Religions > Atheism > Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for March 17 (God is the Source of Evil Spirits 2)
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Ronald Dean" |
| Date: |
03 Apr 2004 10:38:13 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for March 17 (God is the Source of Evil Spirits 2) |
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message
news:GrGdnd-0T4Pkx_bdRVn-vg@adelphia.com...
"Ronald Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Qkoac.29466$gZ3.17917@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
<snip><snip>> > >
You were the one who claimed that these books explained something. I
didn't see any logical explanations in these books. Please post the
explanations that you claim exist in these books.
_You_ made the initional claim. Now you are trying to shift the burden
of
proof to me. In this way you hope to weasel out of your burden.
You claimed that these books explained the following:
Okay, I'll give it a try. But I have no expectation of changing your
mind, neither do I expect to influence you to accept the Bible or
alter your invective railing against it.
My objective is to show that the Biblical portrayal of the law
is internally logical and especially to show that my view of the law
and the two covenants are Biblically based.
1) why the law was _given_ in the first place,
Laws almost always come as the consequences of some
antisocial behavior or *evil doing*: i.e. after some activity was
carried out which resulted in harm to another person or theft
or destruction to his property.
The background for the law comes from the Old Testament.
God was not happy with man because of man's wickedness,
indeed we find this in Genesis, "The Lord saw that the
wickedness of man was great upon the earth and that every
imagination of the thoughts if his heart was only evil
continually".And the Lord was sorry he had made man
on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. (Gen.
6: 5, 6 rsv). Other versions say it repented God that
he had made man....
So apparently, the adding of the law was not God's
preferance. But it was needed.
The reason the law was given, in the first place was:
because of wickedness. However, its purpose was
to guide man his dealings with God and his fellow man.
But the law had a second purpose. a - two fold
function: it had a mundane and a spiritual side.
Logic dictates that a perfect God would decree a
perfect law. The Bible confirms the perfection of
the, "the Law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the
soul.... (Psa. 19: 7).
If a man lived in perfect and complete obedience to
the perfect law he himself would be perfect. But we
are imperfect! We are unable to be always in perfect
obedience to the law. Even if we did so, this would
not bring reward. The law was _not_ inaugurated to
bring reward.
This is understandable because in societies, civil laws
do not bring reward. If one does not steal, murder nor
commit perjury etc. He is not rewarded for being good
or living in obedience to civil laws.
But if you violate the same laws, there is a penalty to be
paid.
2) what the consequences of transgression are
Where the law is violated, a penalty is to be exacted.
This holds true in civilized society: assuming
the perpetrator is caught. One may rob a bank, kill a
bystander or a clerk and occasionally a criminal gets
away with it. But this is also a transgression of the
law of God; a penalty will be exacted by God, and
there is no getting away with it. We are disturbed when
this happens and no one is ever caught. Our sense of
justice demands retribution. But sometimes this doesn't
happen - not in this life.
3) why a new covenant was given where salvation
is based upon faith and the grace of God, rather
than the law.
I addressed this earlier. The reason the law was given
was _not_ because mankind was righteous, but because
of his evil nature. Man, the second party to the first
covenant broke the covenant, transgressed the laws
and lived estranged from God. IOW the law _could_
not bring salvation, Sin is a transgression of the law.
And everyone sins. But sin cannot enter into heaven.
The New Covenant took away the law for righteneous.
We no longer stand in judgement through the law.
The New Covenant brought about salvation through
Grace.
4) Why the law of God called a curse.
The law came not as an instrument to enable
man to earn his way into heaven. The law was
decreed because of unrighteneous in man. Yet
once establisned, it became our standard of
measure - a yeardstick by which we are measured.
Since the law describes a perfect man, we fall
short of the law. And the sinner is judged in
terms of the law. If we violate even one
commandment we are guilty of all.
James writes: And the person who keeps all
of the laws, but one is as guilty as the person
who has broken all of Gods laws. (James 2: 10)
If one choses to live under the law he must
live them each and every one of them. The
law a curse, because those who rely upon
the law for justification are those who chose
to live under the law are under are subject to
the condemnation that is in the law.
"For all who rely on works of the law are under
a curse; for it is written Cursed be every one
who does not abide by all things written in the
book of the law, and do them.
Now it is evident that no man is justified before
God by the law for he through faith is righteous
shall live....
The law doesn not rest on faith, for he who
does them shall live by them.
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law..."
(Gal. 3: 10 - 13)
"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness
to everyone who believes." (Rom. 10: 4)
"I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if
righteneous comes by the law, then Christ is
dead in vain." (Gal.2: 21)
"The law was our school master to bring us
unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
But after that faith is come we are no longer
under a schoolmaster. (Gal.3: 24,25)
From these and other verses it is obvious that
what I have written if based upon the Bible
and from the Biblical perspective this is
internally logical and factual.
I just want you to post these explanations so
that we can examine them to > see if they are
logical or not.
Fine, I hope you read read everything and respond
honestly and forthright rather than try to make a
caricature of it.
Ron
.
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for March 17 (God is the Source of Evil Spirits 2) |
03 Apr 2004 06:39:24 PM |
|
|
"Ronald Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:n1Ebc.2241$FX.1539@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message
news:GrGdnd-0T4Pkx_bdRVn-vg@adelphia.com...
