DescentBB

Ferno wrote:Have you put anyone to death for wearing a wool and linen sport coat? or have you stoned anyone's daughter for not being a virgin on their wedding night? How do you like it when you tell your wife that when she's on that time of the month, everything she touches is impure?


If this causes you to stop for even just a moment, don't come here and tell us you live by the bible or judge others by your wretched viewpoint.

Ferno, you have to know that there's quite a lot of scholarship that's gone into understanding the Bible, and the vast majority of those scholars aren't calling for things like your examples.

If you want to push it into the general "you're going to say that XXX person isn't okay because they do YYY," then you're probably completely correct that YYY isn't acceptable, but you're dead wrong to act like the Bible says XXX shouldn't be valued as a precious human being. You're accusing Thorne of your own fallacies - please stop projecting on him because it's a load of crap and you know it. He might not be 100% correct and 100% consistent but at least he's making an honest attempt at legitimate biblical scholarship, which is more than you can say for yourself.

Thorne, there's a reason why people have coined the terms visible church and invisible church. While we can certainly be "fruit inspectors," the ultimate knowledge of who will be in heaven is God's and God's alone. Remember that we are accountable for our own lives... and if our "fruit inspection" is a source of personal sin or causes others to sin then it's a personal problem that we need to come to accounts with God over.

snoopy wrote:...at least he's making an honest attempt at legitimate biblical scholarship, which is more than you can say for yourself.

This ★■◆● is beyond hilarious.

God, the all-knowing, all-powerful, loving, creator makes a manual to keep people from the worst possible fate, then puts it out of reach for billions of people due to geography and literacy, and even those who study it their entire lives can't agree on what it says.

Makes perfect sense. Thorne, isn't it nice to know you that for all the time you spent on the bible you are not even 100% correct? What a life!

I do not know how in America, but in Russia, most people wear on their chest Orthodox crosses with the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and at the same time they have for years not go to church. Even if an atheist does not light a candle in the church for health or for the repose of his relatives, look at him as an enemy. I think I will not be wrong if I say that both in Russia and in America, most people who consider themselves Christians, or Muslims, etc., do not actually believe in God, and do it more often because of cultural, ethnic, linguistic identification.

I think that's right, Sigma. It's the same way where I live. The New Testament is full of measures to let a person know if they are really practicing the faith. It also says that the way is narrow, and there are few that even find it.

See I'm all for letting God be the judge. I don't go around trying to figure out whether someone is ultimately going to hell or not--who knows whether someone may change for the better (or for the worse)--but the Bible is very plain, and Christians in their ignorance seek to avoided confrontation or persecution by saying that God is the judge to avoid unpopular topics that God has already given us judgement on in the Bible.

Hebrews 4 wrote:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Just to give an example, if someone is involved in homosexuality, I can say if they don't repent they are going to burn in hell because that's what the Bible says. Someone might say that only God can be the judge, but it's important not to suppose that God's judgement of that person would be in conflict with the scripture. God said it because that's the way it is, not because he is given to threatening in order to achieve some result. If someone is involved in homosexuality they are not bound for heaven, which sheds light on the topic of whether or not homosexuals should be in the church, or in the church leadership. We don't have to wait 'till the judgement to know. I think that those who do wait until judgement to know what God has already stated in his word will have cause to feel duly ashamed. Now before we go there, I know that Jesus Christ came to save even people involved in homosexuality, not to condemn them, but we shouldn't give place to any confusion regarding at what point they experience salvation--it is after, and not before they repent and turn away from it. God does not change, and his word is "settled forever in heaven".

snoopy wrote:

Ferno wrote:Have you put anyone to death for wearing a wool and linen sport coat? or have you stoned anyone's daughter for not being a virgin on their wedding night? How do you like it when you tell your wife that when she's on that time of the month, everything she touches is impure?


If this causes you to stop for even just a moment, don't come here and tell us you live by the bible or judge others by your wretched viewpoint.

Ferno, you have to know that there's quite a lot of scholarship that's gone into understanding the Bible, and the vast majority of those scholars aren't calling for things like your examples.

uh, let me stop you right there. this isn't about 'scholarships' or anything of the sort. It's about trying to use the bible to judge others whether or not they're "true" Christians.

Anyone who has any sort of conscience or humanity would know doing that is just plain wrong. And anyone supporting it, including you snoopy, is also guilty of the same thing.


So you don't have the right to sit there and lecture me.

Also, no true Scotsman fallacy.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Just to give an example, if someone is involved in homosexuality, I can say if they don't repent they are going to burn in hell because that's what he Bible says.

