The Sword of the Spirit
- Thread starter herald
- Start date
I've read the satnic bible by anthony levay..........it makes way more sense than the bible ..it is even logical ..........hahahahah
I rather live my life without fear, and truly live it without looking over my shoulder.
Besides I have nothing to really to be forgiven.
I rather live my life without fear, and truly live it without looking over my shoulder.
Besides I have nothing to really to be forgiven.
Interesting that your second sentence doesn't show up in the post!
I was wondering what happened to you. I thought that maybe you were a hit and run poster, but no, you have returned to the scene of the crime with greetings of joy and cheer. Top of the morning to you too. I thought this was a mock thread.
this is what i don't like about religion.
its the fear me/adore me thing.
What are we , an ant farm to a tormented kid?
Yet theres talk of unconditional love ....
and we were given free will.....
well WTF , make up your mind!
What I find vile is dealing with children. The most innocent of creatures are at risk of not going to heaven if they are not Baptized.
No , this is not a God of love and infinate wisdom.
If God created everything and he is so called 'perfect' then that would make us perfect. So why change that?
If God has to mess with his creation , then it is not perfect and that would mean he is not also.
Why is it that those who preach of Gods word are those that are the most judgemental? Thought that was gods job?
The more you disect this , the less things to seem to stand up ...
its the fear me/adore me thing.
What are we , an ant farm to a tormented kid?
Yet theres talk of unconditional love ....
and we were given free will.....
well WTF , make up your mind!
What I find vile is dealing with children. The most innocent of creatures are at risk of not going to heaven if they are not Baptized.
No , this is not a God of love and infinate wisdom.
If God created everything and he is so called 'perfect' then that would make us perfect. So why change that?
If God has to mess with his creation , then it is not perfect and that would mean he is not also.
Why is it that those who preach of Gods word are those that are the most judgemental? Thought that was gods job?
The more you disect this , the less things to seem to stand up ...
What is the Devil accused of doing in the Bible? Telling us the truth. He tells woman that eating the tree of knowledge will give us knowledge of good and evil, and he was said to be correct. Inflicting curses upon Job at God's behest.
What is God accused of doing? Sanctioning incest and rape. Ordering his people to exterminate all inhabitants of nations they were at war with. Drowning all people in the world. Demanding death of people who had the audacity to insult him.
God is the real devil.
The god of the bible is not worthy of praise, he is worthy only of our disdain. The god portrayed has no conception of ethic or justice, science or nature. The bible is a message of human superstition, no more, no less.
What is God accused of doing? Sanctioning incest and rape. Ordering his people to exterminate all inhabitants of nations they were at war with. Drowning all people in the world. Demanding death of people who had the audacity to insult him.
God is the real devil.
The god of the bible is not worthy of praise, he is worthy only of our disdain. The god portrayed has no conception of ethic or justice, science or nature. The bible is a message of human superstition, no more, no less.
if anyone is curios to read the satanic bible PM me your email.
its an e book of about 600 kb
I never looked at religion the same after that ........well not entirely true. When you read the history of religion, you get very dissappointed ...
its an e book of about 600 kb
I never looked at religion the same after that ........well not entirely true. When you read the history of religion, you get very dissappointed ...
Head over to archive.org and read some Robert Green Ingersoll. That guy had some excellent points, he wrote very nice pieces about Voltaire, the Bible, the gods, and so on.
Did I say the 3 books were a prolog? No. Tolkien left people in the graves, so if you want to compare it to Scripture the story isn't over.
Yeah, that's about the twist I expected you'd put on it, I've seen it before, and I also expected some gratuitous little slap at what you think is my ignorance. You never can resist the ad hominem fallacy.
That's plainly not what the book says. It's in Matthew, (and affirmed in Luke as well) as you know:
5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments...
It's clear that in verses 17 and 18 he's talking about the whole body of the law, but then the use of word "commandments" in verse 19 allows you to exempt everything but the Ten Commandments from what he's saying. If he's not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it, he cannot be talking about only the Big Ten and repealing everything else. Also, if he were talking only about the Big Ten, the modifying phrase "one of these least" would not be there. He means all of it. There are other claims, in both the Old and New Testaments, that both support and deny the argument that the OT laws apply forever. The book's not consistent, as you'd expect if it were a work of men. And it is.
You know perfectly well what the answer is, Matthew 5-7 constitute the famous Sermon on the Mount in which Jesus reinterprets some of the Mosaic Law and adds some additional strictures. He mentions three of the Ten Commandments explicitly in the last 30 verses of chapter 5, four if you interpret the one about not swearing as equivalent to not taking the lord's name in vain.
What were you hoping, that I'd say he talks about the Ten Commandments, whereupon you could say, "Aha! I told you that's what he was talking about?" You won't catch me out on an old rhetorical trick like that.
They are from the same passage how can they be irrelevent.
They either point to the 10 Laws or to the later guidelines, clearly two are from the stone tablets that Moses held. At that point you and Dex go off in another direction.
So what was the purpose, for some reason Jesus had to be anointed in a temple in Jerusalem. Everything before that was part of reaching that way-point. Those 10 commandments survived the change in covenants in Jesus's time (given at the last supper) and another covenant come into effect at Christ's return. Those Laws are in effect for the full 1,000 years and during Satan's little season. That is the end of life on earth, Satan & Co are gone and mankind is in Heaven for Judgment Day. That is when the 10 Commandments are finished. They are replaced by the new law God gives in Re:21. None ever fall into the sins that would require God to take that gift of eternal life in the Kingdom of God away and exchange it for eternal life in the fiery lake.
A curse could include swearing Ex:20:28, lieing about a neighbor might apply to a certain extent.
This portion could be taken to include swears and physical harm.
Ex:23:2: Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil;......
My point is there are others ways of looking at things the Bible covers that is just flat out different than yours. No trap just trying to fit all the pieces in rather than just a few.
That's true of course, starting with what I see as a wholly unjustifiable assumption that it must be literally true and internally consistent. It's neither.
Okay, I'll accept that and apologize for thinking ill of your motives, but that's essentially my point: the Bible was written and copied and translated and modified by hundreds, perhaps thousands, of different people with different agendas over several millennia, it's unreasonable to expect it to be consistent. The pieces cannot all be fit into a consistent whole except by an elaborate and unconvincing exegesis that ignores historical context and rather arbitrarily decides that certain bits are to be taken literally and other bits are to be viewed as allegory and don't mean what they plainly say. There's no guidance in the book itself as to which is which, but simple logic says that you can't have it both ways. Either it's all "God-breathed," as Timothy and the OP claim, and thus must be inerrant, true, correct, and consistent, or it's not. My view, as I'm sure you know, is that it's demonstrably not, and serious biblical scholarship (see, for instance, Bart Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus) backs me up.
No they're not, they're public forums for discussing Christianity. If you can't tolerate dissenting opinions, go somewhere else.