"Ronald Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Qkoac.29466$gZ3.17917@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
<snip><snip>> > >
You were the one who claimed that these books explained something.
I
didn't see any logical explanations in these books. Please post the
explanations that you claim exist in these books.
_You_ made the initional claim. Now you are trying to shift the burden
of
proof to me. In this way you hope to weasel out of your burden.
You claimed that these books explained the following:
Okay, I'll give it a try. But I have no expectation of changing your
mind, neither do I expect to influence you to accept the Bible or
alter your invective railing against it.
My objective is to show that the Biblical portrayal of the law
is internally logical and especially to show that my view of the law
and the two covenants are Biblically based.
1) why the law was _given_ in the first place,
Laws almost always come as the consequences of some
antisocial behavior or *evil doing*: i.e. after some activity was
carried out which resulted in harm to another person or theft
or destruction to his property.
The background for the law comes from the Old Testament.
God was not happy with man because of man's wickedness,
indeed we find this in Genesis, "The Lord saw that the
wickedness of man was great upon the earth and that every
imagination of the thoughts if his heart was only evil
continually".And the Lord was sorry he had made man
on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. (Gen.
6: 5, 6 rsv). Other versions say it repented God that
he had made man....
So apparently, the adding of the law was not God's
preferance. But it was needed.
The reason the law was given, in the first place was:
because of wickedness. However, its purpose was
to guide man his dealings with God and his fellow man.
But the law had a second purpose. a - two fold
function: it had a mundane and a spiritual side.
Logic dictates that a perfect God would decree a
perfect law. The Bible confirms the perfection of
the, "the Law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the
soul.... (Psa. 19: 7).
If a man lived in perfect and complete obedience to
the perfect law he himself would be perfect.
<snip>
So now it appears that you are saying that the OT law was sent by God and
perfect. So why are you complaining about me quoting the OT laws? Many of
these laws are quite evil.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ronald Dean" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for March 17 (God is the Source of Evil Spirits 2) |
04 Apr 2004 03:02:37 AM |
|
|
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message
news:wfWdnXNAQpbWxPLdRVn-sA@adelphia.com...
"Ronald Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:n1Ebc.2241$FX.1539@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message
news:GrGdnd-0T4Pkx_bdRVn-vg@adelphia.com...
"Ronald Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Qkoac.29466$gZ3.17917@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
<snip><snip>> > >
You were the one who claimed that these books explained something.
I
didn't see any logical explanations in these books. Please post
the
explanations that you claim exist in these books.
_You_ made the initional claim. Now you are trying to shift the
burden
of
proof to me. In this way you hope to weasel out of your burden.
You claimed that these books explained the following:
Okay, I'll give it a try. But I have no expectation of changing your
mind, neither do I expect to influence you to accept the Bible or
alter your invective railing against it.
My objective is to show that the Biblical portrayal of the law
is internally logical and especially to show that my view of the law
and the two covenants are Biblically based.
1) why the law was _given_ in the first place,
Laws almost always come as the consequences of some
antisocial behavior or *evil doing*: i.e. after some activity was
carried out which resulted in harm to another person or theft
or destruction to his property.
The background for the law comes from the Old Testament.
God was not happy with man because of man's wickedness,
indeed we find this in Genesis, "The Lord saw that the
wickedness of man was great upon the earth and that every
imagination of the thoughts if his heart was only evil
continually".And the Lord was sorry he had made man
on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. (Gen.
6: 5, 6 rsv). Other versions say it repented God that
he had made man....
So apparently, the adding of the law was not God's
preferance. But it was needed.
The reason the law was given, in the first place was:
because of wickedness. However, its purpose was
to guide man his dealings with God and his fellow man.
But the law had a second purpose. a - two fold
function: it had a mundane and a spiritual side.
Logic dictates that a perfect God would decree a
perfect law. The Bible confirms the perfection of
the, "the Law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the
soul.... (Psa. 19: 7).
If a man lived in perfect and complete obedience to
the perfect law he himself would be perfect.
<snip>
So now it appears that you are saying that the OT law was sent by God and
perfect.
NO, I'm not! I wrote that _logic_ would dictate that God
would decree a perfect law, and I quoted the writer of Psa,
who agreed with me. But these revelations were a fragmented
version of revelations. I have already quoted Hebrews: I
guess you forgot,"For since the law has but a _shadow_ of
the good things to come instead of the true form of these
realities.....(Heb. 10: 1 rsv). These prophets of the Old
Testament were able to grasp only fragmented bits and
pieces of the truth of the God and his law. Combined
they were unable to grasp the whole round orb of the
God's truthl. The whole truth had to await the coming
of Christ.
Earlier you listed 4 points where you challenged me
to provide explanations. You wanted me "to post
these explanations so that (you) can_examine_ them
to see if they are logical or not." I answered your
challenge, but obviously you were unable to find
fault with the internal logic or my intrepretation.
Obviously, you found them to be as I stated;
internally logical and my intrepretation rational.
You failled to live up to the challenge yourself,
so you forfeited this debate.
So why are you complaining about me quoting the OT laws? Many of
these laws are quite evil.
Basically the Old Testament laws are the 10 commandments.
What is so evil about these? These are the law the rest
is the prophets. All of which were succeeded by the
New Covenant in the NewTestament.