Then the Bible is wrong on this point. Period.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Hebrews 4 wrote:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Absolutely. Faith is a powerful thing. Perhaps I would gladly succumb relaxing and invigorating effects of religion, if I did not know what religion is completely takes over your mind. A striking example - the fanatical Christianity or extremist Islam. Quite obviously it is clear that blind faith "true believers" is used to distribute the drug to extend the influence of religious leaders.

vision wrote:and even those who study it their entire lives can't agree on what it says

The more I think about the meaning of the Bible, the more I have a belief that the Bible is what that psychological code. This version explains why so many people are susceptible to its influence, and at the same time they can not explain why it happened.
You never met with Roma scammers? I can say that one day I voluntarily gave them all the money I had in my purse. And while I was even happy that I did a good deed! Haze dissipated after about 5 minutes when the Gypsies already far escaped. I am interested in this topic, and one day I met with the gypsies to figure out how this happens. When young guys Roma have become my good friends, they told me that there is no miracle, and it's just a bunch of certain phrases.
It is therefore possible that the strange and incomprehensible language of the Bible is akin to psychological gypsy code.

Top Gun wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Just to give an example, if someone is involved in homosexuality, I can say if they don't repent they are going to burn in hell because that's what he Bible says.

Then the Bible is wrong on this point. Period.

What point is the Bible right on? Did God create them male and female?

Yes, if you want to look at it like that, but they were also created with varying sexual preferences. And any God who would condemn a creation to damnation just for being what it was created to be is no God that I recognize as being worthy of worship.

Personally, I only recognize the fact that belief in God is automatically activated even atheists, sanctimonious politicians and illiterate natives, as an anesthetic for the psyche, for example, when a person experiences severe physical or mental pain. But I truly hate religious figures fanatics and generally all people, including Jesus Christ, who falsely call themselves messengers of God on Earth. I do not understand that Jesus Christ had done good for the people. If he really was a living man, all that he had made​​, like all self-promotion or advertising of God, and not a real help to people!
If you look into the eyes of truth and justice, the many thousands of ordinary people, regardless of their ideology, have a lot more merit to be become saints in the understanding of believers than the pope or Jesus Christ.

I just want to interject, Sigma, that my experience with Christianity bears little resemblance to the church(es) I hear you refer to continually, the churches around here, the "evangelists" on TV. Just FYI there really is something else to the Bible entirely. My parents were Christians since before I was born, and I was raised a Christian, and we used to go to various churches when I was growing up. I was turned off by some of the things I was seeing as I got older, and for a period of time I lived my life just like any non-Christian with no interest in church life. When I was in my mid-teens my family started reading the Bible together at home, and my Dad would teach us things out of the Bible, and I came to understand that the Bible actually touches real life, that God is real, and that most churches, TV evangelists, etc, were not teaching what was actually in the Bible. I repented for a lot of things, and saw my life changed--I used to be involved in defensive martial arts (Judo and Aikido), and I had a real problem with anger (I still like the physical and mental discipline involved in martial arts, but having left it I can tell you the philosophical side of it is empty at best). I remember noting that my experience was like having awakened from a long sleep. I experienced dreams and visions, and saw at least one healing that I can remember, when my sister prayed for my brother. Suffice to say I have no interest in, and no use for what most of you know as Christianity, and neither does the Bible.

Top Gun wrote:Yes, if you want to look at it like that, but they were also created with varying sexual preferences. And any God who would condemn a creation to damnation just for being what it was created to be is no God that I recognize as being worthy of worship.

So you just ascribed the creation of "sexual preference" to God (which is a fallacy), and then dismissed him for supposedly creating and then condemning it. This generation does not understand homosexuality. Their explanations for and "understanding" of sexual perversion are entirely self-serving.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I just want to interject, Sigma, that my experience with Christianity bears little resemblance to the church(es) I hear you refer to continually, the churches around here, the "evangelists" on TV. Just FYI there really is something else to the Bible entirely. My parents were Christians since before I was born, and I was raised a Christian, and we used to go to various churches when I was growing up. I was turned off by some of the things I was seeing as I got older, and for a period of time I lived my life just like any non-Christian with no interest in church life. When I was in my mid-teens my family started reading the Bible together at home, and my Dad would teach us things out of the Bible, and I came to understand that the Bible actually touches real life, that God is real, and that most churches, TV evangelists, etc, were not teaching what was actually in the Bible. I repented for a lot of things, and saw my life changed--I used to be involved in defensive martial arts (Judo and Aikido), and I had a real problem with anger (I still like the physical and mental discipline involved in martial arts, but having left it I can tell you the philosophical side of it is empty at best). I remember noting that my experience was like having awakened from a long sleep. I experienced dreams and visions, and saw at least one healing that I can remember, when my sister prayed for my brother. Suffice to say I have no interest in, and no use for what most of you know as Christianity, and neither does the Bible.

