Reynold said...
So why aren't believers out killing witches and unbelievers like the bible demands then, if it's the same "God".
Same God, different covenant. Seriously, if you atheists knew half as much about what the Bible says than you constantly claim to but actually don't, you wouldn't ask these ridiculously simplistic and idiotic questions.
Sorry, Jinxie, but according the the New Testament, that's dead wrong.
Don't believe me? Check out these passages:
“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19)
"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17)
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17)
"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16)
"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21)
“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John 7:19)
“For the law was given by Moses..." (John 1:17)
“...the scripture cannot be broken.” (John 10:35)
Seriously, Jinxie, if you knew half as much about what the Bible says as you pretend to, you wouldn't try to pass off such a transparent and laughable lie.
Posts
It's sad that he'll never understand how transparent he appears to non-believers.
ReplyDeleteObnoxious at times, but sad too
Damnit, why didn't I think of this? Mind if I post those verses over at Ray's?
ReplyDeleteReynold,
ReplyDeleteAlready done. ;)
@kaitlyn--
ReplyDeleteOver on Ray's blog, kaitlyn said:
It seems like God is angry at me.
And further down on the same thread, she said:
You're right. I am a sinner. I have done horrible things.
I don't get it. I tried so hard to be a good person. Are you saying the reason I'm depressed is because of God?
I don't think forgiveness can help me.
Thank you though, Ray.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I've tried to post replies to these comments twice, and it appears that Ray has deleted both comments. However, I think this may be serious enough to warrant repeating them here.
Kaitlyn, if this depression you're going through is just one of those "dark night of the soul" sort of things, then find a trusted friend or family member to talk with. Don't try to trudge through it alone if you don't have to. Sometimes it's good to unburden yourself.
BUT, if this is more serious, then I must remind you that depression is a very serious condition. It can kill. If things start getting kind of scary, I urge you to seek the best mental health professional you can find. There are very effective medications available now; at least consider this.
Frankly, I am appalled that Ray reinforces the self-loathing of a depressed person, just to gain a new convert to his religion. Ray is telling you that yes, you are an awful person and God is right to be angry with you, but it'll all be okay if you just join his religion. This tells me that Ray is playing roulette with your mental health, and possibly even your life.
Kaitlyn, I don't know you, but I have a hard time believing you have done horrible things. Everybody's done things they're not proud of; when that happens, the only thing you can do is try to make things right and vow never to repeat those mistakes. But when those people tell you that you're a horrid person because you lied to somebody at some time or stole a candy bar when you were 8, that doesn't make you an awful person--it just makes you a fallible human. They're playing you; simple as that. And while playing somebody may be kind of dishonest in general, playing somebody who's showing signs of depression is reprehensible.
Is it just me, or does this seem just a tad bitchy to you?
ReplyDeleteI saw that post reynold and I was sickened. Rebecca in tx's posts tend to depict the most disgusting aspects of this freakish cult of Ray.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things that has driven me to strong atheism is the divergence between the good and caring Christians that I know and the filthy pieces of excrement like Rebecca.
Kaitlyn-
ReplyDeletePlease get my email address from McGyver Jr. and email me.
I might be able to help you.
BF
kaitlyn,
ReplyDeleteyou see: We do care for you. Are you still reading this blog?
I haven't seen you here for a while. If somebody has said something that offended you, I'm sure he or she is willing to apologize. I would, but I hope I didn't do that. We aren't perfect either, and it's so easy to write something on a blog that sounds offending even if it wasn't meant that way.
And Kaitlyn if you are reading, big squeezy internet hugs from me to you. You always make me think a lot. Please take care.
ReplyDeletekaitlyn,
ReplyDeleteI would like to make one unsolicited suggestion. Get away from Ray's for awhile. He says he cares about you but I can say with reasonable assurance he only cares about what he thinks happens to you in the "afterlife." You need some help with this life. I also read rebecca in tx. She is cruel.
I am clinically depressed and have been treated for it for the last 15 yrs. Depression is a physical illness and is treatable in a variety of ways. I have no idea what your situation is but implore you to listen to the people here who really do care about you and get some professional advise.
Take care.
Yeah, Kaitlyn, I echo the sentiments of Craig and the others here. Go to where you can get support and good medical advice, not the crap that Rebecca gives out.
ReplyDeleteI notice that just yesterday you responded to her on Ray's blog. I'd say stay away from those loons for a while.
Best wishes for a recovery from Depression. I also saw what Ray said on his blog to you. The man's a first class prick. Religious people like him are parasites; they love to take advantage people when they're down.
Anyway the bible explicitly says that Gentiles don't have tokeep Jewish law so most of that stuff doesn't apply toanyone who isn't Jewish.
ReplyDeleteAnd besides before stoning anyone they had to receive a fair trial before the Jewish Sanhedrin (who rarely resorted to the death penalty). Seeing as there is no Sanhedrin around in America we couldn't get it done.
mrfreethinker, did you even read the passages I cited?
ReplyDeleteBible commentaries state that through Jesus (by hearing the Gospel) the law would be written upon one's heart, thereby making following the written law 'backwards orientated'. You'd receive grace by following the law written on your heart (your morality) which comes with following Jesus, i.e. being 'in Christ' as a higher yardstick. Being 'under Christ' would render sin powerless.
ReplyDeleteBasically, Christianity holds that following Mosaic law is a false path (away from grace) for converted heathens (Gentiles, and Greeks how they are termed), with the exception of those repeated explicitly. For example, following Mosaic food laws is not required, whereas avoiding blood (Acts 15,20) is still prohibited. Growing a beard is ok, requiring others to do so is wrong.
Well, this is my reply to Jinx
ReplyDelete=======
Jinx McHue said...
Reynold said...
We know it's a "different covenent", but why is there a "different covenant"?
Because Jesus became the perfect sacrifice for our sins.
You'd have to get to those of the Judaism religion on that...for one thing, the sacrifice is supposed to be offered "without blemish" according to their laws, but Jesus was rather bruised at the time...
After all, it's the same "God", the standards aren't supposed to change.
A new covenant does not mean God's standards have changed. I simply do not know where you got that from. Ignorance, probably.
His standards may not have changed, but his behaviour sure has.
Ignorance of the way you people can dance around the problems in your own holy book, I guess. Want to try being polite some time? It worked so well for you on another board you used to post at...
He is "unchanging" as you people like to say. So, why the "different covenant" as you people like to point out.
The covenant is with Man and could be changed. The Law, on which the covenant is based, is unchanging because it is the Word of God.
So what? Is not the covenant set up by this "unchanging God" of yours too? Both it and the "Law" are set up to deal with people.
Why then were you christians killing people for CENTURIES in Europe and in N. America before the secular-inspired Enlightenment came along?
Oh, please. Let me guess - "Hundreds of millions of people killed during the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem witch trials!" Right?
"Hundreds of millions"? Grab a brain. There weren't that many people around to kill, and they didn't have efficient means of mass killing back then. Hundreds of thousands perhaps, but not for lack of trying, or for having restraint as is explained below. You may want to know that there was more to it than just the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem witch trials.
Amazing how apologists dance when the history of your religion is thrown back at you.
"When religion ruled the world, it was called the Dark Ages!" Right? If you are going to spread myths and urban legends around, then no one is going to take you seriously.
Good thing I'm not doing that then.
And, hey, let's make sure we ignore the recorded, verifiable number of deaths under secular rulers such as Stalin, Lenin and Pol Pot - deaths that put any number you can ascribe to Christians to shame.
Hey Jinx. Let's ignore the fact that in the times of Lenin and Pol Pot:
1) there were far more people around than in the dark ages
2) there were far more efficient means of killing people than in the dark ages
3) the killings you complain about lasted for decades; those done in the name of your religion continued steadily for centuries.
Therefore: the proportional deaths from them were therefore less than in the times of when your religion ruled.
Take for example the Thirty Years's War -- the fatality rate was about 30%. What would those be in today's number, Jinx?
Get the point yet?
Why is it only now that you're talking about this "new covenant"?
Uh, no. It's been talked about for about 2000 years.
Care to explain their actions over all that time, then?
This misdeeds of some people who were inspired more by secular thirst for power than by Christian teachings doesn't invalidate the new covenant.
"Some people"? Baloney. "inspired more by secular thirst for power"? Baloney. Again, read some history please. I don't have the time to educate you.