Ron
.
|
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for March 17 (God is the Source of Evil Spirits 2) |
04 Apr 2004 08:14:08 AM |
|
|
"Ronald Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:vePbc.5471$6D1.5242@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message
news:wfWdnXNAQpbWxPLdRVn-sA@adelphia.com...
"Ronald Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:n1Ebc.2241$FX.1539@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message
news:GrGdnd-0T4Pkx_bdRVn-vg@adelphia.com...
"Ronald Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Qkoac.29466$gZ3.17917@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
<snip><snip>> > >
You were the one who claimed that these books explained
something.
I
didn't see any logical explanations in these books. Please post
the
explanations that you claim exist in these books.
_You_ made the initional claim. Now you are trying to shift the
burden
of
proof to me. In this way you hope to weasel out of your burden.
You claimed that these books explained the following:
Okay, I'll give it a try. But I have no expectation of changing your
mind, neither do I expect to influence you to accept the Bible or
alter your invective railing against it.
My objective is to show that the Biblical portrayal of the law
is internally logical and especially to show that my view of the law
and the two covenants are Biblically based.
1) why the law was _given_ in the first place,
Laws almost always come as the consequences of some
antisocial behavior or *evil doing*: i.e. after some activity was
carried out which resulted in harm to another person or theft
or destruction to his property.
The background for the law comes from the Old Testament.
God was not happy with man because of man's wickedness,
indeed we find this in Genesis, "The Lord saw that the
wickedness of man was great upon the earth and that every
imagination of the thoughts if his heart was only evil
continually".And the Lord was sorry he had made man
on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. (Gen.
6: 5, 6 rsv). Other versions say it repented God that
he had made man....
So apparently, the adding of the law was not God's
preferance. But it was needed.
The reason the law was given, in the first place was:
because of wickedness. However, its purpose was
to guide man his dealings with God and his fellow man.
But the law had a second purpose. a - two fold
function: it had a mundane and a spiritual side.
Logic dictates that a perfect God would decree a
perfect law. The Bible confirms the perfection of
the, "the Law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the
soul.... (Psa. 19: 7).
If a man lived in perfect and complete obedience to
the perfect law he himself would be perfect.
<snip>
So now it appears that you are saying that the OT law was sent by God
and
perfect.
NO, I'm not! I wrote that _logic_ would dictate that God
would decree a perfect law, and I quoted the writer of Psa,
who agreed with me. But these revelations were a fragmented
version of revelations. I have already quoted Hebrews: I
guess you forgot,"For since the law has but a _shadow_ of
the good things to come instead of the true form of these
realities.....(Heb. 10: 1 rsv). These prophets of the Old
Testament were able to grasp only fragmented bits and
pieces of the truth of the God and his law. Combined
they were unable to grasp the whole round orb of the
God's truthl. The whole truth had to await the coming
of Christ.
You are arguing in circles again. We already discussed this. I showed that
the Bible says that Moses took dictation directly from God and he wrote down
all of the commandments (not just ten). If you are going to argue that
these are incorrect then you are going to have to admit that either Moses or
one of the writers of the Old Testament lied. But you have refused to do
this. You need to admit that someone lied or else you need to abandon this
line of argument.
Earlier you listed 4 points where you challenged me
to provide explanations. You wanted me "to post
these explanations so that (you) can_examine_ them
to see if they are logical or not." I answered your
challenge, but obviously you were unable to find
fault with the internal logic or my intrepretation.
Obviously, you found them to be as I stated;
internally logical and my intrepretation rational.
You failled to live up to the challenge yourself,
so you forfeited this debate.
A contradiction is a logical flaw. I pointed out this contradiction.
So why are you complaining about me quoting the OT laws? Many of
these laws are quite evil.
Basically the Old Testament laws are the 10 commandments.
That's not what the Bible says.
What is so evil about these? These are the law the rest
is the prophets. All of which were succeeded by the
New Covenant in the NewTestament.
I don't know about you but I think it is evil to punish the innocent
grandsons of sinners as God promises to do in the so called Ten
Commandments. Don't you see something evil in that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ronald Dean" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for March 17 (God is the Source of Evil Spirits 2) |
05 Apr 2004 01:29:37 AM |
|
|
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message
news:y9qdnd7RCaazl-3dRVn-uQ@adelphia.com...
<snip>
<snip><snip>> > >
You were the one who claimed that these books explained
something.
I
didn't see any logical explanations in these books. Please
post
the
explanations that you claim exist in these books.
_You_ made the initional claim. Now you are trying to shift the
burden
of
proof to me. In this way you hope to weasel out of your burden.
You claimed that these books explained the following:
Okay, I'll give it a try. But I have no expectation of changing your
mind, neither do I expect to influence you to accept the Bible or
alter your invective railing against it.
My objective is to show that the Biblical portrayal of the law
is internally logical and especially to show that my view of the law
and the two covenants are Biblically based.
1) why the law was _given_ in the first place,
Laws almost always come as the consequences of some
antisocial behavior or *evil doing*: i.e. after some activity was
carried out which resulted in harm to another person or theft
or destruction to his property.
The background for the law comes from the Old Testament.
God was not happy with man because of man's wickedness,
indeed we find this in Genesis, "The Lord saw that the
wickedness of man was great upon the earth and that every
imagination of the thoughts if his heart was only evil
continually".And the Lord was sorry he had made man
on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. (Gen.
6: 5, 6 rsv). Other versions say it repented God that
he had made man....
So apparently, the adding of the law was not God's
preferance. But it was needed.
The reason the law was given, in the first place was:
because of wickedness. However, its purpose was
to guide man his dealings with God and his fellow man.
But the law had a second purpose. a - two fold
function: it had a mundane and a spiritual side.
Logic dictates that a perfect God would decree a
perfect law. The Bible confirms the perfection of
the, "the Law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the
soul.... (Psa. 19: 7).
If a man lived in perfect and complete obedience to
the perfect law he himself would be perfect.
<snip>
So now it appears that you are saying that the OT law was sent by God
and
perfect.
NO, I'm not! I wrote that _logic_ would dictate that God
would decree a perfect law, and I quoted the writer of Psa,
who agreed with me. But these revelations were a fragmented
version of revelations. I have already quoted Hebrews: I
guess you forgot,"For since the law has but a _shadow_ of
the good things to come instead of the true form of these
realities.....(Heb. 10: 1 rsv). These prophets of the Old
Testament were able to grasp only fragmented bits and
pieces of the truth of the God and his law. Combined
they were unable to grasp the whole round orb of the
God's truthl. The whole truth had to await the coming
of Christ.
You are arguing in circles again.
You are _reading_ into my statements that I do not intend
or mean, but things _you_ want. You are hung up on the
O.T. Obviously you need this.
We already discussed this. I showed that
the Bible says that Moses took dictation directly from God and he wrote
down
all of the commandments (not just ten). If you are going to argue that
these are incorrect then you are going to have to admit that either Moses
or
one of the writers of the Old Testament lied. But you have refused to do
this.
I thnk it is possible that Moses got carried away.
It's happened before. Jacob claimed...."I have seen the face
of God....."(Gen.32: 30). And Manoah said to his wife ...
"we have seen God...."(Jdg.13: 32)
However, the New Testiment states that no man has seen
God at any time....." (Jhn.1:18). So the fact is they or
no one in the O.T. has ever seen God.
You need to admit that someone lied or else you need to abandon this
line of argument.
You are giving me some degree of certainty which
I do not entitled. I am not the final word on Moses
or the Old Testament. All I have is an opinion. So I
do not have to pass judgment as to whether or
not Moses was a liar. This is your position.
But I do know from my studies that the O.T. it has
been made obsolete by the New Testament. And
Christ is the end of the law for righteneous for Christians.
Paul writes, that "the law was our schoolmaster to bring
us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. And
after that faith is come we are no longer under a school-
master". (Gal. 3: 24)
What could be clearer?
Earlier you listed 4 points where you challenged me
to provide explanations. You wanted me "to post
these explanations so that (you) can_examine_ them
to see if they are logical or not." I answered your
challenge, but obviously you were unable to find
fault with the internal logic or my intrepretation.
Obviously, you found them to be as I stated;
internally logical and my intrepretation rational.
You failled to live up to the challenge yourself,
so you forfeited this debate.
A contradiction is a logical flaw. I pointed out this contradiction.
If there is a contradiction it is with my opinion. I'm no
authority on the O.T.. So I can be wrong as to how Moses
comunicated with God. I do not know. But it was
fragmented, however it was.
So why are you complaining about me quoting the OT laws? Many of
these laws are quite evil.
Basically the Old Testament laws are the 10 commandments.
That's not what the Bible says.
You're beating a dead horse. The OT has vanished away
as far as Christianity is concerned. You can't face facts!
"I do not frustrate the Grace of God for if righteneous comes
by the law Christ is dead in vain. (Gal 2:21)
What is so evil about these? These are the law the rest
is the prophets. All of which were succeeded by the
New Covenant in the NewTestament.
I don't know about you but I think it is evil to punish the innocent
grandsons of sinners as God promises to do in the so called Ten
Commandments. Don't you see something evil in that?
It's old testiment!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for March 17 (God is the Source of Evil Spirits 2) |
05 Apr 2004 08:15:25 PM |
|
|
"Ronald Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:iZ6cc.7059$6D1.4065@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message
news:y9qdnd7RCaazl-3dRVn-uQ@adelphia.com...
<snip>
<snip><snip>> > >
You were the one who claimed that these books explained
something.
I
didn't see any logical explanations in these books. Please
post
the
explanations that you claim exist in these books.
_You_ made the initional claim. Now you are trying to shift
the
burden
of
proof to me. In this way you hope to weasel out of your
burden.
You claimed that these books explained the following:
Okay, I'll give it a try. But I have no expectation of changing
your
mind, neither do I expect to influence you to accept the Bible or
alter your invective railing against it.
My objective is to show that the Biblical portrayal of the law
is internally logical and especially to show that my view of the
law
and the two covenants are Biblically based.
1) why the law was _given_ in the first place,
Laws almost always come as the consequences of some
antisocial behavior or *evil doing*: i.e. after some activity was
carried out which resulted in harm to another person or theft
or destruction to his property.
The background for the law comes from the Old Testament.
God was not happy with man because of man's wickedness,
indeed we find this in Genesis, "The Lord saw that the
wickedness of man was great upon the earth and that every
imagination of the thoughts if his heart was only evil
continually".And the Lord was sorry he had made man
on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. (Gen.
6: 5, 6 rsv). Other versions say it repented God that
he had made man....
So apparently, the adding of the law was not God's
preferance. But it was needed.
