A challenge to our dear Christian friends.

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
more misinterpretations to fit your narrow and bigoted view.
You'll have to do better than that if you expect me to take you seriously; tell me the correct interpretations. Maybe you should look up what narrow and bigoted mean at the same time. It's pretty hard to misinterpret simple declarative statements like that one from Deuteronomy: "13:15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword." Or this one from the same source about how to deal with other faiths: "7:5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire." You going to try to claim those mean something other than what they clearly say?
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
You'll have to do better than that if you expect me to take you seriously; tell me the correct interpretations. Maybe you should look up what narrow and bigoted mean at the same time. It's pretty hard to misinterpret simple declarative statements like that one from Deuteronomy: "13:15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword." Or this one from the same source about how to deal with other faiths: "7:5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire." You going to try to claim those mean something other than what they clearly say?



OT not NT...... your interpratation of Christs words considering the cities is wrong. I am not going to "claim" anything. I know what they "clearly" say and it is NOT that the cities should be destroyed for their unbelief but that they (the people) shall be judged accordingly on judgement day. You did notice judgement day didn't you? Or did you decide to ignore that? Of course you did.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
Again you prove your contentions false with your own argument. That man can manipulate and misinterpret religious doctrine proves that it is man made. Also the text themselves do prescribe heinous behaviour from their "followers" but now you need to re-frame this doctrine so it might keep up with modern moral values. This, again, proves religion is man made and as such must morph and evolve to keep up with humanity not the other way around. All man made systems are dependent on changing with new evidence and religion, being man made, is no exception. If religious doctrine were from a true and eternal source like "god" then it would be unchangable; it's truths would be eternal, but clearly we see that they are not.


Free will...... remember that? Misinterpret....twist to fit.....all man made. Christ's words are not man made, but are subject to man's twists and turns.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
Free will...... remember that? Misinterpret....twist to fit.....all man made. Christ's words are not man made, but are subject to man's twists and turns.

Here you are simply in error. It is well known by historians that not one word Jesus spoke was original. Every concept he spoke of existed already within the pagan community. Even the myth of his birth, his miracles, his resurrection were taken from Horus. Entire passages from the bible were made up by scribes as is evident in many a exegesis. There are enough plagiarisms, fictions and outright errors as to call into doubt that there was actually a Jesus at all. Horus was a fiction, I'm sure you'll agree with me on that, yet many people of the time believed fervently in him. How do you suppose that would be possible? Certainly no god named Horus walked the earth yet we have his account, we have his history, the stories of his virgin birth, his resurrection, his laws etc.. How then can you have "faith" in Jesus but not in Horus? There is just as much evidence both existed - none!
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
Here you are simply in error. It is well known by historians that not one word Jesus spoke was original. Every concept he spoke of existed already within the pagan community. Even the myth of his birth, his miracles, his resurrection were taken from Horus. Entire passages from the bible were made up by scribes as is evident in many a exegesis. There are enough plagiarisms, fictions and outright errors as to call into doubt that there was actually a Jesus at all. Horus was a fiction, I'm sure you'll agree with me on that, yet many people of the time believed fervently in him. How do you suppose that would be possible? Certainly no god named Horus walked the earth yet we have his account, we have his history, the stories of his virgin birth, his resurrection, his laws etc.. How then can you have "faith" in Jesus but not in Horus? There is just as much evidence both existed - none!


Whatever turns your crank junior. You believe what you want....I'll believe what I want..... and anyone that decides to bad mouth what I believe will find that I will shyte upon their head from on high.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
Whatever turns your crank junior. You believe what you want....I'll believe what I want..... and anyone that decides to bad mouth what I believe will find that I will shyte upon their head from on high.

I don't believe anything I have posted. I know it because it is the truth as revealed by evidence.

You, sir, are the one that believes because you have no basis for your argument except you hope it is true despite all evidence to the contrary.

I don't come to my conclusions through faith but through the evidence. There is a big difference.

As for your threat: it is good to see you doubt your faith. I was once religious too and have since come to my senses. I am proud, that despite being raised in a religion, I was able to let my reason and intellect triumph over what I would characterize as child abuse (religious training). The odds of you triumphing are minimal (1 in 12) but if you hold fast to your new knowledge that there is no god and prayer is just another way for people to do nothing, you will pull through.