Well, I'll try a bit:
The Arrogance of Faith: Christianity and Race in America from the Colonial Era to the Twentieth Century by Forrest G. Wood, American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World by David E. Stannard, Holy Horrors: An Illustrated History of Religious Murder and Madness by James A. Haught, The Dark Side of Christian History by Helen Ellerbe
It seems to be just a way to wash your hands of the blood your death-cult has spilled.
"Death-cult?" Seriously? These are the things that bounce around in your head?
You're the one who worships a baby-killing God pal, not me. I call them as I see them. Even the final "sacrifice" on the cross required, what? Death!
Besides, in which "covenant" are the "Ten Commandments" in?
Both. Duh. See, once again, if you knew even half of what you are trying to discredit, you wouldn't ask these ridiculously simplistic questions.
Baloney. The Ten Commandments are in the OT, and they were given to the Jewish people. If you say that they are in both covenants, you have to show it. If you do, you've then got to explain why all those other OT laws given at the same time are not in both covenants. At least your fellow believers in the Dark Ages of Europe were more biblically consistent than you modern believers in following such NT verses as:
"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17)
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17)
"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16)
your "God" is acting as if he's got Multiple Personality Disorder or something, if he's the same one. I figure that the NT "God" is just a sanitized version of the OT one.
You argue like a 12-year-old.
You want irony, Jinx? If you're going to remark on my maturity, I'd advise you to remember what you left in your signature at Theology Web when you went off in a huff because you continually broke their profanity rules.
GONE FOR GOOD BECAUSE THE MODS ARE --something-- RETARDS
Way to show maturity. Let's see, what other "holy spirit" inspired things did you say to your fellow believers?
So, so long. Farewell. Auf wiedersehen. Get bent. I won't be returning.
I remember what one of the mods said in reply to your mature comments:
You have repeatedly made numerous violations which accumulated to 10 points. Worse yet, the exact violation that put you over the top... was the exact thing you had been warned for the week prior.
Anyone can make a mistake, only a fool repeats those, beratingly so.
Back to what Jinx said:
So let me get this right. If a judge were to order a person to go to jail unless they paid a hefty fine (or someone paid it for them), that means - according to your rather... uh... unique logic - that the judge is "acting as if he's got Multiple Personality Disorder or something."
Man, you're off base. Try a fitting analogy for a change before you ridicule anyone else's arguing ability, all right?
If the judge was ordering the deaths of pregnant women and babies (he couldn't be a judge in the civilized world, but hey, it's your "loving" judge!) and out of the blue he not only stops that practice, and starts penalizing people who did kill babies and pregnant women, then yes, it'd be a slight change in character.
Except of course for the required "end of the world" stuff.
Why do you call it "required?"
Pretty much any mythology has some version of the "end of the world" and "final judgement" story set up.
I've said before on this blog that I was pro-life.
Now is that "pro-life" in as far as your personal beliefs go, but not as far as the law goes?
I assume you're trying to wiggle out of your mistake of assuming that I wasn't pro-life?
If I met a person who's considering abortion, I'd try to talk them out of it. How can we legislate something like that? They'll go and do it elswhere anyway. The adoption option and access to contraceptives would have to be emphasized to prevent that choice from having to be made.
We all know how well "abstinence-based" sex education is working (or not, as the case may be).
I suppose you'd not be satisfied unless I said that I'd vote only for those who call themselves "pro-life". Never mind the fact that you yourselves inevitably worship a being who's pro-death.
Don't make false assumptions about my views.
Oh, the irony! Wow, Rey - you really flattened me with that one. I was just sitting here and WHAM!!! This big ol' Mack truck of irony just ran me over.
Done acting childish, Jinx? I can see why the Theology Web people were too mature for you.
You are not "pro-life" by the standards you just brought up.
More irony. Glad I didn't try to get up again yet.
I really don't think you're using that word right. You're the one who worships a baby-killer, not me.
Why? You worship and love the same being who in the OT ordered the death of babies and pregnant women.
Who are you voting for next week, Rey? (Or if you're not a U.S. citizen, who would you vote for?)
Who are you to ask? You worhsip a baby killer. Compared to him, pretty much anyone would be a saint. At least with politicians, it'd be a matter of the woman's choice, as opposed to having her and her kids killed against her will!
I'm showing you the hypocrosy of your so-called "pro-life" stance.