The reason the law was given, in the first place was:
because of wickedness. However, its purpose was
to guide man his dealings with God and his fellow man.
But the law had a second purpose. a - two fold
function: it had a mundane and a spiritual side.
Logic dictates that a perfect God would decree a
perfect law. The Bible confirms the perfection of
the, "the Law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the
soul.... (Psa. 19: 7).
If a man lived in perfect and complete obedience to
the perfect law he himself would be perfect.
<snip>
So now it appears that you are saying that the OT law was sent by
God
and
perfect.
NO, I'm not! I wrote that _logic_ would dictate that God
would decree a perfect law, and I quoted the writer of Psa,
who agreed with me. But these revelations were a fragmented
version of revelations. I have already quoted Hebrews: I
guess you forgot,"For since the law has but a _shadow_ of
the good things to come instead of the true form of these
realities.....(Heb. 10: 1 rsv). These prophets of the Old
Testament were able to grasp only fragmented bits and
pieces of the truth of the God and his law. Combined
they were unable to grasp the whole round orb of the
God's truthl. The whole truth had to await the coming
of Christ.
You are arguing in circles again.
You are _reading_ into my statements that I do not intend
or mean, but things _you_ want. You are hung up on the
O.T. Obviously you need this.
We already discussed this. I showed that
the Bible says that Moses took dictation directly from God and he wrote
down
all of the commandments (not just ten). If you are going to argue that
these are incorrect then you are going to have to admit that either
Moses
or
one of the writers of the Old Testament lied. But you have refused to
do
this.
I thnk it is possible that Moses got carried away.
It's happened before. Jacob claimed...."I have seen the face
of God....."(Gen.32: 30). And Manoah said to his wife ...
"we have seen God...."(Jdg.13: 32)
However, the New Testiment states that no man has seen
God at any time....." (Jhn.1:18). So the fact is they or
no one in the O.T. has ever seen God.
You need to admit that someone lied or else you need to abandon this
line of argument.
You are giving me some degree of certainty which
I do not entitled. I am not the final word on Moses
or the Old Testament. All I have is an opinion. So I
do not have to pass judgment as to whether or
not Moses was a liar. This is your position.
I don't see any way that you can reconcile your opinion that Mosaic law is
not the word of God without admitting that someone lied. So you either need
to admit that someone lied or you need to explain how these errors came to
be written in the Bible.
But I do know from my studies that the O.T. it has
been made obsolete by the New Testament. And
Christ is the end of the law for righteneous for Christians.
Paul writes, that "the law was our schoolmaster to bring
us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. And
after that faith is come we are no longer under a school-
master". (Gal. 3: 24)
This is a red herring. Whether the law still applies or not does not change
the authorship of the Mosaic laws. So why don't you tell us who is the
actual author of the Mosaic laws?
What could be clearer?
Earlier you listed 4 points where you challenged me
to provide explanations. You wanted me "to post
these explanations so that (you) can_examine_ them
to see if they are logical or not." I answered your
challenge, but obviously you were unable to find
fault with the internal logic or my intrepretation.
Obviously, you found them to be as I stated;
internally logical and my intrepretation rational.
You failled to live up to the challenge yourself,
so you forfeited this debate.
A contradiction is a logical flaw. I pointed out this contradiction.
If there is a contradiction it is with my opinion. I'm no
authority on the O.T.. So I can be wrong as to how Moses
comunicated with God. I do not know. But it was
fragmented, however it was.
You seem to be waffling on this point. Sometimes you say the Mosaic laws
are incorrect, now you say they are fragmented. Previously you said that
Moses got carried away. And yet you still refuse to admit that someone
lied.
So why are you complaining about me quoting the OT laws? Many of
these laws are quite evil.
Basically the Old Testament laws are the 10 commandments.
That's not what the Bible says.
You're beating a dead horse. The OT has vanished away
as far as Christianity is concerned. You can't face facts!
Then why does every Christian sect that I know of still include the Old
Testament in their Bible?
"I do not frustrate the Grace of God for if righteneous comes
by the law Christ is dead in vain. (Gal 2:21)
What is so evil about these? These are the law the rest
is the prophets. All of which were succeeded by the
New Covenant in the NewTestament.
I don't know about you but I think it is evil to punish the innocent
grandsons of sinners as God promises to do in the so called Ten
Commandments. Don't you see something evil in that?
It's old testiment!
The Old Testament is still considered a divinely inspired part of the Bible
by every Christian sect that I know of.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ronald Dean" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for March 17 (God is the Source of Evil Spirits 2) |
05 Apr 2004 08:53:40 PM |
|
|
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message
news:IZqdne1Nl_klme_dRVn-hA@adelphia.com...
"Ronald Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:iZ6cc.7059$6D1.4065@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
<snip> God
and
perfect.
NO, I'm not! I wrote that _logic_ would dictate that God
would decree a perfect law, and I quoted the writer of Psa,
who agreed with me. But these revelations were a fragmented
version of revelations. I have already quoted Hebrews: I
guess you forgot,"For since the law has but a _shadow_ of
the good things to come instead of the true form of these
realities.....(Heb. 10: 1 rsv). These prophets of the Old
Testament were able to grasp only fragmented bits and
pieces of the truth of the God and his law. Combined
they were unable to grasp the whole round orb of the
God's truthl. The whole truth had to await the coming
of Christ.
You are arguing in circles again.
You are _reading_ into my statements that I do not intend
or mean, but things _you_ want. You are hung up on the
O.T. Obviously you need this.
We already discussed this. I showed that
the Bible says that Moses took dictation directly from God and he
wrote
down
all of the commandments (not just ten). If you are going to argue
that
these are incorrect then you are going to have to admit that either
Moses
or
one of the writers of the Old Testament lied. But you have refused to
do
this.
I thnk it is possible that Moses got carried away.
It's happened before. Jacob claimed...."I have seen the face
of God....."(Gen.32: 30). And Manoah said to his wife ...
"we have seen God...."(Jdg.13: 32)
However, the New Testiment states that no man has seen
God at any time....." (Jhn.1:18). So the fact is they or
no one in the O.T. has ever seen God.
You need to admit that someone lied or else you need to abandon this
line of argument.
You are giving me some degree of certainty which
I do not entitled. I am not the final word on Moses
or the Old Testament. All I have is an opinion. So I
do not have to pass judgment as to whether or
not Moses was a liar. This is your position.
I don't see any way that you can reconcile your opinion that Mosaic law is
not the word of God without admitting that someone lied. So you either
need
to admit that someone lied or you need to explain how these errors came to
be written in the Bible.
I am very hesitant to *down* the Jewish religion by calling the
central figure of Judaism a liar.
It doesn't matter, since it is obsolete as far a Christanity is concerned.
Any contract which has been fulfilled is no longer binding upon
the parties. So it is with the first contract. So why should the terms
of such a contract still be a holdover?
But I do know from my studies that the O.T. it has
been made obsolete by the New Testament. And
Christ is the end of the law for righteneous for Christians.
Paul writes, that "the law was our schoolmaster to bring
us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. And
after that faith is come we are no longer under a school-
master". (Gal. 3: 24)
This is a red herring.
It's quoted from the New Testament!
Whether the law still applies or not does not change the
authorship of the Mosaic laws. So why don't you tell us who is the
actual author of the Mosaic laws?
Tell me why it matters, since the OT is obsolete? >
What could be clearer?
Earlier you listed 4 points where you challenged me
to provide explanations. You wanted me "to post
these explanations so that (you) can_examine_ them
to see if they are logical or not." I answered your
challenge, but obviously you were unable to find
fault with the internal logic or my intrepretation.
Obviously, you found them to be as I stated;
internally logical and my intrepretation rational.
You failled to live up to the challenge yourself,
so you forfeited this debate.
A contradiction is a logical flaw. I pointed out this contradiction.
If there is a contradiction it is with my opinion. I'm no
authority on the O.T.. So I can be wrong as to how Moses
comunicated with God. I do not know. But it was
fragmented, however it was.
You seem to be waffling on this point.
No, I really don't know and don't care. Why is it so important to you?
Sometimes you say the Mosaic laws
are incorrect, now you say they are fragmented. Previously you said that
Moses got carried away. And yet you still refuse to admit that someone
lied.
It's immaterial!! Why can't you simply accept the fact that the old covenant
containing the law, priest, animal sacrifices, etc has been fulfilled
and no longer in effect. So it doesn't matter who wrote the Mosaic laws.
So why are you complaining about me quoting the OT laws? Many of
these laws are quite evil.
Basically the Old Testament laws are the 10 commandments.
That's not what the Bible says.
You're beating a dead horse. The OT has vanished away
as far as Christianity is concerned. You can't face facts!
Then why does every Christian sect that I know of still include the Old
Testament in their Bible?
Most of them consider themselves a New Testament Church.
"I do not frustrate the Grace of God for if righteneous comes
by the law Christ is dead in vain. (Gal 2:21)
What is so evil about these? These are the law the rest
is the prophets. All of which were succeeded by the
New Covenant in the NewTestament.
I don't know about you but I think it is evil to punish the innocent
grandsons of sinners as God promises to do in the so called Ten
Commandments. Don't you see something evil in that?
It's old testiment!
The Old Testament is still considered a divinely inspired part of the
Bible
by every Christian sect that I know of.
There are varrying degrees to which Christians claim to be under
the Old Testiment laws and it's laws. Some think it is still in force,
others believe it has been set aside. But unfortunately, many
Christians are really weak in regards to their own doctrine. To
a considerable extent, you are really doing God's work by pointing out
the reasons why God was sorry (and repented) that he created
man. But he gave us a second chance through Christ. So he
may be using you in spite of yourself. You definately have a
*calling* and you have passion.
Ron
.
|
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for March 17 (God is the Source of Evil Spirits 2) |
06 Apr 2004 01:49:21 AM |
|
|
"Ronald Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:M%ncc.1421$%O3.266@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message
news:IZqdne1Nl_klme_dRVn-hA@adelphia.com...
"Ronald Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:iZ6cc.7059$6D1.4065@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
<snip> God
and
perfect.
NO, I'm not! I wrote that _logic_ would dictate that God
would decree a perfect law, and I quoted the writer of Psa,
who agreed with me. But these revelations were a fragmented
version of revelations. I have already quoted Hebrews: I
guess you forgot,"For since the law has but a _shadow_ of
the good things to come instead of the true form of these
realities.....(Heb. 10: 1 rsv). These prophets of the Old
Testament were able to grasp only fragmented bits and
pieces of the truth of the God and his law. Combined
they were unable to grasp the whole round orb of the
God's truthl. The whole truth had to await the coming
of Christ.
You are arguing in circles again.
You are _reading_ into my statements that I do not intend
or mean, but things _you_ want. You are hung up on the
O.T. Obviously you need this.
We already discussed this. I showed that
the Bible says that Moses took dictation directly from God and he
wrote
down
all of the commandments (not just ten). If you are going to argue
that
these are incorrect then you are going to have to admit that either
Moses
or
one of the writers of the Old Testament lied. But you have refused
to
do
this.
I thnk it is possible that Moses got carried away.
It's happened before. Jacob claimed...."I have seen the face
of God....."(Gen.32: 30). And Manoah said to his wife ...
"we have seen God...."(Jdg.13: 32)
However, the New Testiment states that no man has seen
God at any time....." (Jhn.1:18). So the fact is they or
no one in the O.T. has ever seen God.
You need to admit that someone lied or else you need to abandon this
line of argument.
You are giving me some degree of certainty which
I do not entitled. I am not the final word on Moses
or the Old Testament. All I have is an opinion. So I
do not have to pass judgment as to whether or
not Moses was a liar. This is your position.
I don't see any way that you can reconcile your opinion that Mosaic law
is
not the word of God without admitting that someone lied. So you either
need
to admit that someone lied or you need to explain how these errors came
to
be written in the Bible.
I am very hesitant to *down* the Jewish religion by calling the
central figure of Judaism a liar.
It doesn't matter, since it is obsolete as far a Christanity is concerned.
Any contract which has been fulfilled is no longer binding upon
the parties. So it is with the first contract. So why should the terms
of such a contract still be a holdover?
But I do know from my studies that the O.T. it has
been made obsolete by the New Testament. And
Christ is the end of the law for righteneous for Christians.
Paul writes, that "the law was our schoolmaster to bring
us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. And
after that faith is come we are no longer under a school-
master". (Gal. 3: 24)
This is a red herring.
It's quoted from the New Testament!
Whether the law still applies or not does not change the
authorship of the Mosaic laws. So why don't you tell us who is the
actual author of the Mosaic laws?
Tell me why it matters, since the OT is obsolete? >
What could be clearer?
Earlier you listed 4 points where you challenged me
to provide explanations. You wanted me "to post
these explanations so that (you) can_examine_ them
to see if they are logical or not." I answered your
challenge, but obviously you were unable to find
fault with the internal logic or my intrepretation.
Obviously, you found them to be as I stated;
internally logical and my intrepretation rational.
You failled to live up to the challenge yourself,
so you forfeited this debate.
A contradiction is a logical flaw. I pointed out this
contradiction.
If there is a contradiction it is with my opinion. I'm no
authority on the O.T.. So I can be wrong as to how Moses
comunicated with God. I do not know. But it was
fragmented, however it was.
You seem to be waffling on this point.
No, I really don't know and don't care. Why is it so important to you?
Sometimes you say the Mosaic laws
are incorrect, now you say they are fragmented. Previously you said
that
Moses got carried away. And yet you still refuse to admit that someone
lied.
It's immaterial!! Why can't you simply accept the fact that the old
covenant
containing the law, priest, animal sacrifices, etc has been fulfilled
and no longer in effect. So it doesn't matter who wrote the Mosaic laws.
So why are you complaining about me quoting the OT laws? Many of
these laws are quite evil.
Basically the Old Testament laws are the 10 commandments.
That's not what the Bible says.
You're beating a dead horse. The OT has vanished away
as far as Christianity is concerned. You can't face facts!
Then why does every Christian sect that I know of still include the Old
Testament in their Bible?
Most of them consider themselves a New Testament Church.
"I do not frustrate the Grace of God for if righteneous comes
by the law Christ is dead in vain. (Gal 2:21)
What is so evil about these? These are the law the rest
is the prophets. All of which were succeeded by the
New Covenant in the NewTestament.
I don't know about you but I think it is evil to punish the innocent
grandsons of sinners as God promises to do in the so called Ten
Commandments. Don't you see something evil in that?
It's old testiment!
The Old Testament is still considered a divinely inspired part of the
Bible
by every Christian sect that I know of.
There are varrying degrees to which Christians claim to be under
the Old Testiment laws and it's laws. Some think it is still in force,
others believe it has been set aside. But unfortunately, many
Christians are really weak in regards to their own doctrine. To
a considerable extent, you are really doing God's work by pointing out
the reasons why God was sorry (and repented) that he created
man. But he gave us a second chance through Christ. So he
may be using you in spite of yourself. You definately have a
*calling* and you have passion.
I don't see the point in arguing with you anymore about this. You claim
that Mosaic law, as it is written in the OT, is erroneous and yet you refuse
to explain how it became erroneous. Simply claiming that it is no longer in
effect does not explain how it became erroneous. If you want to continue
this debate then you should explain how the OT Mosaic laws were written down
erroneously.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "B. Kildow" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for March 17 (God is the Source ofEvil Spirits 2) |
06 Apr 2004 06:12:59 PM |
|
|
Ronald Dean wrote:
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message
news:IZqdne1Nl_klme_dRVn-hA@adelphia.com...
"Ronald Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:iZ6cc.7059$6D1.4065@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
<snip> God
and
perfect.