Can I ask how old you are awake? I ask this because two of my friends told me the same thing that you say. But this was due to their age, and not religion.
I'm even a little envy you that you were able to find common language with your father...
Because my father - a real tyrannical tyrannosaurus, which better will buy me a new car or make me the CEO of one of his companies, than he would allow me to act independently or he wants to talk heart to heart with his son.
___________________________

Add: I think I better understand what you want to say, when I saw this saying Fyodor Konyukhov (more):
"I have forty years of travel, like Moses in the desert. Little time left to pray. As a mature man ..., I realized that in the world there is no loneliness. After all, in the ocean near you swim whales or dolphins, birds soar in the sky and on the way to the pole encountered bears and seals. And I know that there is always present and holy God, to whom you pray. In the vast ocean, apart from them, no you can not help."


blog travel across the Pacific Ocean

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Top Gun wrote:Yes, if you want to look at it like that, but they were also created with varying sexual preferences. And any God who would condemn a creation to damnation just for being what it was created to be is no God that I recognize as being worthy of worship.

So you just ascribed the creation of "sexual preference" to God (which is a fallacy), and then dismissed him for supposedly creating and then condemning it. This generation does not understand homosexuality. Their explanations for and "understanding" of sexual perversion are entirely self-serving.

If God created human beings, and human beings can be naturally homosexual or bisexual, tell me, just where else would it come from?

And you're seriously making the claim that modern-day medicine doesn't "understand" homosexuality as well as 4000-year-old Middle Easterners who were a few millennia away from learning that genetics is a thing? This generation is the first one in human history to have a good grasp on the origins and function of human sexuality, and to suggest otherwise is just patently false.

Top Gun wrote:If God created human beings, and human beings can be naturally homosexual or bisexual, tell me, just where else would it come from?

That really is the question, isn't it. But you just made an assumption there--that the occurrence of homosexuality or bisexuality is "natural" (which itself is a logical absurdity, because the very nature of these behaviors involves a contradiction of design). I'll ask again, did God create a male and a female, according to the Bible? This is not a hard question, nor a hard line of thought--I suggest to you that the Bible is not at all inconsistent on this point, and you are making a logical error when you insinuate that the Bible is right elsewhere and wrong here.

It is absolutely "natural," in that homosexual behavior has been identified in dozens of other animal species (including some of our closest relatives), and that it arises from a combination of genetic and in utero factors. That's just a cold hard fact, spin it as you might.

Yes, God created males and females. And it just so happens that some males are attracted to males, and some females are attracted to females, and some of both are attracted to both. If you're forwarding the argument that humanity was "designed," then these traits are part of that design. If your narrow-minded worldview can't incorporate that, perhaps you should take it up with God himself and ask what he was doing with that part.

And once again, you're dancing around the simple fact that humans four millennia ago had little to no comprehension of human sexuality from a technical standpoint, which we do now. As such, relying on texts of said age as one's sole approach to sexuality is the height of absurdity.

As far as I understand, you are too lazy to translate and read the thoughts of a deeply religious man who is left alone with nature. In fact, he said a lot of interesting things that are directly related to travel in space. For example, he made ​​the observation that despite the human psyche for a while a break from civilization and an abundance of unnecessary information, however, sooner or later people in dire need to communicate with the living beings, senses and mind are inhibited by the lack of diversity and stay in limited prostrastve and that even the most advanced techniques a person can not rely to the fullest. Nevertheless, it is obvious that an atheist probably just would not survive such harsh conditions. Although I think that if one boat in difficult conditions would have been representatives of different religions, in my opinion, the consequences would be much more sad, as if in the same boat would only atheists.

sigma wrote:As far as I understand, you are too lazy to translate and read the thoughts of a deeply religious man who is left alone with nature. In fact, he said a lot of interesting things that are directly related to travel in space. For example, he made ​​the observation that despite the human psyche for a while a break from civilization and an abundance of unnecessary information, however, sooner or later people in dire need to communicate with the living beings, senses and mind are inhibited by the lack of diversity and stay in limited prostrastve and that even the most advanced techniques a person can not rely to the fullest. Nevertheless, it is obvious that an atheist probably just would not survive such harsh conditions. Although I think that if one boat in difficult conditions would have been representatives of different religions, in my opinion, the consequences would be much more sad, as if in the same boat would only atheists.

