That isn't science, but you excuse it because..?

Science can become a VERY heated area of topic when it comes to religion. This begins when a religion: tries to debunk a theory or a part of it, to commandeer a theory and direct a new conclusion to fit an already preconceived destination which has not been peer-reviewed or tested, repeating scientific theories in religious pamphlets or media while purposefully undermining the theory by not presenting in full and correct context or actually printing falsehoods, lying about the nature of scientific testing, repetitiously incorrectly stating current stances on various theories (like radio-carbon dating, etc...), attempts by any churches through the state to eliminate the teaching of branches of science--especially ones that have been tested so much that have attained the rank of THEORY (Evolution, etc...), again the use of lying in media against science--this has reached every facet of media-large and small.

Here's the problem with the so called theory of evolution. What Darwin observed was microevolution, not macroevolution. He observed that species will adapt to their environments. That is scientific fact, and a great discovery. What he did from there is speculate that because species adapt to their environments, that those adaptations would lead to new species, and therefore, that all life has a common ancestor. Since it wasn't something that could be observed, what was supposed to prove his theory would be evidence from the fossil record. There was only one problem with that:

innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ..why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Charles Darwin
Origin of the Species

The total lack of transitional fossils was a complete embarrassment to Darwin. The excuse made was that because the record was so poor, more time was needed to unearth the fossils. Here we are 150 years later, and those transitional forms have failed to materialize. The fossil record is composed mainly of gaps. It also defies all the predictions of gradualism. All the major body types appeared suddenly in the Cambrian explosion without any discernable evolutionary history, and they appeared highly diversified. All the major phyla, classes, orders etc were there at the beginning. Species appear suddenly in stasis and leave just as suddenly. Macroevolution is not science, it has never been observed nor can it be tested. It is a just-so story which does not fit observation.

Christians don't have a problem with science, they have a problem with what isn't science. Macroevolution was a giant leap made by Darwin for which there was no evidence, and the fossil record does not match the predictions of the theory. Because of this, evolutionists have moved away from the fossil record and have used other lines of evidences to prove macroevolution, like common genetics in our DNA. The problem with that is, common genetics also indicates a common designer, and is better indicated by it actually, because of the mosaic pattern we observe in the genome.

I'm sure there are more. History has been a great use to show us what religion WILL do to science, even though all that is being shown is the truth. It truly is a dangerous weapon. If you can't except truth what hope do we have for you. Yes you can be a good person, but somehow you're flawed, unable to except reality.

Historically the church supported scientific inquiry. Science got its start in Christian Europe, and many of the greatest scientists were devout Christians.

When I was a believer (no matter what @shinyblurry says I was; I was Mormon and shiny seems to believe that his religious path is of course a T3 hard-line; were as Mormons just get the basic 56k dial-up...) I FELT the presence of God, or more accurately The Holy Ghost. I had no problem believing in everything science told me when I was religious. I knew it was the truth and I knew that God would not want me to ignore the grand insights into the workings of his masterpiece. I could feel in my soul, the first year I had physics, that something profound had just happened. I had found something I had been searching for my whole life. I felt connected to everything. I began to dismiss those that were religious around me and disliked evolution--to me evolution was so simple and yet such a wondrous way to create the most complex of things from literally the simplest. A literal masterpiece. So I do know that some can believe all that science says, but it's very hard in Christianity.

There are two kingdoms in this world, the kingdom of darkness and the Kingdom of Heaven, and they are both supernatural kingdoms. You can get a supernatural experience in a false religion, but it is just a corrupt copy of the real thing. Were you feeling a burning sensation in your chest? What you were feeling wasn't the Holy Spirit, or the presence of God, but the false spirit that pervades the mormon church. The presence of God is something that goes beyond feelings and sensations. This is how people get duped into false religions, because they get a spiritual experience from a false spirit.

I grew up secular, and when I became a Christian I was more than willing to accept the conclusions of science. I had believed them all my life because they had been taught to me as factual. I was even willing to intergrate them into my faith. It was only after investigating these things that I found, to my shock, that there wasn't any actual evidence for these things, and that they were neither testable or observerd. I changed my mind based on my investigation of the facts and not because of any religious duty. I would still believe it if I thought there was convincing evidence, but it isn't there.