NO, I'm not! I wrote that _logic_ would dictate that God
would decree a perfect law, and I quoted the writer of Psa,
who agreed with me. But these revelations were a fragmented
version of revelations. I have already quoted Hebrews: I
guess you forgot,"For since the law has but a _shadow_ of
the good things to come instead of the true form of these
realities.....(Heb. 10: 1 rsv). These prophets of the Old
Testament were able to grasp only fragmented bits and
pieces of the truth of the God and his law. Combined
they were unable to grasp the whole round orb of the
God's truthl. The whole truth had to await the coming
of Christ.
You are arguing in circles again.
You are _reading_ into my statements that I do not intend
or mean, but things _you_ want. You are hung up on the
O.T. Obviously you need this.
We already discussed this. I showed that
the Bible says that Moses took dictation directly from God and he
wrote
down
all of the commandments (not just ten). If you are going to argue
that
these are incorrect then you are going to have to admit that either
Moses
or
one of the writers of the Old Testament lied. But you have refused to
do
this.
I thnk it is possible that Moses got carried away.
It's happened before. Jacob claimed...."I have seen the face
of God....."(Gen.32: 30). And Manoah said to his wife ...
"we have seen God...."(Jdg.13: 32)
However, the New Testiment states that no man has seen
God at any time....." (Jhn.1:18). So the fact is they or
no one in the O.T. has ever seen God.
You need to admit that someone lied or else you need to abandon this
line of argument.
You are giving me some degree of certainty which
I do not entitled. I am not the final word on Moses
or the Old Testament. All I have is an opinion. So I
do not have to pass judgment as to whether or
not Moses was a liar. This is your position.
I don't see any way that you can reconcile your opinion that Mosaic law is
not the word of God without admitting that someone lied. So you either
need
to admit that someone lied or you need to explain how these errors came to
be written in the Bible.
I am very hesitant to *down* the Jewish religion by calling the
central figure of Judaism a liar.
It doesn't matter, since it is obsolete as far a Christanity is concerned.
Any contract which has been fulfilled is no longer binding upon
the parties. So it is with the first contract. So why should the terms
of such a contract still be a holdover?
But I do know from my studies that the O.T. it has
been made obsolete by the New Testament. And
Christ is the end of the law for righteneous for Christians.
Paul writes, that "the law was our schoolmaster to bring
us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. And
after that faith is come we are no longer under a school-
master". (Gal. 3: 24)
This is a red herring.
It's quoted from the New Testament!
Whether the law still applies or not does not change the
authorship of the Mosaic laws. So why don't you tell us who is the
actual author of the Mosaic laws?
Tell me why it matters, since the OT is obsolete? >
What could be clearer?
Earlier you listed 4 points where you challenged me
to provide explanations. You wanted me "to post
these explanations so that (you) can_examine_ them
to see if they are logical or not." I answered your
challenge, but obviously you were unable to find
fault with the internal logic or my intrepretation.
Obviously, you found them to be as I stated;
internally logical and my intrepretation rational.
You failled to live up to the challenge yourself,
so you forfeited this debate.
A contradiction is a logical flaw. I pointed out this contradiction.
If there is a contradiction it is with my opinion. I'm no
authority on the O.T.. So I can be wrong as to how Moses
comunicated with God. I do not know. But it was
fragmented, however it was.
You seem to be waffling on this point.
No, I really don't know and don't care. Why is it so important to you?
Sometimes you say the Mosaic laws
are incorrect, now you say they are fragmented. Previously you said that
Moses got carried away. And yet you still refuse to admit that someone
lied.
It's immaterial!! Why can't you simply accept the fact that the old covenant
containing the law, priest, animal sacrifices, etc has been fulfilled
and no longer in effect. So it doesn't matter who wrote the Mosaic laws.
So why are you complaining about me quoting the OT laws? Many of
these laws are quite evil.
Basically the Old Testament laws are the 10 commandments.
That's not what the Bible says.
You're beating a dead horse. The OT has vanished away
as far as Christianity is concerned. You can't face facts!
Then why does every Christian sect that I know of still include the Old
Testament in their Bible?
Most of them consider themselves a New Testament Church.
"I do not frustrate the Grace of God for if righteneous comes
by the law Christ is dead in vain. (Gal 2:21)
What is so evil about these? These are the law the rest
is the prophets. All of which were succeeded by the
New Covenant in the NewTestament.
I don't know about you but I think it is evil to punish the innocent
grandsons of sinners as God promises to do in the so called Ten
Commandments. Don't you see something evil in that?
It's old testiment!
The Old Testament is still considered a divinely inspired part of the
Bible
by every Christian sect that I know of.
There are varrying degrees to which Christians claim to be under
the Old Testiment laws and it's laws. Some think it is still in force,
others believe it has been set aside. But unfortunately, many
Christians are really weak in regards to their own doctrine. To
a considerable extent, you are really doing God's work by pointing out
the reasons why God was sorry (and repented) that he created
man. But he gave us a second chance through Christ. So he
may be using you in spite of yourself. You definately have a
*calling* and you have passion.
Ron
My only question is where in the Bible are you finding Jesus saying that
the "old Covenant" has been fulfilled and that the Mosaic laws no longer
need be followed? Not what Paul said umpty years after Jesus died and
Paul found that the Jews were not joining his religion in droves and
decided to change the dietary and other laws to make them more appealing
to the Gentiles; where exactly does your lord say that?
BK
AA#1992
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