I gotta say Sigma, your english has improved dramatically. However, your point is quite muddy.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I'd be happy to show you why Christians don't have to observe Jewish law according to the Bible, but you would be required to refer to me as 'Thorne the Learned' or 'Mister Thorne' for the duration of the thread.

How do you know which rules are still in effect and which aren't? Suppose I'm reading Leviticus and I come across a rule that seems funny to me. How do I determine if it still applies today?

Jeff250 wrote:
How do you know which rules are still in effect and which aren't? Suppose I'm reading Leviticus and I come across a rule that seems funny to me. How do I determine if it still applies today?

That's exactly what I've been saying.

Romans 10 wrote:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Galatians 2 wrote:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

Galatians 6 wrote:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Romans 2 wrote:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

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

....aaaaaaand that answers nothing.

Typical. Go to a bible website, search for "law," post results. Nonsense. Vapid.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Romans 10 wrote:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Galatians 2 wrote:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

Galatians 6 wrote:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Romans 2 wrote:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

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

This is not an answer. you lose.

Ferno wrote:This is not an answer. you lose.

Luke 7 wrote:31 And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like? 32 They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept.

That's the game right there, and you're the only one playing it.

My very first quote answers Jeff's question, the rest was just to give some resolution/context--I had already answered yours, and you apparently didn't like it.

Hah, the atheists are giving the devout Christian a lecture on Bible study, the same group that complains about ad hoc arguments, and seems to imply only experts should have an opinion.

That’s why I love this place.

Right?!

Ferno wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:
How do you know which rules are still in effect and which aren't? Suppose I'm reading Leviticus and I come across a rule that seems funny to me. How do I determine if it still applies today?

That's exactly what I've been saying.

That really is such a perfect illustration of the different approaches at work here. Jeff asks a question, and Ferno latches onto it with, "That's exactly what I've been saying." Notice he didn't say "asking," he said "saying."--Ferno sees the question as a statement. I could be wrong, but I presume that despite any doubts which he may have, Jeff has asked a question in expectation of an answer. Ferno states a "question" to which he is certain he already knows the answer. Of these two, one is open to reply, while the other is waiting in expectation of an answer different from the one he knows to be the only right answer. Jeff will apparently consider a reasoned reply, while Ferno will accept defeat only when you've quite finished thoroughly bludgeoning him with anything he can't pick apart. If anyone ever wonders why I let some topics trail off...

Wiggle out of this one, scholar. Let's see some more mental gymnastics!

There were many things Jesus never got a chance to condemn…remember they murdered him pretty early in his life.

The founding fathers also never took on slavery, leaving it to a later generation.

well, they took it on, but clearly chose NOT to outlaw it. No one suggested that another generation fix the issue, they saw it as a defacto part of the southern economy, which it was until at least the 1840's(dawn of automation).

Topic change denied. Worthy of another topic, if anyone's actually interested in discussing it...

Maybe Paul's purpose was to use his gospel to change people's hearts, not start a Civil War

EDIT: The Law said not to worship Idols, but they did anyways. The Law said not to return slaves, hell they made slaves of their own people. Paul did nothing wrong and actually made the most responsible decision given the choices. Plus, although he was still under the righteous requirements of the Law, He was not under the burden of Moses Law. Which I am convinced Moses went out of His way to make it so heavy a burden no one could keep it. Considering they couldn't even keep the simplest of 10. Which by the way both Paul and the young Pharisee said they kept without fault. Those 10 .

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Luke 7 wrote:31 And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like? 32 They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept.

That's the game right there, and you're the only one playing it.

My very first quote answers Jeff's question, the rest was just to give some resolution/context--I had already answered yours, and you apparently didn't like it.

Referring to the bible is not an answer. Even a child wouldn't try this.

That really is such a perfect illustration of the different approaches at work here. Jeff asks a question, and Ferno latches onto it with, "That's exactly what I've been saying." Notice he didn't say "asking," he said "saying."--Ferno sees the question as a statement. I could be wrong, but I presume that despite any doubts which he may have, Jeff has asked a question in expectation of an answer. Ferno states a "question" to which he is certain he already knows the answer. Of these two, one is open to reply, while the other is waiting in expectation of an answer different from the one he knows to be the only right answer. Jeff will apparently consider a reasoned reply, while Ferno will accept defeat only when you've quite finished thoroughly bludgeoning him with anything he can't pick apart. If anyone ever wonders why I let some topics trail off...