Since you're scientifically minded, let me give you a challenge. You appear to be quite confident that evolution is proven true, so if that is the case, see if you can refute the arguments in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0890510628/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=

So I hope I made a point with this. Anti-theism comes from quite a few directions. The most usual and common sight is that you'll see between someone defending scientific theories, while the less common will be those that have been directly burned by the religious community they most likely once belonged to. The last is of course what was brought up in earlier posts: atheists who turn into anti-theists. They tend to be the kind that will assert that religion is evil no matter how small or insignificant it may play a role in someones life.

It's because they have no idea how much of western civilization is built upon Christian principles and philosophy. What they need to do is educate themselves:

http://www.amazon.com/Book-that-Made-Your-World/dp/1595553223

In the end most atheists boil down to this:

Stephen speaking to a religious friend...
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

~Stephen Roberts

A friend of mine says exactly the same thing, and this argument perplexes me to no end. You're talking about a relationship with God. The one in the bible. You follow, I assume, a system of belief. The one in the bible.* You are therefore religious, and follow a religion, by definition. If you want to make a distinction between organized religion vs. your own personal "take" on Christianity, so be it, but it seems to me that telling people "religion is bad, god is good" is just a convenient loophole you can use to distance yourself from all the horrible atrocities that have occured over history as a result of the belief in your god.

You should listen to your friend. Religion is simply the traditions of men. Christians worship God in spirit and in truth. Foremost, it is a personal relationship with God, and we have direct experience by the Holy Spirit, who dwells within us.

Hebrews 4:12

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

It isn't an institution we're following, or a set of rituals and regulations, but rather the experiential relationship we have with God through His word and Spirit.

* You cherry pick the things from the Bible you like, and discard those you don't, of course. And this is good, because otherwise you'd be executing your children for disobeying you and beating your slaves on a regular basis.

You assume I would do so, because you don't understand the bible. You're referring to the mosaic law, which were for Israel in that time and place. Jesus fulfilled the law and brought us under a New Covenant. There was a change of priesthood, and so christians follow the law of Christ.



>> ^offsetSammy:
>And no, I am not defending religion. Jesus hated religion. Christianity is a relationship with God, not attending church and saying grace.
A friend of mine says exactly the same thing, and this argument perplexes me to no end. You're talking about a relationship with God. The one in the bible. You follow, I assume, a system of belief. The one in the bible. You are therefore religious, and follow a religion, by definition. If you want to make a distinction between organized religion vs. your own personal "take" on Christianity, so be it, but it seems to me that telling people "religion is bad, god is good" is just a convenient loophole you can use to distance yourself from all the horrible atrocities that have occured over history as a result of the belief in your god.
You cherry pick the things from the Bible you like, and discard those you don't, of course. And this is good, because otherwise you'd be executing your children for disobeying you and beating your slaves on a regular basis.

I was involved in journalism through most of my high school career and that morning we had just received a large volume of our latest issue that the printer neglected to stuff (or insert) with one of our advertisements.

We had just begun getting into the groove of working when a teacher from across the hall came over and in a flustered voice, he stammered "HEY put your TV on!" and then scurried back to his classroom. My fellow students and I looked at each other a bit confused as my journalism adviser clicked on the set hanging from the ceiling.

I can't speak for the others there but my confusion intensified when I saw that one World Trade Center had a gaping hole in it and plumes of smoke peppered the air near the breach. "Again this is live footage we're showing you now..." the newscaster said.

There was a mosaic of "What's happening," "Did a bomb explode," "Did the newscaster say attack," and "I hope everyone is ok," that went on while we slowly and robotically continued stuffing our advertisements in our newspaper.

All that stopped when the second plane hit. The room let out a collective ghasp and we all were pushed back by some kind of invisible wave. The kid right across from me repeated "Oh my god!" two or three times to break the silence as we continued watching and listening, and feeling helpless to do anything about what we were seeing.

