Christian Discussion Thread V

[Grave_n_idle]

Not sure how that's a response. Also, even less sure it's true.

(There's a lot of admirable stuff, but there's also a fair bit of genocide, rape, murder, and babies having their heads dashed against rocks).

Which is what sinful humans caused, not God.

Oh, absolutely. It is, after all, a book written by men.

It's good to see someone actually admitting that, though - and taking responsibility for the fate of humans, rather than pretending we're all being led by spiritual entities.

[Gim]

Which is what sinful humans caused, not God.

Oh, absolutely. It is, after all, a book written by men.

It's good to see someone actually admitting that, though - and taking responsibility for the fate of humans, rather than pretending we're all being led by spiritual entities.

God pretty much disregards ultimately sinful people, so yes.
Yes, technically, it is a book written by men, but

2 Timothy 3:16-17
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

[Grave_n_idle]

God pretty much disregards ultimately sinful people, so yes.

I can never remember which verse it is where Jesus said that.

Yes, technically, it is a book written by men, but

2 Timothy 3:16-17
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

That's actually an excellent point.

Which parts are your parts of the Quran and Bhagavad Gita, would you say?

[Salus Maior]

Oh, absolutely. It is, after all, a book written by men.

It's good to see someone actually admitting that, though - and taking responsibility for the fate of humans, rather than pretending we're all being led by spiritual entities.

That's actually a pretty widely held opinion among Christians. Mostly because according to the Bible that is the case. Adam and Eve chose to eat the fruit and bring evil into the world, Satan merely gave them a suggestion, and not even all that convincingly. So yeah, humanity is responsible for its own evils.

[Gim]

Oh, absolutely. It is, after all, a book written by men.

It's good to see someone actually admitting that, though - and taking responsibility for the fate of humans, rather than pretending we're all being led by spiritual entities.

That's actually a pretty widely held opinion among Christians. Mostly because according to the Bible that is the case. Adam and Eve chose to eat the fruit and bring evil into the world, Satan merely gave them a suggestion, and not even all that convincingly. So yeah, humanity is responsible for its own evils.

So, do you think Satan did not internally plan to corrupt the human race?

[Grave_n_idle]

Oh, absolutely. It is, after all, a book written by men.

It's good to see someone actually admitting that, though - and taking responsibility for the fate of humans, rather than pretending we're all being led by spiritual entities.

That's actually a pretty widely held opinion among Christians. Mostly because according to the Bible that is the case. Adam and Eve chose to eat the fruit and bring evil into the world, Satan merely gave them a suggestion, and not even all that convincingly. So yeah, humanity is responsible for its own evils.

Oh, I absolutely agree.

It's just refreshing to see people in a Christian thread not talking about Satan causing evil, or God working through people.

I mean, there are problems, too. You have to ignore parts of scripture that don't fit that story, but ignoring inconvenient scripture is a small price to pay.

[Grave_n_idle]

That's actually a pretty widely held opinion among Christians. Mostly because according to the Bible that is the case. Adam and Eve chose to eat the fruit and bring evil into the world, Satan merely gave them a suggestion, and not even all that convincingly. So yeah, humanity is responsible for its own evils.

So, do you think Satan did not internally plan to corrupt the human race?

Anyone who has actually read the scripture should think that.

[Gim]

So, do you think Satan did not internally plan to corrupt the human race?

Anyone who has actually read the scripture should think that.

Genesis 3:1

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

Having a crafty nature and opposing the words of God about the forbidden fruit is deemed evil.

[Grave_n_idle]

Anyone who has actually read the scripture should think that.

Genesis 3:1

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

Having a crafty nature and opposing the words of God about the forbidden fruit is deemed evil.

Genesis 3 is talking about a serpent. It's also not real.

More to the point, read that story objectively - the serpent told the truth, it was god that lied.

[Salus Maior]

That's actually a pretty widely held opinion among Christians. Mostly because according to the Bible that is the case. Adam and Eve chose to eat the fruit and bring evil into the world, Satan merely gave them a suggestion, and not even all that convincingly. So yeah, humanity is responsible for its own evils.

So, do you think Satan did not internally plan to corrupt the human race?

That is not at all what I'm saying.What I'm saying is that Satan did not have difficulty. Satan merely had to suggest evil for humans to take it in a make it a part of themselves and our world. Adam and Eve could have refused Satan, could have stopped evil in its tracks, but they instead embraced it. Humanity is responsible for its own evils, of which Satan is the ultimate author. We can try to blame Satan for our downfalls, but the only one responsible for whatever decision you make is you.

[Gim]

Genesis 3:1


Having a crafty nature and opposing the words of God about the forbidden fruit is deemed evil.

Genesis 3 is talking about a serpent. It's also not real.

More to the point, read that story objectively - the serpent told the truth, it was god that lied.

Revelations 20:2

He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

And God lied? The Serpent told them they would see the good and the evil, yet they did not, once their "eyes were opened" and they were ashamed.

[Grave_n_idle]

Genesis 3 is talking about a serpent. It's also not real.

More to the point, read that story objectively - the serpent told the truth, it was god that lied.

Revelations 20:2

He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

And God lied? The Serpent told them they would see the good and the evil, yet they did not, once their "eyes were opened" and they were ashamed.

Revelation, like Genesis, is not supposed to be taken as a history. It's obviously metaphorical.

Moreover, you'll perhaps have noticed - some random dude saying something in the Revelation text is not even crediting Jesus or god with the comment. It's just some commentator.

And yes, god lied. And the serpent called him on it. The serpent said that they would be like god (true), knowing good and evil (true) and that they would not - as god had fraudulently claimed in an attempt to scare them straight - 'certainly die' (true).

[Rock Lobsters]

All this talk of forbidden fruit has gotten me wondering.


What does the forbidden fruit taste like? I hope it was extremely bitter so eve could feel the stupidity of the action she just did.

[Salus Maior]

All this talk of forbidden fruit has gotten me wondering.


What does the forbidden fruit taste like? I hope it was extremely bitter so eve could feel the stupidity of the action she just did.

Both Adam and Eve ate the fruit. And it probably tasted very metaphorical.

[Rock Lobsters]

All this talk of forbidden fruit has gotten me wondering.


What does the forbidden fruit taste like? I hope it was extremely bitter so eve could feel the stupidity of the action she just did.

Both Adam and Eve ate the fruit. And it probably tasted very metaphorical.

Metaphorical... I see what you did there.

[Gim]

Revelation, like Genesis, is not supposed to be taken as a history. It's obviously metaphorical.

The plot is not literally true, but some figures, such as Satan and God, can be taken true within the context of the Bible.

Moreover, you'll perhaps have noticed - some random dude saying something in the Revelation text is not even crediting Jesus or god with the comment. It's just some commentator.

Again. 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

And yes, god lied. And the serpent called him on it. The serpent said that they would be like god (true), knowing good and evil (true) and that they would not - as god had fraudulently claimed in an attempt to scare them straight - 'certainly die' (true).

That is true. We're mortal; we die.

[Salus Maior]

Revelation, like Genesis, is not supposed to be taken as a history. It's obviously metaphorical.

Moreover, you'll perhaps have noticed - some random dude saying something in the Revelation text is not even crediting Jesus or god with the comment. It's just some commentator.

And yes, god lied. And the serpent called him on it. The serpent said that they would be like god (true), knowing good and evil (true) and that they would not - as god had fraudulently claimed in an attempt to scare them straight - 'certainly die' (true).

How could Revelation be construed as history? It's prophecy...Which is the opposite of history

Considering that Adam and Eve are most certainly dead by this point God really didn't lie about that. Eating the fruit did not only bring sin into the world, but death itself as well.

[Gim]

Revelation, like Genesis, is not supposed to be taken as a history. It's obviously metaphorical.

Moreover, you'll perhaps have noticed - some random dude saying something in the Revelation text is not even crediting Jesus or god with the comment. It's just some commentator.

And yes, god lied. And the serpent called him on it. The serpent said that they would be like god (true), knowing good and evil (true) and that they would not - as god had fraudulently claimed in an attempt to scare them straight - 'certainly die' (true).

How could Revelation be construed as history? It's prophecy...Which is the opposite of history

Considering that Adam and Eve are most certainly dead by this point God really didn't lie about that. Eating the fruit did not only bring sin into the world, but death itself as well.

Exactly.

[Morr]

Christ was the fulfillment of Law. Christ is God's Word made flesh.