Buddy, you don't know what you're talking about. But here you are, judging again. And you didn't answer Jeff's question in the least. A quote without context, like I've said before, is not an answer. A priest would give a straight answer, because he has a better understanding of the bible. Even Lothar would give a straight answer. But you? nah, you just post a quote. And the "defeat" part is especially funny because by the time that rolls around, I've already moved on. You can pretend it's a "victory" all you want. But what have you really won? Absolutely nothing.

My teachers expected me to answer a question in my own words. I expect the same from you.

Spidey wrote:Hah, the atheists are giving the devout Christian a lecture on Bible study, the same group that complains about ad hoc arguments, and seems to imply only experts should have an opinion.

Thank you for showing why I would rather discuss political, philisophical and logical aguments with only Lothar, Suncho and Krom.

I think you've got an axe to grind against me personally, Ferno, and it's coloring your dealings in this case, so I'm just going to ignore you unless you see fit to acknowledge the last answer I gave you. You fail to realize that I have nothing to lose in all of this. I don't care if you can't appreciate why I can answer a question of Biblical application with a very pertinent Bible quote. It really doesn't get any more plain. If you don't like that I don't see fit to go too far out of my way to discuss this with someone who I perceive to be a dead-set antagonist, then I don't care about that either. I'm happy to answer straightforward questions, but I don't owe anyone here an understanding of scripture from A-Z, and I will determine how much time I will waste on the likes of people who turn things against me without knowing what they're talking about. Here's what it boils down to in my book: I do not look down on people for ignorance--all of us are ignorant at some point, but there are some people who ought to know better--who are willfully ignorant of the truth because they didn't like what they saw. I do not waste time on these people. I place vision, TG, slick, and yourself in this camp, but I usually deal with people on a instance-by-instance basis, so if someone has a question I do my best to answer with whatever level of personal investment I feel is warranted. With vision it became so consistent that he is the only person on the DBB that I have ever ignored entirely.

In your case, Ferno, I think you're more of an old-school DBB heavy-weight/vet/thug who doesn't believe in losing arguments. If you can't beat my argument you make it about something else and try to make me the deficient party. Maybe you should drop the DBB thug act and take debating lessons if you're wanting to get to the bottom of something. BTW pining for opponents who currently aren't involved in the face of losing an argument is just lame.

Ferno doesn’t want to talk to me…now I’m depressed.

How can I find the will to live?

So in practical terms, if I'm trying to determine if my funny-sounding rule is still in effect, do I just read the New Testament, and if I can't infer it from anything in the New Testament, then I can assume it's obsolete?

Under the new covenant, the requirements of the old covenant are fulfilled by "walking in the spirit". The easiest way for you to understand it might be for me to say that God himself actively works in us for the same, and in fact a better result than rigidly following the stipulations set forth in the law (which actually goes against our fallen nature). So yes, the law is obsolete. Not wrong, not somehow outdated, but obsolete. That's not to say that the Old Testament is irrelevant, because it isn't.

There were actually people in the Jewish part of the early church who tried to tell new believers that they must keep the law, and the Apostles addressed it in Acts. There were actually a few commandments given to the Gentile church by the Apostles, and you can find these in the same place. One of the most important things you can do when reading the Bible is to acknowledge what it actually says, whether you can accept it or not.

Well, a great deal of confusion comes in with people not being able to differentiate what Paul was saying and, not being Jewish and 2000 years removed, they don't fully understand.

3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering.[c] And so he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

The part of the law that Paul always speaks against is the ordinances. Circumcision, observing of feasts, animal sacrifices...etc. The ritualistic and outward keeping of the Law. The only way for people to take on the nature of God and be free from sin is if God lives within them. Up until Jesus died on the cross the whole world was separated from God. When the Son died on the cross, God, who is a Spirit poured Himself out on all people. Believers and unbelievers alike. He draws people to accept the Testimony Jesus said was finished when He died on the cross. When they accept the Spirit of His Son, they both come "into" that person. Then that person is no longer under a written law but one that is inward. They can partake of the very nature of God, because God now resides within them. That is why John says that if our conscience condemns us, God is greater than our conscience. So, if your own weak and lowly conscience condemns you, how much more so will God, who is greater than your conscience. So, if our conscience does not condemn us, then we can have confidence before God.

Basically, God removed the middle ground and all excuses. The Law gave a description of perfection but because man was enslaved to sin, He could not keep it. So, traveling great distances every year to observe feasts, being circumcised and shedding the blood of animals was a statement that you believed God and His law and your belief was counted as righteousness. That was done away with the Son. Now that God actually comes into you and lives within, you can be transformed and partake of the very nature of God. The observances of the law of God is now inward by denying your flesh and walking in His Spirit.

EDIT: God removed the nationalistic aspect and made it personal.