Finally, proof there is no God.
Discussion
supertouring said:
But what about the stoning of gays or the burning in hell of those that dont follow the same beleifs.
As with most religionists, you pick and choose the nice bits and convenient ly ignore the bad.
The old testament is the "history" of the covenant between God and his chosen people (the Israelites) . The new testament is the "new" covenant between God and all people. Hell is not promised to unbelievers in the new covenant - nor is the stoning of those that have a sexual preference for their own sex. As with most religionists, you pick and choose the nice bits and convenient ly ignore the bad.
What part is picking and choosing?
Jinx said:
supertouring said:
But what about the stoning of gays or the burning in hell of those that dont follow the same beleifs.
As with most religionists, you pick and choose the nice bits and convenient ly ignore the bad.
The old testament is the "history" of the covenant between God and his chosen people (the Israelites) . The new testament is the "new" covenant between God and all people. Hell is not promised to unbelievers in the new covenant - nor is the stoning of those that have a sexual preference for their own sex. As with most religionists, you pick and choose the nice bits and convenient ly ignore the bad.
What part is picking and choosing?
Jinx said:
supertouring said:
But what about the stoning of gays or the burning in hell of those that dont follow the same beleifs.
As with most religionists, you pick and choose the nice bits and convenient ly ignore the bad.
The old testament is the "history" of the covenant between God and his chosen people (the Israelites) . The new testament is the "new" covenant between God and all people. Hell is not promised to unbelievers in the new covenant - nor is the stoning of those that have a sexual preference for their own sex. As with most religionists, you pick and choose the nice bits and convenient ly ignore the bad.
What part is picking and choosing?
supertouring said:
Jinx said:
supertouring said:
But what about the stoning of gays or the burning in hell of those that dont follow the same beleifs.
As with most religionists, you pick and choose the nice bits and convenient ly ignore the bad.
The old testament is the "history" of the covenant between God and his chosen people (the Israelites) . The new testament is the "new" covenant between God and all people. Hell is not promised to unbelievers in the new covenant - nor is the stoning of those that have a sexual preference for their own sex. As with most religionists, you pick and choose the nice bits and convenient ly ignore the bad.
What part is picking and choosing?
Jinx said:
The old testament is the "history" of the covenant between God and his chosen people (the Israelites) . The new testament is the "new" covenant between God and all people. Hell is not promised to unbelievers in the new covenant - nor is the stoning of those that have a sexual preference for their own sex.
What part is picking and choosing?
Can you please clarify Matthew 5:17-18?What part is picking and choosing?
Timsta said:
Can you please clarify Matthew 5:17-18?
Jesus has fulfilled the old Covenant. Covenant 1 is over, done, completed. The way to the Lord is through Jesus the embodiment of the law. Of course if he had said the laws were wrong then He probably would have been crucified for heresy before He had a chance to spread the Word
Jinx said:
The old testament is the "history" of the covenant between God and his chosen people (the Israelites) . The new testament is the "new" covenant between God and all people. Hell is not promised to unbelievers in the new covenant - nor is the stoning of those that have a sexual preference for their own sex.
What part is picking and choosing?
So christianity is wrong. The OT has no relevance. Further, Jesus was wrong as his whole intent (on the questionable premise he existed) was to modify judaism. There was never the desire to go beyond the chosen people. Further, do you think that 'choosing' a certain race for salvations and letting the rest go to hell is rather racist? What part is picking and choosing?
The christian religion was a contract of Constantine, or at least those under him, who did the picking and choosing. He did away with all the other christs and described one. Jesus did not invent a new religion. He attempted to modify his own, as had many christs before him and since.
The idea of the OT having no rule on those who follow Jesus is a nice idea but is not one followed by any christian religion but you, and other like you who have picked and chosen.
Under the description of the OT as some form of contract, god picked just one small desert tribe to rule and reward. It is even worse than many have suggested.
Jesus was a member of a tribe. He thought as a tribal member and acted like one. That's what tribal members do. He was strictly local.