I commend you on your doubt. And as a once proud religionists I can guarantee you that the other side is much much better.

Good luck.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
I don't believe anything I have posted. I know it because it is the truth as revealed by evidence.

You, sir, are the one that believes because you have no basis for your argument except you hope it is true despite all evidence to the contrary.

I don't come to my conclusions through faith but through the evidence. There is a big difference.

As for your threat: it is good to see you doubt your faith. I was once religious too and have since come to my senses. I am proud, that despite being raised in a religion, I was able to let my reason and intellect triumph over what I would characterize as child abuse (religious training). The odds of you triumphing are minimal (1 in 12) but if you hold fast to your new knowledge that there is no god and prayer is just another way for people to do nothing, you will pull through.

I commend you on your doubt. And as a once proud religionists I can guarantee you that the other side is much much better.

Good luck.



Doubt? Where the hell did you get that from? I don't doubt MY faith.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
Doubt? Where the hell did you get that from? I don't doubt MY faith.

Yes you do. And I commend you for it.

Remember I was religious once too. You made a threat which means you doubt yourself. Maybe your not fully aware of it yet but in time you will be.

Those who believe don't make threats. There is no need if you believe - which you do not. Again I congratulate you on that.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
Yes you do. And I commend you for it.

Remember I was religious once too. You made a threat which means you doubt yourself. Maybe your not fully aware of it yet but in time you will be.

Those who believe don't make threats. There is no need if you believe - which you do not. Again I congratulate you on that.


ROFLMAO....yup....you're brain dead too.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
oh ya.....and since you don't believe.....how the f*ck do you know what a believer would or would not do......f*ck'n asshat.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
oh ya.....and since you don't believe.....how the f*ck do you know what a believer would or would not do......f*ck'n asshat.

I was religious one once. I know very well what they would and wouldn't do.

Of all the religious people I have met (thousands) only a handful were true believers and usually that was because they were idiots. Most believe because they are ignorant of the facts or raised in a religion and are so traumatized they can't let go. It is very sad.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
I was religious one once. I know very well what they would and wouldn't do.

Of all the religious people I have met (thousands) only a handful were true believers and usually that was because they were idiots. Most believe because they are ignorant of the facts or raised in a religion and are so traumatized they can't let go. It is very sad.

ROFLMAO...you're a f*ck'n comedian....I love it.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
That's simply false. There are plenty of examples, but one is all that's necessary to prove the point. In Deuteronomy 13:12-17 are instructions to burn down any city and kill all the inhabitants if they worship a different god. Seems pretty unkind to me, as are many of the prescriptions for correct behaviour in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. You can be killed for wearing clothes made of two different kinds of fibers, planting two different crops in the same field, working on the Sabbath, cutting your hair, and a whole lot of other things.

I'm not sure why you are applying rules of 'social behavior' that were given to OT Israel as having any sort of meaning of what instruction Gentile Christians are under. If you were to apply those rules then the mere thought of doing any of those things would be enough to find a person guilty.

M't:5:28:
But I say unto you,
That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

That would also cover any of the other 10 commandments. While some things were 'relaxed' for the Gentiles, like the things given in the OT, even though some make perfect sense in hygiene still today, other things, like obedience to the 'law' were hardened so that adherence is simply impossible.

And if you're going to argue that Jesus brought a new set of rules and those old ones no longer apply, I would point you to Matthew 5:18-19, which quite clearly says the old rules apply.
I'm quite sure it was the 10 commandments alone that was being referenced, Romans 13:9 & James 2:8-11

And yes, I know you can also find citations that say they don't.
Like these? (and really these are just a few single verses)
Ro:12:17: Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
Ro:12:18: If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
1Th:3:12: And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you:
1Th:5:14: Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men.
1Th:5:15: See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.
2Tm:2:24: And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
Ti:3:2: To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.

Not directly perhaps, though I think the previous example applies here as well; a city where a different god is worshiped can certainly be seen as having rejected the Gospel.
Being as the Gospel of Christ wasn't in existence back then how could it be rejected.
God gave direction that 'we' should listen to what Jesus said, that would include rules of conduct towards all men.
M't:17:5:
While he yet spake,
behold,
a bright cloud overshadowed them:
and behold a voice out of the cloud,
which said,
This is my beloved Son,
in whom I am well pleased;
hear ye him.

The New Testament also allows plenty of latitude for interpreting things that way. There's a nice verse in 2 Timothy 2:19 that was used by the inquisition to justify killing people just suspected of heresy, and letting god sort it out.
Well they should have read to the end of the chapter, the verse is already posted above, 2Tm:2:24.

"The Lord knoweth them that are his," it says. Matthew 11:20-24 has Jesus condemning multiple cities to destruction because they didn't seem to like what he was preaching. Luke 10:10-15 makes essentially the same point.
What happens to them, certainly anybody who has no repented by the time of His arrival will not see the thousand years. Nor is everybody expected to repent by then, if it was to be that way then the prophecy about the 2/3 of living Gentiles would not be given to His sword. This isn't hatred towards the un-repented, it is done to show the remaining 1/3 just what Godly power actually looks like from a 1st person POV. If this was hatred then Judgment Day would not have these coming back to life (to stand before God himself). They just aren't gathered at the beginning of the gathering, they are gathered just before the end of the gathering.

There is even instruction to cast out members of the Church if they refuse to follow the rules, it may not be a good thing for their bodies but their should still belong to God, and that part of them He will keep safe from harm.
1Co:5:5:
To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
1Co:5:6:
Your glorying is not good.
Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
1Co:5:7:
Purge out therefore the old leaven,
that ye may be a new lump,
as ye are unleavened.
For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
1Co:5:8:
Therefore let us keep the feast,
not with old leaven,
neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness;
but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Later
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
ROFLMAO...you're a f*ck'n comedian....I love it.

Awesome! Your breaking pattern.

Your on a long journey but your doubt will guide you.

Just remember when you're praying no one is listening. That is the real joke here except it is so tragic.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
Awesome! Your breaking pattern.

Your on a long journey but your doubt will guide you.

Just remember when you're praying no one is listening. That is the real joke here except it is so tragic.

Kreskin...can I have free reign on this moron? Please???????????
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
OT not NT...... your interpratation of Christs words considering the cities is wrong. I am not going to "claim" anything. I know what they "clearly" say and it is NOT that the cities should be destroyed for their unbelief but that they (the people) shall be judged accordingly on judgement day. You did notice judgement day didn't you? Or did you decide to ignore that? Of course you did.
No, I noticed the reference to judgment day. Do not assume you know what I'm thinking, I doubt you're smart enough to understand most of my thoughts. What difference does it make when it happens? It quite clearly states the cities will be destroyed for their unbelief. You're trying to make an artificial distinction between the physical destruction of a city now and the destruction of everyone who lives in it at some unspecified future date. I don't see that it makes any practical difference, the cities are going down, one way or another, for their unbelief, which was the point you're trying to obscure, and which I cannot reconcile with the Christian concept of a loving and forgiving deity. You haven't addressed the specific instructions issued in Deuteronomy either; there's no mention of judgment day there, just explicit, immediate instructions for destruction of both the cities and everyone in them. And their livestock.

You say you're not going to claim anything, then you immediately claim to know what Scripture says. You're not making a lot of sense.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
I'm not sure why you are applying rules of 'social behavior' that were given to OT Israel as having any sort of meaning of what instruction Gentile Christians are under.
I'd have thought that was perfectly obvious. They're part of Scripture, and there are several statements in the New Testament, one of which I cited, indicating that they still apply. There are also statements, as you correctly cited, that can be read as indicating they don't. So which is it?

Being as the Gospel of Christ wasn't in existence back then how could it be rejected.
Same answer, really; the rejection is of the messages and instructions from the "One True God," regardless of when they were delivered, and the old rules still apply. Reject it and die. Or maybe not... Trouble is, the Bible's a sufficiently large and complex document that you can probably find support in it for any position you'd care to take. It is so inconsistent on so many things, and makes so many readily falsifiable empirical claims, that I find it impossible to consider it as anything but the work of fallible human beings, not a revelation from any deity.