KnownUnknown:


By FedEx, UPS, or DHL?

I don't care!

Dtruthspeaker:


I don't care!

Maybe a dove or a raven.

elated177:


You have failed woefully. Truly, my enemies are many here. Una don tire already.

The questions are directed at Christians who justify the barbaric acts in the OT.. i mentioned you because you're a somewhat popular Christian on this forum. Nothing more.

elated177:


Really? But you could spew all sorts of garbage here because it is a faceless forum, huh? If you are sure of what you are saying, you should be able to say them anywhere. Don't you agree? Does light hide? Do people hide something good. If you, wilgrea7, believe that what you are offering is the light, a better light, even, don't hide behind a faceless forum.

Empty taunts. Address the discussion or forfeit

Wilgrea7:

You purposely ignore the questions i ask and edit them out of the quoted response, to focus on the things which are irrelevant tonthe post.

You are the one who carried your broken head to stupidly ask and say;

Wilgrea7:
...In this discussion, i want to focus on the latter. That is, things done on behalf of their God. For example,

1. Commanding the stoning of PEOPLE WHO YOU LYINGLY CALLED non-virgins, Deuteronomy 22:17-21 ( ".

I answered correcting that this is The Law against wores, hoes, prostitutes, cheating wives and slaymamas whom nobody in the world tolerates at all. And not what you are now sneakily called "non-virgins" because you are a devil.

So you don't have any thing to say here.

Wilgrea7:

If you for some reason think they were just, then the follow-up questions are for you.

Thank God you have admitted "follow up" question meaning that there is/was FIRST A MAIN QUESTION!

I DEALT WITH THE MAIN QUESTION AND I WILL NOT BE DISTRACTED BY THE DECEITFUL FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS!

WHEN THE MOTHER SNAKE IS KILLED, HER FOLLOW UP (BABIES) ARE KILLED!

Wilgrea7:

The fact that you're trying so hard to change what words mean, only proves my point.

You want to equate a command, literally telling people to hurl stones at disobedient children till they're dead, to statements we used to make about the beatings we received as children..

The fact that you have understood that evil must be killed, even if the carriers are children, proves the rightfullness of the command.

FOR NO REASONABLE PERSON INTENDS TO KEEP AN EVIL THING IN THEIR HOUSE.

EVEN EVIL PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO LIVE WITH EVIL PEOPLE.

Wilgrea7:

After? After what exactly? Please show me where God made that statement after the attacks. Show me how the statement made by your God in Deuteronomy 7, was made after the Israelites were attacked from the tribes listed there.

So you see yourself? You judged a case even before you heard the case.

That is why Exodus and Leviticus came before Deuteronomy and if you had read them, you would have seen why God gave that Command.

Dtruthspeaker:


You are the one who carried your broken head to stupidly ask and say;

I answered correcting that this is The Law against wores, hoes, prostitutes, cheating wives and slaymamas whom nobody in the world tolerates at all. And not what you are now sneakily call "non-virgins"

And you with your complete head, chose to say the word there was who.res and prost.itutes.. meanwhile i showed the bible verse that explicitly said “if the tokens of her virginity be not found"

Now you're trying to make the word mean things that are clearly not stated there, while denying the thing that is clearly stated there..

Oh ye Dtruthspeaker.. changeth not the words of your God.. lest he chastise you.. for he is a jealous God, and exalts his word above his name.

because you are a devil.

Angel Gabriel's junior brother.. welldone

Thank God you have admitted "follow up" question meaning that there is/was FIRST A MAIN QUESTION!

I DEALT WITH THE MAIN QUESTION AND I WILL NOT BE DISTRACTED BY THE DECEITFUL FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS!

Follow-up questions are part of discussions. As long as they're related to the first question.

But instead of you to admit that you're either a hypocrite who justifies acts you yourself would not commit, or simply lack a sensible rebuttal.. you're here dodging questions better than Neo from Matrix

The fact that you have understood that evil must be killed, even if the carriers are children, proves the rightfullness of the command.

FOR NO REASONABLE PERSON INTENDS TO KEEP AN EVIL THING IN THEIR HOUSE.

EVEN EVIL PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO LIVE WITH EVIL PEOPLE.

Alaye .. answer my question and stop evading.

Would you stone your child to death for disobedience? Would you view a parent who does that as right or wrong? Why or why not?

So you see yourself? You judged a case even before you heard the case.

That is why Exodus and Leviticus came before Deuteronomy and if you had read them, you would have seen why God gave that Command.

I'm not a biblical scholar... Oh ye great Dtruthspeaker.. care to share such enlightening verses?

Wilgrea7:

Now you're trying to make the word mean things that are clearly not stated there, while denying the thing that is clearly stated there...

How would you see it when you do selected reading with an evil mind, with materials as supplied to you by devils?

Deuteronomy 23:17 -: There shall be no wore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

Wilgrea7:

Follow-up questions are part of discussions. As long as they're related to the first question.

That is why I love maths 1, 2, 3, ...

1 must be finished before 2.

And you show you do not have anything to say on question 1, which means you now see that God is Truly Justified (which was your No 1. Question) and all His Laws were reasonable and things we already do in our natural living.

So, you have no valid case against God and you Loose!

Wilgrea7:

I'm not a biblical scholar... Oh ye great Dtruthspeaker.. care to share such enlightening verses?

You should have remembered that before you go joining the foolish bandwagon to start spewing their stupid foolishness!

sarahkel:
God is not an author of confusion

He seems to be authoring a lot of conclusion here. Maybe you can help him clear the air

You seem perturbed.

I didn’t realise it was a competition where i had to present something better. I’m sorry but I don’t compete with mad men.

elated177:


Na you get your mouth. Use it the way you like.

However, call them whatever you like from now to tomorrow, the fact still remains that they shook the world in their own time. The heavens and the earth responded to their call. The sun, the moon, the rain, thunder and lightning, the wind, heard their voices when they spoke. They were used by the Maker to relay very important message to his saints, servants and messengers. We, the saints, servants and messengers of the Creator/Maker, have confirmed what they relayed. So, no amount of insult will ever change that.


AIO, trying to malign those prophets will not give you the validity you crave so much. Now listen: the heavens and the earth responded to the call of those prophets. The sun, the moon, the rain, thunder and lightning, the wind, heard their voices when they spoke. AIO, can you beat that. If you believe you can, prove it. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, they say. Show us what you are offering, AIO.


Again, AIO, if you believe you have something better, present it and we will consider it. Trying to undermine the Might and Power of the Most High, YHVH Almighty, the one and only true God, the Creator of the heavens, the earth, the seas and everything in them, in those great servants of his, by calling names, will not cut it.

AIO, just present your alternative. Finito! Okwu agwu la.

PastorAIO:
You seem perturbed.

I didn’t realise it was a competition where i had to present something better. I’m sorry but I don’t compete with mad men.

You are the one who is rattled and pertubbed. Here it is, again.

elated177:


Na you get your mouth. Use it the way you like.

However, call them whatever you like from now to tomorrow, the fact still remains that they shook the world in their own time. The heavens and the earth responded to their call. The sun, the moon, the rain, thunder and lightning, the wind, heard their voices when they spoke. They were used by the Maker to relay very important message to his saints, servants and messengers. We, the saints, servants and messengers of the Creator/Maker, have confirmed what they relayed. So, no amount of insult will ever change that.


AIO, trying to malign those prophets will not give you the validity you crave so much. Now listen: the heavens and the earth responded to the call of those prophets. The sun, the moon, the rain, thunder and lightning, the wind, heard their voices when they spoke. AIO, can you beat that. If you believe you can, prove it. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, they say. Show us what you are offering, AIO.


Again, AIO, if you believe you have something better, present it and we will consider it. Trying to undermine the Might and Power of the Most High, YHVH Almighty, the one and only true God, the Creator of the heavens, the earth, the seas and everything in them, in those great servants of his, by calling names, will not cut it.

AIO, just present your alternative. Finito! Okwu agwu la.

elated177:


Na you get your mouth. Use it the way you like.

However, call them whatever you like from now to tomorrow, the fact still remains that they shook the world in their own time. The heavens and the earth responded to their call. The sun, the moon, the rain, thunder and lightning, the wind, heard their voices when they spoke. They were used by the Maker to relay very important message to his saints, servants and messengers. We, the saints, servants and messengers of the Creator/Maker, have confirmed what they relayed. So, no amount of insult will ever change that.


AIO, trying to malign those prophets will not give you the validity you crave so much. Now listen: the heavens and the earth responded to the call of those prophets. The sun, the moon, the rain, thunder and lightning, the wind, heard their voices when they spoke. AIO, can you beat that. If you believe you can, prove it. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, they say. Show us what you are offering, AIO.


