Rejection of evolution correlates with racism

[BPPLEE]

I'm certain that you aren't. But we are investigating how scripture can affect one's moral compass. The original example was the flood. Nobody seems to want to condemn it as immoral because they deem anything God does as being moral. So we looked at the situation where God gives the command for others to do something we surely would consider to be immoral.

And we still don't get any condemnation. All we get is 'It's not for us. It's for the Jews. I wouldn't do it'. And no, that's not a direct quote but it's your stated position. Which is simply adding weight to my argument.

Rejection of evolution correlates with racism is the subject of this thread. We have gotten way off topic

 

[Bradskii]

Rejection of evolution correlates with racism is the subject of this thread. We have gotten way off topic

Threads have a tendency to drift. And I think you've said enough about the most recent topic.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Threads have a tendency to drift. And I think you've said enough about the most recent topic.

Cat and mouse is such a fun game, isn't it Bradskii?

 

[BPPLEE]

Threads have a tendency to drift. And I think you've said enough about the most recent topic.

I'll be the judge of that

 

[BPPLEE]

I'm certain that you aren't. But we are investigating how scripture can affect one's moral compass. The original example was the flood. Nobody seems to want to condemn it as immoral because they deem anything God does as being moral. So we looked at the situation where God gives the command for others to do something we surely would consider to be immoral.

And we still don't get any condemnation. All we get is 'It's not for us. It's for the Jews. I wouldn't do it'. And no, that's not a direct quote but it's your stated position. Which is simply adding weight to my argument.

Paul thought he was morally justified when he went around stoning Christians. Then he encountered Jesus and wrote most of the New Testament. Clearly what he had been doing God did not approve of. There does seem to be a difference in the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament but they are the same. You have backed me into a corner with your proposition but you are not going to get me to say that God is immoral. It's just not up to me to judge God. Some Christians believe there was only a local flood and some believe it didn't happen at all and some believe there was good reason for it as all of creation was corrupted .But then you say God could've fixed it some other way. So any answer I give will be negated and like you said I have said enough on this subject

 

[Bradskii]

Paul thought he was morally justified when he went around stoning Christians. Then he encountered Jesus and wrote most of the New Testament. Clearly what he had been doing God did not approve of.

Yet God had commanded it. But, no. That cannot be. It is said that God can do anything that is logically possible. So He cannot approve and disapprove of the same act. That is logically impossible. And God cannot change His mind. He cannot think 'This was a bad idea, let's correct it'.

Either what was written about God in the OT is incorrect. Or what was written about Jesus in the NT is incorrect. There are no other options.

Between you and me, I'm going for the former. We both know that what Jesus taught was a guide to a moral life. So 'he who is without sin...'. Not a command, but a request that we examine ourselves and make a personal decision as to the morality of any act. As opposed to a command which we all know is immoral.

 

[BPPLEE]

Yet God had commanded it. But, no. That cannot be. It is said that God can do anything that is logically possible. So He cannot approve and disapprove of the same act. That is logically impossible. And God cannot change His mind. He cannot think 'This was a bad idea, let's correct it'.

Either what was written about God in the OT is incorrect. Or what was written about Jesus in the NT is incorrect. There are no other options.

Between you and me, I'm going for the former. We both know that what Jesus taught was a guide to a moral life. So 'he who is without sin...'. Not a command, but a request that we examine ourselves and make a personal decision as to the morality of any act. As opposed to a command which we all know is immoral.

The New Testament quotes the Old Testament innumerable times. When Jesus spoke of the scriptures he was speaking of the Old Testament. I don't think you can just write it off and dismiss it. It is a dilemma but it is what it is

 

[Bradskii]

The New Testament quotes the Old Testament innumerable times. When Jesus spoke of the scriptures he was speaking of the Old Testament. I don't think you can just write it off and dismiss it. It is a dilemma but it is what it is

So which should we follow? We can't follow both.

 

[BPPLEE]

Yet God had commanded it. But, no. That cannot be. It is said that God can do anything that is logically possible. So He cannot approve and disapprove of the same act. That is logically impossible. And God cannot change His mind. He cannot think 'This was a bad idea, let's correct it'.

Either what was written about God in the OT is incorrect. Or what was written about Jesus in the NT is incorrect. There are no other options.

Between you and me, I'm going for the former. We both know that what Jesus taught was a guide to a moral life. So 'he who is without sin...'. Not a command, but a request that we examine ourselves and make a personal decision as to the morality of any act. As opposed to a command which we all know is immoral.

The Bible says God does change his mind. Moses intervened and God changed his mind about what he was going to do to the Israelites. The people of Nineveh repented and God changed his mind about destroying them. But Paul clearly had it wrong when he was on his campaign to wipe out the Christians.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Paul thought he was morally justified when he went around stoning Christians.

And according to Judaism, he was.

Then he encountered Jesus and wrote most of the New Testament.

Unintentionally, it should be noted.

Clearly what he had been doing God did not approve of.

Not necessarily;We could reasonably infer that God wanted him to stop at that point, but Jesus could have appeared to Paul at any moment, and stopped him at any time.

There does seem to be a difference in the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament but they are the same.

Mark Twain described the difference as God before and after he found religion.

Of course, perhaps the Bible was never really about "God," but about how people experienced and understood "God." And people change all the time.

You have backed me into a corner with your proposition but you are not going to get me to say that God is immoral. It's just not up to me to judge God.

But as a moral being, you have the ability to apply your morality to the actions of others... Whoever they may be.

Some Christians believe there was only a local flood and some believe it didn't happen at all and some believe there was good reason for it as all of creation was corrupted .But then you say God could've fixed it some other way. So any answer I give will be negated and like you said I have said enough on this subject

That's what makes the Bible (and God) so useful -- it can be used to justify or negate anything as needed.[/QUOTE]

 

[BPPLEE]

So which should we follow? We can't follow both.

The New Testament. We are under a new covenant

 

[BPPLEE]

And according to Judaism, he was.



Unintentionally, it should be noted.



Not necessarily;We could reasonably infer that God wanted him to stop at that point, but Jesus could have appeared to Paul at any moment, and stopped him at any time.



Mark Twain described the difference as God before and after he found religion.

Of course, perhaps the Bible was never really about "God," but about how people experienced and understood "God." And people change all the time.



But as a moral being, you have the ability to apply your morality to the actions of others... Whoever they may be.



That's what makes the Bible (and God) so useful -- it can be used to justify or negate anything as needed.

[/QUOTE]
I agree if you take it out of context you can justify anything

 

[BPPLEE]

And according to Judaism, he was.



Unintentionally, it should be noted.



Not necessarily;We could reasonably infer that God wanted him to stop at that point, but Jesus could have appeared to Paul at any moment, and stopped him at any time.



Mark Twain described the difference as God before and after he found religion.

Of course, perhaps the Bible was never really about "God," but about how people experienced and understood "God." And people change all the time.



But as a moral being, you have the ability to apply your morality to the actions of others... Whoever they may be.



That's what makes the Bible (and God) so useful -- it can be used to justify or negate anything as needed.

[/QUOTE]

 

[BPPLEE]

And according to Judaism, he was.



Unintentionally, it should be noted.



Not necessarily;We could reasonably infer that God wanted him to stop at that point, but Jesus could have appeared to Paul at any moment, and stopped him at any time.



Mark Twain described the difference as God before and after he found religion.

Of course, perhaps the Bible was never really about "God," but about how people experienced and understood "God." And people change all the time.



But as a moral being, you have the ability to apply your morality to the actions of others... Whoever they may be.



That's what makes the Bible (and God) so useful -- it can be used to justify or negate anything as needed.

[/QUOTE]
I agree. Taken out of context you can justify anything

 

[TLK Valentine]

The New Testament. We are under a new covenant

In most situations, when you sign a new contract with your boss, you can safely toss out the old one since it no longer applies.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I agree. Taken out of context you can justify anything

And in context, it has its less than proud moments as well. Times have changed.

 

[BPPLEE]

And in context, it has its less than proud moments as well. Times have changed.

Yes they have

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes they have

And yet God allegedly has not. Meaning any action He condoned, commanded, or committed in the past, He could do again at any time in the future.

 

[BPPLEE]

And yet God allegedly has not. Meaning any action He condoned, commanded, or committed in the past, He could do again at any time in the future.

God can do whatever he wants. That's why they call him God. But from reading the Bible I have a pretty good idea of what he is going to do in the future. But I don't think I have a monopoly on the truth. There are many other points of view that have their own merit

 

[BPPLEE]

In most situations, when you sign a new contract with your boss, you can safely toss out the old one since it no longer applies.

Yes. That's why we no longer sacrifice animals and such