Actually there is a whole wikipedia entry on Matthew 5:17 and the contention around it, so to say that there is no debate and never has been is clearly false. A quick google search shows that there's actually quite a bit of debate about it within the christian community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:17

Also from wikipedia:

---------------
New Covenant Theology is an Evangelical position,but within evangelicalism there are divergent views on a number of topics. One of those topics is how the salvation history fits together, and the relationship of the covenants within salvation history.
Some logical deductions of New Covenant Theologians and advocates have been that since "the whole Old Covenant is obsolete", "none of the commands of the Mosaic Law are binding on believers today." Covenant Theologians, on the other hand, believe that at least portions of the Old Testament law is binding on Christians, though there is some variation on which parts and how they apply.

--------------

Sure looks like there is some debate going on to me. This is hardly the only issue that is under contention in the christian faith.




>> ^shinyblurry:

That is plainly false, there is no such contention or contridiction. There may be Christians out there who aren't sure, but within the church there is no debate about it, nor has there ever been. The bible itself clarifies the issue, because there were many jews who still wanted to keep the law of Moses. Read Galatians for an overview. The verse you quoted is exactly right..Jesus did not destroy the law, but rather fulfilled it..the ceremonial requirements are no longer necessary in the era of the New Covenant, as this was given to the jews for the time prior to the coming of the Messiah. Jesus fulfills those obligations of the law, so by following Him, we are justified. >> ^LiquidDrift:
Jesus actually said that he holds up mosaic law:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)
Apparently there is some contention among christians as to whether to follow mosaic law or not. This is one of the many problems with the bible. There is so much contradiction that man must interpret the nonsense that a bunch of other men wrote thousands of years ago. Given there is so much contradiction, you can end up with many disparate interpretations that end up being whatever the interpreter feels is the way to go. Therefore the bible is at best no better a guide than any philosophical text.
If we are going to follow religious text then how do we determine which one to follow? The Roman and Greek mythology was interesting. How about the Koran? Maybe I'll write down the devine law that the flying spaghetti monster gave me on golden tablets. There's a homeless guy down by the waterfront that says he's Jesus, maybe I should ask him. The Scientologists certainly have some fascinating ideas about morality, although it would cost us all an awful lot of money to find out exactly what they all are.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, that was just the mosaic law that was done away with. The New Testament gives a cohesive framework for how to live a moral life, and what actions are sinful. There isn't a list persay..it is spread out in the different books.

I just gave you a contradiction right there in the quote from Matthew. Asking me to go read Galatians just proves my point. Surly you aren't claiming that the rest of the bible contains no contradictions.

Which church by the way? There are hundreds of denominations, and any of them that denounce homosexuality are following mosaic law.

What about the 10 commandments? That tossed out too?

Why should we pay any attention to the bible vs. any other religious text?





>> ^shinyblurry:

That is plainly false, there is no such contention or contridiction. There may be Christians out there who aren't sure, but within the church there is no debate about it, nor has there ever been. The bible itself clarifies the issue, because there were many jews who still wanted to keep the law of Moses. Read Galatians for an overview.
>> ^LiquidDrift:
Jesus actually said that he holds up mosaic law:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)
Apparently there is some contention among christians as to whether to follow mosaic law or not. This is one of the many problems with the bible. There is so much contradiction that man must interpret the nonsense that a bunch of other men wrote thousands of years ago. Given there is so much contradiction, you can end up with many disparate interpretations that end up being whatever the interpreter feels is the way to go. Therefore the bible is at best no better a guide than any philosophical text.
If we are going to follow religious text then how do we determine which one to follow? The Roman and Greek mythology was interesting. How about the Koran? Maybe I'll write down the devine law that the flying spaghetti monster gave me on golden tablets. There's a homeless guy down by the waterfront that says he's Jesus, maybe I should ask him. The Scientologists certainly have some fascinating ideas about morality, although it would cost us all an awful lot of money to find out exactly what they all are.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, that was just the mosaic law that was done away with. The New Testament gives a cohesive framework for how to live a moral life, and what actions are sinful. There isn't a list persay..it is spread out in the different books.

