"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:2cmdnXVuwf1hvjjdRVn-tA@io.com...

"Ronald Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:fn7pc.6725$yF6.965@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:8JCdnYwKurrWZjndRVn-vg@io.com...

"Ronald Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1z5pc.16833$5z5.639@bignews2.bellsouth.net...

"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message
news:IOOdnRvB2eInTDndRVn-iQ@adelphia.com...

Evil Bible Quote of the Day for May 14, 2004 from

www.EvilBible.com:

Kill the Sons of Sinners (Joshua 6:26-27)

"At that time Joshua invoked this curse: 'May the curse of

LORD

fall

on anyone who tries to rebuild the city of Jericho. At the cost

his

firstborn son, he will lay its foundation. At the cost of his

youngest

son,

he will set up its gates.' So the LORD was with Joshua, and his

name

became

famous throughout the land." (Joshua 6:26-27)

All this was under the First Covenant; which was faulty.

So your god creates faulty covenants?

A covenant is essentially a contract between two parties.
The first covenant was between God and man. The fault with the first
covenant was not with God or the terms of the contract, but with man.

Man

failed to keep his end of the contract. Man broke the laws and sinned
against his fellow man and God.

But the god is supposed to be omniscient and knew this would happen. Why

did

the god make a contact that it knew would be broken? Is the god stupid?

As I have already written. God saw how wicked man was
and and it grieved him, he was sorry he made man upon the
earth.

So would it not seem that God had really given up and
turned his back upon man? Fact is: he did! The law was given
so man could possibly go on living in peace and harmony with
his fellow man, _if_ he chose to do so, by living in obedience
to the law, the 10 commandments. But other than that, there
was no reward.

And the god's drowning of the whole world and ordering and participating

in

a campaign of genocide was all part of that contract? Are you sure

actually agreed to this supposed contract? Was there a clause that

the god could do whatever the ***** it wanted to everyone and everything

any time? I wouldn't have signed it.

It was done in your behalf. In representative goverments such as
the U.S. people supposidily do act in your behalf.

So a place

was sought for The Second Covenant.

Yeah, the huge number of pages after the old one.

Sorry, I missed your point.

Those pages (the NT) are supposedly the place where the second covnant

put.

The New Testament is much more than the pages in the
back of th book which you referred to.

And Christ became the
mediator of a better covenant. (Heb. 8:6, 7)

But still supposedly the same god that created the old crappy one.

Actually the first covenant was not given because God was pleased with

man;

quite the contrary.
The Bible says, "Then the Lord saw the wickedness of man
was great upon the earth.......The Lord was sorry he had made man and

was

grieved in his heart". (Gen. 6: 5,6)

Yet the omniscient god supposedly looked upon its works and saw that

were good.

This was before man sinned.

God made man a free agent, as
opposed to forcing man to do his will.

He could have had man live entirely by instinct. This, however,
would have involved depriving humans of an intellect and
a mind capable of making decisions. We would have been like
animals goverened entirely by instinct. We would have been
puppets on a string. God chose not to force us.

Were they good or not? And how does an omniscient being

experience regret over what it creates? It should get exactly what it
expects.

No, man had choices.

Besides, you're quoteing the old worthless covnant. Or is it only

when YOU quote from it?

I never said it was worthless, nor compeletely inaccurate just
superceded by the New.

So the first covenant
was not for the purpose of bringing salvation to man, but
in order for man to live among men.

Whatever that means.

That means by living in obedience to the commandments man's
inhumanity to man could be avoided. It was up to us.

What did man need salvation from? From a god that would drown the whole
world? From a god that would order its chosen people to genocide and
slaughter? From a god that would send people to infinite, eternal

for finite transgressions?

I don't know whose god you are describing.

God prepared a way to
avoid all punishment.

The choice is yours. If one were to come
upon a wide and ragging river and a safe bridge was built across
the river, whose fault would it be if you were to say to hell with the
bridge I'll take my chances swimming across. You could not blame
the bridge builder as you felt yourself starting to drown.

Once the New Covenant was established the first covenant becomes

and

decayed and is ready to vanish away. (Heb. 8:13) >

What's to stop a new new covenant from scrubbing away the new one?

According to you the god's been wrong before.

Where the Old Covenant containing the law could never
bring salvation, the new covenant, the covenant of Grace
could bring salvation.

So? Maybe a new one would bring something else.

Besides, this new "contract" does not erase the god's responsibility for
ordering and participating in the genocide and other atrocities

in

the old one. I'm not going to nuzzle up to a psychotic killer just

he seems to be nicer now.

"For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of
a better hope did; by which we are drawn nigh unto God"
(Heb. 7:19)

So you are basing your anti - Christian crusade upon a faulty
covenant which is old, obsolete and has no power over
Christians!

It's in your frigging bible, isn't it? You teach it to your
kids in Sunday school, don't you?

Yes, but not the _misinterpretations_ of the Bibically
illiterate and misinformed anti-Christian crusaders.

We're just quoting the frigging bible. You don't like it? Tough.

The O.T. is the Jewish religion.

That is what primarily is quoted.
IOW it is the Jews who are the brunt of your disdain.
Christians are under the New Covenant, and have membership
in the New Testament Church.

If you don't like to hear the supposed words of your god, don't read
Evilbible's posts.

It's one thing to oppose something when you know something
about it. But to oppose something of which you are ignorant
is total and utter bias.

He's quoting the bible. If that's a bad thing, then that's YOUR problem.

I currently live in a part of the US that once was under the laws of the
Old Confederacy, but these laws have been done away with. We are
no longer under these laws. So it is with the law contained within the
Old Covenant.

"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:2cmdnXVuwf1hvjjdRVn-tA@io.com...

What did man need salvation from? From a god that would drown the whole
world? From a god that would order its chosen people to genocide and
slaughter? From a god that would send people to infinite, eternal

for finite transgressions?

I don't know whose god you are describing.

God saw how wicked man was and and it grieved
him, he was sorry he made man upon the earth.

"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:2cmdnXVuwf1hvjjdRVn-tA@io.com...

Yet the omniscient god supposedly looked upon its works and saw that they
were good.

This was before man sinned. God made man a free agent, as
opposed to forcing man to do his will.
He could have had man live entirely by instinct. This, however,
would have involved depriving humans of an intellect and
a mind capable of making decisions. We would have been like
animals goverened entirely by instinct. We would have been
puppets on a string. God chose not to force us.

The O.T. is the Jewish religion. That is what primarily is quoted.
IOW it is the Jews who are the brunt of your disdain.
Christians are under the New Covenant, and have membership
in the New Testament Church.

If you don't like to hear the supposed words of your god, don't read
Evilbible's posts.

It's one thing to oppose something when you know something
about it. But to oppose something of which you are ignorant
is total and utter bias.

He's quoting the bible. If that's a bad thing, then that's YOUR problem.

I currently live in a part of the US that once was under the laws of the
Old Confederacy, but these laws have been done away with. We are
no longer under these laws. So it is with the law contained within the
Old Covenant.

Ron

Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet