Does the fact of Evolution .... (moved)

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I certainly don't do it by saying Mohammad is one of God's prophets.

Naturally.

 

[dad]

David was the one that really ran into problems with the children he had from different wives. It does look like the multiple wife thing is not the best way to go.

Maybe we'll ask David and Abraham one day, and the others one day, and see what they say. Jesus, on His way to Sodom, seemed to eat with Abraham, so why did He forget to shun him, and scold him? Instead they sat and ate and chatted.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

For Christians, the New Testament supersedes the old because it contains the New Covenant between God and man. I'm sure you've noticed that Christians haven't been obeying the Law of Moses for almost 2,000 years. That doesn't mean we're without laws, but that Jesus has given us different ones. New ones.
...
I've found some atheists reluctant to accept this. They want to see Christians as bloodthirsty, perhaps so they feel better ignoring Jesus. But the fact is that Jesus and the apostles preached and practiced pacifism, so it's not good Christians who have been bloodthirsty over the years, but bad ones.

My question was prompted by the number of Christians here who appear to take the Old Testament literally (to treat it as 'gospel', as it were ). I was wondering how the literalists interpret OT directives from above, and whether non-literalists take any passages of the OT as directives to be followed. I'm glad to hear you say otherwise, but not wholly reassured... experience tells me that 'love your neighbor...' and 'turn the other cheek' are more honoured in the breach...

 

[dad]

In ex 17:17a moses writes: "He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away". There was polygamy in the Bible, seldom was there a happy story surrounding it.

I looked at Exodus 17. There are only 16 verses. ?

I guess you mean Deut. I noticed in the verse before the one you cite Moses tells them not to multiply horses also. That doesn't mean not have horses. It seems to mean not horde them!

 

[Hoghead1]

You are certainly right, Chet. The NT does seriously challenge the brutal warrior image of God in the OT. That is one of the reasons why I consider the OT to be almost a totally false account of God. But then you hit the "Book of Revelations," where the basic theme is, ' My Savior's back and there's gonna be trouble."Also, there are some scattered references to Hell in the NT, which are hard to reconcile with the concept of a loving God and mark a return of the punitive, juridical God of the OT.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I looked at Exodus 17. There are only 16 verses. ?

I guess you mean Deut. I noticed in the verse before the one you cite Moses tells them not to multiply horses also. That doesn't mean not have horses. It seems to mean not horde them!

Lots and lots of the Patriarch in the Bible had more then one wife. None of the women had more then one husband, except for people like Jezebel that were severely condemned. Although multiple wives was not really a happy story for any of them. In the Church to qualify for a bishop you must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality. Of course we live in the age of Grace and more Grace is given to us today than what they had when they lived under the Law. I believe that a divorced man is disqualified from being a pastor because a pastor is called to set an example for people in how they should live.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You are certainly right, Chet. The NT does seriously challenge the brutal warrior image of God in the OT. That is one of the reasons why I consider the OT to be almost a totally false account of God. But then you hit the "Book of Revelations," where the basic theme is, ' My Savior's back and there's gonna be trouble."Also, there are some scattered references to Hell in the NT, which are hard to reconcile with the concept of a loving God and mark a return of the punitive, juridical God of the OT.

Some people would say that the Book of Revelation reflects a time when the Church is no longer her on the earth so there is nothing to keep people from destroying themselves. 2 Thes2:7 "For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but the one who now restrains it will continue until he is taken out of the way."

 

[joshua 1 9]

Maybe we'll ask David and Abraham one day, and the others one day, and see what they say. Jesus, on His way to Sodom, seemed to eat with Abraham, so why did He forget to shun him, and scold him? Instead they sat and ate and chatted.

The situation with Abraham was with Hagar the maid of his wife. He had relations with Hagar and they had a son together Ishmael. This represents the Muslim nations today. So the child of the flesh is still in a battle with the child of promise. Otherwise Abraham's second wife was three years after his first wife died. Jacob was married to Rachael and her sister Leah. I can not imagine anything worse then having to be married to your sister in law.

 

[AV1611VET]

fundamentalist Islam

Don't get me started on "fundamentalist" Islam.

That's a sore spot with me.

I have a quarrel with the news media and others, who refer to 9·11 as "hostile" or "radical" Islam.

We here in the "Great Satan" know the difference -- or should.

You people need to wake up and learn the difference between "fundamental doctrine" and "radical doctrine."

Shoko Asahara did.

 

[AV1611VET]

The situation with Abraham was with Hagar the maid of his wife. He had relations with Hagar and they had a son together Ishmael. This represents the Muslim nations today. So the child of the flesh is still in a battle with the child of promise. Otherwise Abraham's second wife was three years after his first wife died. Jacob was married to Rachael and her sister Leah. I can not imagine anything worse then having to be married to your sister in law.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't "God's [alleged] prophet" teach that Abraham almost sacrifice Ishmael on the altar, not Isaac?

 

[Hoghead1]

That is not the point, Joshua 19. My point is that Revelations goes back to the biff, bam, boom image of the warrior God, punitive, vengeful, threating eternal damnation, etc. That is not a loving God, period.

 

[Hoghead1]

Incidentally, Dad, here is another outstanding example of what I am saying. Take Calvin. Not only did he have to cut all ties with his family, friends, occupation, but also with his homeland, France. He was living in exile in Geneva. He darned not even think of ever returning home, as the minute he set foot in France, he would have been executed.

 

[AV1611VET]

My point is that Revelations goes back to the biff, bam, boom image of the warrior God ...

Why wouldn't it?

After all, the Jews wanted the Psalm 72 / Isaiah 11 Messiah.

But when Jesus presented His credentials as the Psalm 22 / Isaiah 53 Messiah, they wanted no part of Him.

 

[dad]

Lots and lots of the Patriarch in the Bible had more then one wife. None of the women had more then one husband, except for people like Jezebel that were severely condemned. Although multiple wives was not really a happy story for any of them.

No? Well I might ask them when I see them if it was the big regret you think.

In the Church to qualify for a bishop you must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality.

Right, so where is the church? Is it the organizations and denominations that revolve around a building on Sunday? Is it Catholics? Anabaptist? Methodists? Can you name me a bishop somewhere?

Of course we live in the age of Grace and more Grace is given to us today than what they had when they lived under the Law. I believe that a divorced man is disqualified from being a pastor because a pastor is called to set an example for people in how they should live.

I don't play church, so I don't really relate to whatever you have in mind. Now some have suggested Paul used to be married. Are we sure she died and did not just do something like leave him?

 

[dad]

Incidentally, Dad, here is another outstanding example of what I am saying. Take Calvin. Not only did he have to cut all ties with his family, friends, occupation, but also with his homeland, France. He was living in exile in Geneva. He darned not even think of ever returning home, as the minute he set foot in France, he would have been executed.

?? I would care..because..??

 

[dad]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't "God's [alleged] prophet" teach that Abraham almost sacrifice Ishmael on the altar, not Isaac?

Ha. What else would I expect from folks that think Gabriel gave them a code to live by and it was NOT Gabriel of the bible?

 

[dad]

The situation with Abraham was with Hagar the maid of his wife. He had relations with Hagar and they had a son together Ishmael. This represents the Muslim nations today. So the child of the flesh is still in a battle with the child of promise. Otherwise Abraham's second wife was three years after his first wife died. Jacob was married to Rachael and her sister Leah. I can not imagine anything worse then having to be married to your sister in law.

God prophesied it. He loved both. If it was so bad why did the fathers do it?

 

[ChetSinger]

My question was prompted by the number of Christians here who appear to take the Old Testament literally (to treat it as 'gospel', as it were ). I was wondering how the literalists interpret OT directives from above, and whether non-literalists take any passages of the OT as directives to be followed.

I'm pretty much a literalist and do take the Mosaic Law literally...for the Israelites. But it has never applied to me because the apostles exempted Gentile believers such myself at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. And I gotta say I'm grateful to them for that.

I'm glad to hear you say otherwise, but not wholly reassured... experience tells me that 'love your neighbor...' and 'turn the other cheek' are more honoured in the breach...

Yeah, following Jesus can be tough sometimes because the 'love your neighbor' and 'turn the other cheek' messages really do rub against our grain, imo.

 

[ChetSinger]

You are certainly right, Chet. The NT does seriously challenge the brutal warrior image of God in the OT. That is one of the reasons why I consider the OT to be almost a totally false account of God. But then you hit the "Book of Revelations," where the basic theme is, ' My Savior's back and there's gonna be trouble."Also, there are some scattered references to Hell in the NT, which are hard to reconcile with the concept of a loving God and mark a return of the punitive, juridical God of the OT.

Thanks, but I'm afraid I disagree with your assessment of the OT. And while in the NT I'm commanded to be pacifist, God himself isn't: he's going to set straight the wrongs that we do against one another.

And that's just it, as I see it: God isn't mean, but he's decided to pay us back for what we do, whether for good or for bad. As Paul once wrote: "Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.". I think that's a pretty scary verse, so hooray for Jesus, in whom we have the forgiveness of sins!

 

[Hoghead1]

I didn't say you wouldn't care, Dad. That is not my point. I was simply pointing out that those who have taken Christ's teaching seriously realize they are to make God their number-one priority and let the rest take a back seat. You may have to alienate yourself from your family or true your back on them or cut all ties with them, etc. , if you truly want to follow Christ. Yes, you may very well have to walk out on your wife and family. So dumping on Buddha for doing so is snot a fair criticism at all. That was my point.