That is plainly false, there is no such contention or contridiction. There may be Christians out there who aren't sure, but within the church there is no debate about it, nor has there ever been. The bible itself clarifies the issue, because there were many jews who still wanted to keep the law of Moses. Read Galatians for an overview. The verse you quoted is exactly right..Jesus did not destroy the law, but rather fulfilled it..the ceremonial requirements are no longer necessary in the era of the New Covenant, as this was given to the jews for the time prior to the coming of the Messiah. Jesus fulfills those obligations of the law, so by following Him, we are justified. >> ^LiquidDrift:
Jesus actually said that he holds up mosaic law:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)
Apparently there is some contention among christians as to whether to follow mosaic law or not. This is one of the many problems with the bible. There is so much contradiction that man must interpret the nonsense that a bunch of other men wrote thousands of years ago. Given there is so much contradiction, you can end up with many disparate interpretations that end up being whatever the interpreter feels is the way to go. Therefore the bible is at best no better a guide than any philosophical text.
If we are going to follow religious text then how do we determine which one to follow? The Roman and Greek mythology was interesting. How about the Koran? Maybe I'll write down the devine law that the flying spaghetti monster gave me on golden tablets. There's a homeless guy down by the waterfront that says he's Jesus, maybe I should ask him. The Scientologists certainly have some fascinating ideas about morality, although it would cost us all an awful lot of money to find out exactly what they all are.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, that was just the mosaic law that was done away with. The New Testament gives a cohesive framework for how to live a moral life, and what actions are sinful. There isn't a list persay..it is spread out in the different books.

Jesus actually said that he holds up mosaic law:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)

Apparently there is some contention among christians as to whether to follow mosaic law or not. This is one of the many problems with the bible. There is so much contradiction that man must interpret the nonsense that a bunch of other men wrote thousands of years ago. Given there is so much contradiction, you can end up with many disparate interpretations that end up being whatever the interpreter feels is the way to go. Therefore the bible is at best no better a guide than any philosophical text.

If we are going to follow religious text then how do we determine which one to follow? The Roman and Greek mythology was interesting. How about the Koran? Maybe I'll write down the devine law that the flying spaghetti monster gave me on golden tablets. There's a homeless guy down by the waterfront that says he's Jesus, maybe I should ask him. The Scientologists certainly have some fascinating ideas about morality, although it would cost us all an awful lot of money to find out exactly what they all are.







>> ^shinyblurry:

Well, that was just the mosaic law that was done away with. The New Testament gives a cohesive framework for how to live a moral life, and what actions are sinful. There isn't a list persay..it is spread out in the different books.

So, in all of the books of the New Testament,

1. anything that's taught represents high moral values;
2. anything that is taught against is sinful and immoral; and
3. anything that's not specifically mentioned either way is OK.

Well, that was just the mosaic law that was done away with. The New Testament gives a cohesive framework for how to live a moral life, and what actions are sinful. There isn't a list persay..it is spread out in the different books.

>> ^messenger:
This raises more questions than it answers. There must be things that are sins, and things that aren't. How do we know?>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, this is something plainly spoken by Jesus and His disicples, as well as Paul and others. It isn't a list, but it does require an understanding of the mission of the Savior, the law, and the old and new covenants. Basically, when Jesus came He fulfilled the law in its entirety. When He went to the cross the law was nailed to it along with Him. Previously you could only receive forgiveness for sin by following the tenants of the law. Now Christians are justified by faith and not by the law, because Jesus has already made propitiation for all sin. We are merited by our faith in Him because it is through Him that we are forgiven, because of His substitutionary atonement.
The law was given to the jewish people to govern them in their covenant relationship with God. Jesus established a new covenant with the entire world, which is not by law but by grace. That anyone who believes in Him will have their sins forgiven and receive eternal life.
So, although Christians do not have a free pass to sin, we operate under the grace of God rather than the Mosaic law.