Again, AIO, if you believe you have something better, present it and we will consider it. Trying to undermine the Might and Power of the Most High, YHVH Almighty, the one and only true God, the Creator of the heavens, the earth, the seas and everything in them, in those great servants of his, by calling names, will not cut it.

AIO, just present your alternative. Finito! Okwu agwu la.

The sun, the moon, the rain, thunder and lightning, the wind, heard their voices when they spoke? Your YHVH Almighty must be a puny god if that’s what his messengers are capable of.

Have you heard of MGNFCNT Almighty and the Seer-Prophets?
Whole solar systems, the galaxy, electromagnetic pulses, and the void hear their voices when they speak. The True Maker sends them messages over eons in the form of supernovas.
We, the Ones, honorary uce of the True Maker, have confirmed what they relayed.

MGNFCNT Almighty vs YHVH Almighty

MGNFCNT Almighty inspired this scene. The Ones have confirmed it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31ZjnrHR8EA

elated177:



What if I, Elated177, by the Power and Might of YHVH Almighty, the one and only true God, the Creator of the heavens, the earth, the seas and everything in them, increase the intensity of the sun tomorrow to the extent that it scorches you till you cry out in anguish? Abi you want flood to drive you away from your street as a result of excessive rainfall?

This is hilarious. On a serious note, I once dimmed the moon because it was too bright.

PastorAIO:
Also common is schizophrenics who hear the voice of god talking to them and telling them to do all sorts of things.

How is anyone sure that all those prophets from Moses up to St Paul etc we’re not raving schizophrenics?

Hmm, what you wrote actually reminds me of a movie, kings and prophet, it’s a movie about king Saul and David. So there was this part where the Israelite went to fight the amelekites just as instructed by God in the bible, when they came back after defeating the amelekites, the prophet Samuel told king saul that God was angry because he explicitly told him that nothing must be breathing in that land that why did he leave the animals alive and that he should go back because God is angry with for not finishing the job, king saul became angry and challenge prophet Samuel, and asked him if it was what Elohim commanded, or if he was just trying to perpetrate his own agenda, taking advantage of the fact that he was the one that Elohim speaks through.

Mind you, the world Elohim was used more to reference God than the word God itself

elated177:



You are the one who is rattled and pertubbed. Here it is, again.

Whatever, I'm not competing with stupidity.

PastorAIO:


Whatever, I'm not competing with stupidity.

Na you get your mouth. Use it the way you like.

However, call them whatever you like from now to tomorrow, the fact still remains that they shook the world in their own time. The heavens and the earth responded to their call. The sun, the moon, the rain, thunder and lightning, the wind, heard their voices when they spoke. They were used by the Maker to relay very important message to his saints, servants and messengers. We, the saints, servants and messengers of the Creator/Maker, have confirmed what they relayed. So, no amount of insult will ever change that.


AIO, trying to malign those prophets will not give you the validity you crave so much. Now listen: the heavens and the earth responded to the call of those prophets. The sun, the moon, the rain, thunder and lightning, the wind, heard their voices when they spoke. AIO, can you beat that. If you believe you can, prove it. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, they say. Show us what you are offering, AIO.


Again, AIO, if you believe you have something better, present it and we will consider it. Trying to undermine the Might and Power of the Most High, YHVH Almighty, the one and only true God, the Creator of the heavens, the earth, the seas and everything in them, in those great servants of his, by calling names, will not cut it.

AIO, just present your alternative. Finito! Okwu agwu la.

KnownUnknown:


This is hilarious. On a serious note, I once dimmed the moon because it was too bright.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Na wa o! Is this not what we are looking for? If it pleases the Creator of the heavens, the earth, the seas and everything in them, the one and only true God, to give his power to as many of vessels as possible, we, his saints, servants, followers and messengers, will rejoice even more. He does as he pleases and gives his power to the vessels he chooses and no one can question his choice.

But, then, I know you were being sarcastic. No vessel of YHVH Almighty will ever say the kind of things you and your kind say here. We know who and what we are and whose servants we are. So, your sarcasm is effort in utter futility.

KnownUnknown:


The sun, the moon, the rain, thunder and lightning, the wind, heard their voices when they spoke? Your YHVH Almighty must be a puny god if that’s what his messengers are capable of.

Have you heard of MGNFCNT Almighty and the Seer-Prophets?
Whole solar systems, the galaxy, electromagnetic pulses, and the void hear their voices when they speak. The True Maker sends them messages over eons in the form of supernovas.
We, the Ones, honorary uce of the True Maker, have confirmed what they relayed.

Don't bother yourself, Satan already knows who the vessels of YHVH Almighty are.

Wilgrea7:
Happy Sunday everyone

So this is something I've noticed in a lot of debates against Christians.

When barbaric things either done by the Christian God, or on his behalf in the old testament are brought up, Christians are often quick to jump in and justify it, using one terrible excuse or the other.

In this discussion, i want to focus on the latter. That is, things done on behalf of their God. For example,

1. Commanding the stoning of non-virgins, disobedient children and people who work on the Sabbath day
2. Commanding his alleged people to commit several acts of genocide
3. Asking a dude to sacrifice his son (I'm talking about Abraham)
4. Commanding the murder of those who don't worship him

Common reasons I've heard in support of these terrible acts include

1. He is God, and he can do whatever he wants
2. He did it, so the nation of Israel can be established, which would later lead to the coming of Christ who would save us all
3. He did it, because the people back then were sinners, and those were his ways of passing judgement

I'm sure you get the point. So now here's the catch.

If these things are justifiable based on the reasons given above, or the ones you're likely to give, then why aren't similar acts committed by Islamic terrorists considered also justifiable?

Things like killing apostates or infidels, and spreading their ideologies by the sword are things we all abhor, and object to. We sight these things as objectively wrong.

But when they happen in your old testament, for some reason, they're completely fine.

It seems to me that anyone can commit almost any barbaric and terrible act, and simply get away with it by saying “because my God told me so" or to claim it was for a higher purpose which we can't yet see. Both very terrible excuses.

So where exactly do you draw the line? And why?

Why is something deemed Just and good, when done by followers of your God in your book, but bad when done by others, who also claim to have been instructed by the same “supreme" God?

On what basis do you reject their claims of instruction, but also justify the ones committed by the people in your book?

Look forward to hearing your answers. Atheists, agnostics, and people from other faiths are also welcome to contribute.

I’m glad we were able to come to an understanding concerning the moral argument and God in theism as the authentic source of morality, regardless of how that information has not been applied to your question.

On the face of it, this is obviously an emotional argument constructed to appeal to pity, fear or indignation. I’m stating this as a reference in case the argument moves in the direction I predict it will. I present my case with the idea that it doesn’t have to make people comfortable, happy or feel good. It just has to be feasible.

Based on what we discussed already concerning morality, it is clear that God doing the things done in the Old Testament makes those things moral. Consequently, those things are still moral today, if they are commanded by God.

This is where our last discussion left off: adapting the moral argument to Christian theism. I believe that it is very moral to kill people who sacrifice their children to Moloch and to stone people who enter marriages as non virgins, regardless of how angry that may make atheists (more on this in a minute). The reason I can condemn people who kill others today is because they do it for reasons immoral in Christianity and more importantly because of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice which disqualifies anyone from doing those things today.

Christ’s sacrifice means that all sin (such as, child sacrifice and extramarital sex) has been paid for. It is moral for people who do those things to die and someone indeed has died for them which is why they can carry on living and why Christians believe that we should be grateful to Christ.

As always.. it's a pleasure to hear your views on the subject

Endtimer:


Based on what we discussed already concerning morality, it is clear that God doing the things done in the Old Testament makes those things moral. Consequently, those things are still moral today, if they are commanded by God.

I think this is deviating from the claim you made in our previous discussion.

If you remember, you said that the acts of God have to be deemed good, and that he will only act in line with how he acted before, in order not to make morality arbitrary.

I don't get the whole “If they are commanded by God" thing. If you believe they were commanded bt God in the old testament, what makes the commandments any less valid today?

You made reference to the sacrifice of Jesus.. I'll tackle that next

This is where our last discussion left off: adapting the moral argument to Christian theism. I believe that it is very moral to kill people who sacrifice their children to Moloch and to stone people who enter marriages as non virgins, regardless of how angry that may make atheists (more on this in a minute). The reason I can condemn people who kill others today is because they do it for reasons immoral in Christianity

Could you please expatiate on the bolded? What exactly do you mean by reasons immoral in Christianity?

If these actions can be seen as moral based on the old testament, and immoral based on Christianity.. doesn't that imply in some way that Christianity's idea of morality runs somehow contrary to the initial old testament standards?

More on this below.

and more importantly because of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice which disqualifies anyone from doing those things today.

Christ’s sacrifice means that all sin (such as, child sacrifice and extramarital sex) has been paid for. It is moral for people who do those things to die and someone indeed has died for them which is why they can carry on living and why Christians believe that we should be grateful to Christ.

Several things here.

1. I think it's important to point out that the alleged sacrifice of Christ, is not something that's generally accepted as a continuation of the old testament's moral standard.

As far as i can remember, a lot of the old testament commandments say things along the lines of “anyone who does x or y shall surely be put to death"

The idea behind old testament morality lies on the idea that the person who commits the crime, especially the serious ones like defying the Sabbath or worshipping another god, are to be put to death.

The idea of scapegoating, which is basically what happens in the case of Jesus is not something that seems to be applied there. To suggest scapegoating as a continuation of the old testaments moral standards seems to be where the fundamental issue is.

I also understand that animal sacrifices were a thing back then too.. but they were in no way a substitute for the “death penalty" sins mentioned earlier.

Nowhere in the OT are adulterers, disobedient children, or non-virgins, as well as other groups vindicated by offering sacrifices. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, there are some serious implications of the “Christ's death pays for all sin" ideology.

It seems to imply that the sins of everyone else is automatically washed away by virtue of Christ's sacrifice.

If that's the case, then no one should be considered a sinner, regardless of what they do, since Christ has paid for their sins.

If they first need to accept Christ, then people who don't do so, need to then be punished OT style unless they accept his sacrifice.

And also, people who accept his sacrifice can continue doing the aforementioned “sins", and not be held accountable for it in any way, since the sins have been paid for by Christ

I look forward to your response

Wilgrea7:
As always.. it's a pleasure to hear your views on the subject

Likewise

Wilgrea7:

I don't get the whole “If they are commanded by God" thing. If you believe they were commanded bt God in the old testament, what makes the commandments any less valid today?

I don’t. I believe they still are valid. That may not have come across well in my post.

Wilgrea7:

If these actions can be seen as moral based on the old testament, and immoral based on Christianity.. doesn't that imply in some way that Christianity's idea of morality runs somehow contrary to the initial old testament standards?

Nothing in the Old Testament is immoral in Christianity. What I meant was that Islamic extremists are acting immorally because they commit atrocities contrary to Christian doctrine or immoral in Christianity.

Concerning the idea of substitutionary atonement, the difference between sacrificial lambs and Christ is that Christ is God. The reason He can take someone else’s place is because the sin was committed against him. The only reason He even had to do this was because He is both just and kind.

As to whether people can continue to live sinfully because of Jesus’ sacrifice; I’ve thought long and hard and I’ve come to the unfortunate conclusion that Christianity doesn’t have any protection against this. The answer as far as I know is yes. I don’t like it but I’m being honest.

Hopefully the answer to the main topic is clearer now.

Endtimer:

I believe that it is very moral to kill people who sacrifice their children to Moloch and to stone people who enter marriages as non virgins, regardless of how angry that may make atheists (more on this in a minute).

Did you write this response while devoid of empathy for other people?

Imagine the executioners digging a hole, they hogtie you and they place you in the hole neck deep with only your head exposed. They commence to throwing rocks at your exposed head.
Do you really think it’s moral to stone people?!

KnownUnknown:

Did you write this response while devoid of empathy for other people?
Imagine the executioners digging a hole, they hogtie you and they place you in the hole neck deep with only your head exposed. They commence to throwing rocks at your exposed head. Do you really think it’s moral to stone people?!

When that constitution was read to all the Israelites they agreed so nobody forced it on them and if any of them feel he can't live by it such a person only need to leave that country since majority agreed.
Execution has been in the history of wrongdoers from time immemorial so you're just playing hide and seek!

KnownUnknown:


Did you write this response while devoid of empathy for other people?

Imagine the executioners digging a hole, they hogtie you and they place you in the hole neck deep with only your head exposed. They commence to throwing rocks at your exposed head.
Do you really think it’s moral to stone people?!

MaxInDHouse:

When that constitution was read to all the Israelites they agreed so nobody forced it on them and if any of them feel he can't live by it such a person only need to leave that country since majority agreed.
Execution has been in the history of wrongdoers from time immemorial so you're just playing hide and seek!

Plus!

There isn't any man on earth who did cry for justice as he felt like killing his wife/girlfriend, when she fuwqd another guy/man. And everyone who heard the case shouted "kill the bitch. Let her die slow"

Law and Justice. You give death, you get death!

Dtruthspeaker:




Plus!

There isn't any man on earth who did cry for justice as he felt like killing his wife/girlfriend, when she fuwqd another guy/man. And everyone who heard the case shouted "kill the bitch. Let her die slow"

Law and Justice. You give death, you get death!

You’re peculiarly misogynistic.

MaxInDHouse:

When that constitution was read to all the Israelites they agreed so nobody forced it on them and if any of them feel he can't live by it such a person only need to leave that country since majority agreed.
Execution has been in the history of wrongdoers from time immemorial so you're just playing hide and seek!

None of the mumbo jumbo you've written here explains why these actions should be accepted as right.

In Islamic fundamentalist countries.. they believe apostates should be punished for leaving the religion. Does that make it right?

Dtruthspeaker:


Plus!

There isn't any man on earth who did cry for justice as he felt like killing his wife/girlfriend, when she fuwqd another guy/man. And everyone who heard the case shouted "kill the bitch. Let her die slow"

Law and Justice. You give death, you get death!

First of all... Wtf

Second of all.. I don't know where you're getting your information @ the bolded from

Thirdly... If this is your attempt at justifying those acts... Its a terrible one.

Like i told maximus.. in Islamic fundamentalist countries, certain crimes are punishable by death.. including the killing of apostates.

The fact that everyone in a specific society see something as right.. doesn't automatically make it so.

Most people today are rational enough to divorce or break up with a cheating spouse... Rather than stone them to death... Your “no man in the world" argument falls flat on it's face.

Wilgrea7:
Happy Sunday everyone

So this is something I've noticed in a lot of debates against Christians.

When barbaric things either done by the Christian God, or on his behalf in the old testament are brought up, Christians are often quick to jump in and justify it, using one terrible excuse or the other.

In this discussion, i want to focus on the latter. That is, things done on behalf of their God. For example,

1. Commanding the stoning of non-virgins, disobedient children and people who work on the Sabbath day
2. Commanding his alleged people to commit several acts of genocide
3. Asking a dude to sacrifice his son (I'm talking about Abraham)
4. Commanding the murder of those who don't worship him

Common reasons I've heard in support of these terrible acts include

1. He is God, and he can do whatever he wants
2. He did it, so the nation of Israel can be established, which would later lead to the coming of Christ who would save us all
3. He did it, because the people back then were sinners, and those were his ways of passing judgement

I'm sure you get the point. So now here's the catch.

If these things are justifiable based on the reasons given above, or the ones you're likely to give, then why aren't similar acts committed by Islamic terrorists considered also justifiable?

Things like killing apostates or infidels, and spreading their ideologies by the sword are things we all abhor, and object to. We sight these things as objectively wrong.

But when they happen in your old testament, for some reason, they're completely fine.

It seems to me that anyone can commit almost any barbaric and terrible act, and simply get away with it by saying “because my God told me so" or to claim it was for a higher purpose which we can't yet see. Both very terrible excuses.

So where exactly do you draw the line? And why?

Why is something deemed Just and good, when done by followers of your God in your book, but bad when done by others, who also claim to have been instructed by the same “supreme" God?

On what basis do you reject their claims of instruction, but also justify the ones committed by the people in your book?

Look forward to hearing your answers. Atheists, agnostics, and people from other faiths are also welcome to contribute.

As usual, you failed to draw the line on many points. i don't have time for the so many errors. But one thing to note is that apart from us being in another covenant/agreement which is MOST SIGNIFICANT but surprisingly overlooked, most of the things you mentioned were only done and applicable in-house to Israel, not to non Israelites. Israelites were not busy judging outside nations or non-Jews. It is very unlike the other religion you speak of whose laws are used on any human being they can lay hands on. Very different and like you said, rejected.

Endtimer:


Likewise


I don’t. I believe they still are valid. That may not have come across well in my post.


Nothing in the Old Testament is immoral in Christianity. What I meant was that Islamic extremists are acting immorally because they commit atrocities contrary to Christian doctrine or immoral in Christianity.

But how exactly are they immoral? Also, since Christ's sacrifice apparently eradicates all sin, doesn't that mean that even the Islamic terrorists are sinless, since the sacrifice of Christ allows people to commit sin without the Old Testament punishments being applied to them?

If Christ's sacrifice covers all sin, then immorality cannot exist in any sense. Since all sins committed are automatically washed away by him.

Except of course you mean that people first need to accept Christ for the sacrifice to be applied to them. In that case, all non-christians would need to be punished old testament style

Concerning the idea of substitutionary atonement, the difference between sacrificial lambs and Christ is that Christ is God. The reason He can take someone else’s place is because the sin was committed against him. The only reason He even had to do this was because He is both just and kind.

I understand the divinity of Christ you're trying to portray in this situation. However.. I don't think it really solves the problem.

What i was trying to say was that, a scapegoat, whether normal or divine, has not been used as a remedy for the “death penalty" sins described in the OT.

If we accept that God only acts in line with how he acted before, then scapegoating of any kind, cannot be accepted.. without the shifting of morality.

Sure, i get that the sin was committed against him. But the very idea of shifting the penalty of the crime from the guilty, to the “offended" in this case, is the very thing i see as a disparity in God's actions.

Plus, i don't see how it is in any way just. If someone commits a crime against me. I don't see how further punishing myself is supposed to vindictive the offender.

As to whether people can continue to live sinfully because of Jesus’ sacrifice; I’ve thought long and hard and I’ve come to the unfortunate conclusion that Christianity doesn’t have any protection against this. The answer as far as I know is yes. I don’t like it but I’m being honest.

Hopefully the answer to the main topic is clearer now.

I just want to say that i greatly appreciate your honesty in situations like this.. even if it leads to uncomfortable philosophical conclusions.

I wish this forum had more of this type of honesty. Hats off to you

Wilgrea7:

None of the mumbo jumbo you've written here explains why these actions should be accepted as right.
In Islamic fundamentalist countries.. they believe apostates should be punished for leaving the religion. Does that make it right?

Democracy is the government of the people by the people and for the people, not so?

Therefore it's constitutionally right as long as the majority in that place agree with the law, mind you the law is the people and the people is the law so if you don't want to abide by what the majority in a community says and the government (authority) has passed the move into law you have to leave their land for them.

Wilgrea7:

Second of all.. I don't know where you're getting your information @ the bolded from..

Old romance, family and crime section before those cursed generation came with their justice of blaming the crying victim.

Wilgrea7:

Thirdly... If this is your attempt at justifying those acts... Its a terrible one.

It is justified already. Even you would not give your fuqgirl a cup of water when you catch her riding another guy.

Wilgrea7:

Like i told maximus.. in Islamic fundamentalist countries, certain crimes are punishable by death.. including the killing of apostates.

That's what happens when men think they have a right to rule other men.

Wilgrea7:

Most people today are rational enough to divorce or break up with a cheating spouse... Rather than stone them to death... Your “no man in the world" argument falls flat on it's face.

Because, men appropriated rule to themselves and they created their own agberos/mafia (police) who they send against other less powerful men, doing what they like, eg prison and hanging.

Instead of God's Justice where Nature will kill the evil doers, or the nation of evil doers. As He did to even His Chosen Isreal.

So, now we are happy to wait for God's Justice upon all wicked and evil people

MaxInDHouse:


Democracy is the government of the people by the people and for the people, not so?

Therefore it's constitutionally right as long as the majority in that place agree with the law, mind you the law is the people and the people is the law so if you don't want to abide by what the majority in a community says and the government (authority) has passed the move into law you have to leave their land for them.

If the majority of people in Nigeria today decided that JWs were a criminal organization and deserve to be exterminated by hanging, would that make them right? Would you agree with them?.. or do you just choose hypocrisy when it suits you

Wilgrea7:

If the majority of people in Nigeria today decided that JWs were a criminal organization and deserve to be exterminated by hanging, would that make them right? Would you agree with them?.. or do you just choose hypocrisy when it suits you

(1) If the majority DECIDED.
(2) If it's passed into law.
But i want to continue being a JW then i have to leave that place, remember you're not living in the jungle with deadly predators because you want PEACE so apply the same logic here haba don't you atheists believe in logic again?