And Mohammed updated the Greek scripture, and brought the completion of the Bible.

I mean - surely you believe that, too - that's how this works, right? You just get to come in and claim that you're completing another already-arguably-complete religion?

No?

Mohammed retconed Scripture, a bit different from adding to it.

[Menassa]

And Mohammed updated the Greek scripture, and brought the completion of the Bible.

I mean - surely you believe that, too - that's how this works, right? You just get to come in and claim that you're completing another already-arguably-complete religion?

No?

Mohammed retconed Scripture, a bit different from adding to it.

You claim that Jesus needed to fulfill something, that means without Jesus there was a whole.
The Mormons say the same thing.
As doe the Bahai.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Mohammed retconed Scripture, a bit different from adding to it.

You claim that Jesus needed to fulfill something, that means without Jesus there was a whole.
The Mormons say the same thing.
As doe the Bahai.

Well to be fair, there was a whole messianic concept that Christians believe Jesus fulfilled. The problem with Mohammod and Joseph Smith is that after Christ there are no more prophets, only false prophets

[Morr]

You seem to have smuggled the conclusion into your argument. Where do you see Jesus at all from that verse? Without first believing in Jesus.

I see Jesus as the means that all people become blessed through Abraham, as opposed to just his progeny. Christ is a fulfillment of this promise to Abraham.

Thank you.

1. You can't simply say 'from a Christian perspective, you have to prove these things. If you want to show my why something is true you have to actually show me.

I am trying to phrase it as inoffensively as possible.

2 & 3. Jeremiah clearly was not talking about the time of Jesus, first off, not 'all of Israel new the Lord.' There were plenty of pagans among the people of Israel.

But they knew of Christianity soon enough.

Secondly, the 'they' is the entire World.

That doesn't seem appropriate, since the entire world is not the subject of the directly prior verse.

Thirdly, now all of Israel does not know the Lord and if you say 'Israel is the Church' that's a self-fulfilling prophecy with no actual basis in Scripture.

I doubt there is a single Israelite who is unfamiliar with Christianity.

Do you mean the biological descendants of Abraham (which included Arabs), or are you talking about the spiritual descendants (the people who righteously followed God)?

Not even going to attempt to explain it?

I'm just pointing out why Christians don't adhere to the old rules.

[Morr]

Mohammed retconed Scripture, a bit different from adding to it.

You claim that Jesus needed to fulfill something, that means without Jesus there was a whole.
The Mormons say the same thing.
As doe the Bahai.

That means without Jesus there wasn't a whole.

The Mormons don't preach a post-Christ covenant, I don't think. I also believe they preach that all Christians were wrong for 1900 years, and that they are the actual Church disappeared during this time. While Christianity says there were heresies among the Jews directly before Christ, they still thought that the Jews were the administrators of God's One religion.
I don't know enough about the Bahai to discuss this point, you'd have to elaborate on their theology here for me to elaborate on my objections.

[Gim]

You claim that Jesus needed to fulfill something, that means without Jesus there was a whole.
The Mormons say the same thing.
As doe the Bahai.

That means without Jesus there wasn't a whole.

The Mormons don't preach a post-Christ covenant, I don't think. I also believe they preach that all Christians were wrong for 1900 years, and that they are the actual Church disappeared during this time. While Christianity says there were heresies among the Jews directly before Christ, they still thought that the Jews were the administrators of God's One religion.
I don't know enough about the Bahai to discuss this point, you'd have to elaborate on their theology here for me to elaborate on my objections.

Mormons think Joseph Priestley or some so-called prophet was given instructions by God or Jesus to make his own bible or something, which I think is downright ridiculous.

[Morr]

Revelations 20:2


And God lied? The Serpent told them they would see the good and the evil, yet they did not, once their "eyes were opened" and they were ashamed.

Revelation, like Genesis, is not supposed to be taken as a history. It's obviously metaphorical.

Moreover, you'll perhaps have noticed - some random dude saying something in the Revelation text is not even crediting Jesus or god with the comment. It's just some commentator.

And yes, god lied. And the serpent called him on it. The serpent said that they would be like god (true), knowing good and evil (true) and that they would not - as god had fraudulently claimed in an attempt to scare them straight - 'certainly die' (true).

Er, they did die. Just because they didn't die right that second doesn't change that.