No, you're really not. (And, to borrow a line from one of your buddies, the word you're groping for there is "hypocrisy.") God is the Author of life. He controls when people live and when they die and in what manner they die. Sometimes God supernaturally causes people to die (e.g. the Egyptian firstborn)
You do realize that there's zero archeological evidence for that, right?
and sometimes he orders people to do it with weapons. What ultimately matters is not how its done, but that the decisions are made and given by the faultless, just God.
Double-standard time again. If he's allowed to do whatever he wants to whoever he wants, then how can he be moral? He's a being who acts above the law, above morality. If humans do the same actions, they're judged evil. If your deity does it, it's judged "Just". What a joke! I believe Vagon already asked you:
If you could, please define how you judge an action as faultless and just.
Please then tell me what makes God faultless and just.?
To support those decisions does not mean a person is not pro-life (a phrase which you are obviously distorting in order to falsely fabricate an argument).
Bull. If you support them, you are not pro-life, and the argument stands. Deal with it.
We're showing that the "loving" "just God" that you people worship, even if the bible is true, is not "loving" and "just".
The only way you are showing that is by burning straw men.
Baloney. It's from the bible itself. Or are you saying that the verses where your "loving" and "just "God" orders the deaths of pregnant women and children are fake?? I doubt it. Do better than baseless accusations, back them up.
You're a father, what would you think if someone did that to your wife and kid?
Refuting the alleged character of your "God" is one step in showing that your "God" doesn't exist.
You've never once refuted the character of God. You put forth these ridiculously false portrayals of God that you have fabricated from whole cloth, then attack them and act like you've triumphed without even waiting for any sort of rebuttal.
"Ridiculously false portrayals", "Fabricated from whole cloth"? Baloney! I get the evidences for what your deity's like from reading your own bible, IN CONTEXT. Or are you agreeing with me that a being who orders the killing of babies and pregnant women is of abominable character? If so, then and only then do you have the right to call yourself "pro-life". Until then, you're lying.
"Without waiting for any sort of rebuttal"? When one posts a comment, one has to wait for an answer. This isn't like a chat room where one has instantaneous replies.
You're describing you and your fellow believers just as much as you do me when you say that I "act like I've triumphed without even waiting for any sort of rebuttal".
(That is why atheists always get their behinds whupped in debates.)
Maybe only in oral debates where one doesn't have time to dig up the evidence to expose the other guy's bull, but not in written debates. In written debates, it's you people who lose.
Besides, I suspect that the infidels dot org people and other such groups would disagree with you on that.
Just go to their site and type in "debate" in their search engine.
Besides, we can't really tell if those particular events happened or not,
Just like we can't tell if Plato and Socrates really existed, but that doesn't stop you from unquestioningly believing that they did, does it?
More evidence for them than there is for a lot of your biblical beliefs. For instance, how's about the supposed "500 witnesses" that saw the "saints" rise at the time of the alleged "resurrection" of Jesus? We have only the one biblical statement that it happened. Nothing from any other "book" of the bible, and nothing from any other source. Don't you think it odd that almost none of those "witnesses" thought to record the event? Even if many people were illiterate at the time, there should be at least somepeople who could write something down, even some Romans?
Of course, there's more evidence for all the events in the Bible than for the existence of Plato and Socrates.
Like that "500 witnesses" incident I mentioned before?
It wouldn't be such a big deal except you people have that "all or nothing" attitude when it comes to your holy book. If Plato and Socrates made such wild claims as the bible constantly does, then even if there was evidence for those people, those particular claims would still be in doubt unless backed up by historical evidence.
You need to really brush up on some reading other than apologist sites. I've mentioned these books before, and I'll mention them again. The View from Nebo by Amy Dockser Marckus, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman and Out of the Desert by William Steibing. Maybe there's a chance you'll learn something.
but knowing how people acted back then, actions like that probably were taken, and your deity was used as the justification for them.
Explain that one to me. Why would they need any justification?
Well, unlike you apparently, they'd feel bad about just up and killing prenant women and children just on the say-so of their leaders without a good reason.
It's not that; you're just not very smart.
I'm no rocket scientist like you obviously must be, but I'm smart enough to deconstruct your ignorant, baseless arguments.
Keep deluding yourself, Jinx. At least in that last sentence you're half right.