The suggestion that the only humans, i.e. those in the god's image, were just that one tribe up until 325AD is an entirely different argument.
If Jesus did exist and preach then what he did was to nail his 95 thesis to the door of a synagogue. The money-lenders were the indulgencies. He was after a better jewish religion. It only became more than that under Constantine, the real basis of christianity as we know it.
Derek Smith said:
So christianity is wrong. The OT has no relevance. Further, Jesus was wrong as his whole intent (on the questionable premise he existed) was to modify judaism. There was never the desire to go beyond the chosen people. Further, do you think that 'choosing' a certain race for salvations and letting the rest go to hell is rather racist?
No the old covenant was fulfilled - Christianity was the desire to create a new covenant for all people not just the chosen tribes of Israel. Christianity does not declare people go to hell if they don't believe it just promises that their deaths will be final. No coming back for them. Is Judaism racist? Probably. Christianity is open to all though.Derek Smith said:
The christian religion was a contract of Constantine, or at least those under him, who did the picking and choosing. He did away with all the other christs and described one. Jesus did not invent a new religion. He attempted to modify his own, as had many christs before him and since.
Do go bringing religion into this. This was a question on the bible and God.Derek Smith said:
The idea of the OT having no rule on those who follow Jesus is a nice idea but is not one followed by any christian religion but you, and other like you who have picked and chosen.
Under the description of the OT as some form of contract, god picked just one small desert tribe to rule and reward. It is even worse than many have suggested.
Seems harsh - but I wasn't around at the time so can't really judge the why they were chosen above others for the original covenant.Under the description of the OT as some form of contract, god picked just one small desert tribe to rule and reward. It is even worse than many have suggested.
Derek Smith said:
Jesus was a member of a tribe. He thought as a tribal member and acted like one. That's what tribal members do. He was strictly local.
Not sure on what he did that was particularly tribal. Most of His message was for people of all lands.
Derek Smith said:
The suggestion that the only humans, i.e. those in the god's image, were just that one tribe up until 325AD is an entirely different argument.
If Jesus did exist and preach then what he did was to nail his 95 thesis to the door of a synagogue. The money-lenders were the indulgencies. He was after a better jewish religion. It only became more than that under Constantine, the real basis of christianity as we know it.
You seem to have a concept of Jesus and His motives that sounds more like some of the stories of Mohammed. Don't confuse Christianity as a religion (with all the unnecessary canonical edicts) with Christianity as a faith. The way to everlasting life is through Jesus - not churches.If Jesus did exist and preach then what he did was to nail his 95 thesis to the door of a synagogue. The money-lenders were the indulgencies. He was after a better jewish religion. It only became more than that under Constantine, the real basis of christianity as we know it.
Jinx said:
You seem to have a concept of Jesus and His motives that sounds more like some of the stories of Mohammed. Don't confuse Christianity as a religion (with all the unnecessary canonical edicts) with Christianity as a faith. The way to everlasting life is through Jesus - not churches.
Oh, I see, you too have invented a religion.Faith in Jesus? What does that mean without the bible?
If Jesus, the one in the bible, existed, then, as you suggest, he was just like Mohammed, a reformer. There have been many other reformers over time and there will be many more.
You seem to suggest that there is 'a' christian religion, when there patently is not. There is no single catholic religion, no single protestant religion, and even the minor cults have schisms. So the phrase 'christianity as a faith' it meaningless, at least to those other than you.
There were any number of christs at the purported time of Jesus (not to mention before and since, so I won't mention them) and many of them went on to found their own little sects. Some were amalgamated into the Constantine creation, which designed, to an extent, the modern perception of Jesus.
If you have a faith in someone you have invented, then OK, but by suggesting it as a christian faith means that it is based not so much on a creator as your own creation.
If your individual religion is good enough for you, then OK. I'm happy for you to believe what you want to believe. As, I believe, everyone should be. Whether you, unlike all the other christians in the world, have managed to crack it and get it spot in is, to my way of thinking, unlikely.
I baulk at Jesus not mentioning he was a god, part of the trinity. Woudl it not have crossed his mind?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff