What makes Christianity special?

[BL2KTN]

But we went through this for several posts on another forum and i and others answered this. This is not doctrine and teaching nothing. It is not instructional but a expression of someone who is in anguish about having their own loved ones taken and their life destroyed. You keep attributing God to it and blaming him so you must have some reason for doing so.

Yes, you said there that it was simply an expression of anguish. Then I come in here and you say that all scriptures are God-breathed. Which is it? Is "happy is he who dashes their infants upon the rock" simply an expression of anguish (vile, disgusting, immoral expression), or is it God-breathed since it is scripture? You can't have both.

You obviously didn't believe what was said. If you choose to believe in a God of hate then that is your choice but there is overwhelming support that God loves us as pointed out earlier. As i said before why would God harbor two distinct and separate traits at the same time. Where there is love there cannot be hate and where there is evil there cannot be righteousness. The two cannot live in the same house and one defeats the other. This is what God has said about the little ones so which do you believe.

The bible is a contradictory compilation of various teachings by various authors over millenia. In Psalms 139 we have an author who believes killing infants is joyful and appropriate, and someone in captivity chose to elevate it to scripture and have people sing it. The fact that this Psalm doesn't match other viewpoints about God collected over other centuries and included in scripture for other reasons is obvious to see.

Matthew 18:10
See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.

Yes, this alleged teaching of Yeshua is not in agreement with the author of Psalms 139.

I'm not going to respond to each and every biblical reference on loving children. The same book that has Yahweh commanding abortion also has other verses about loving babies. It is a contradictory compilation of writings by many authors with many viewpoints, some of whom contradict even themselves.

 

[Cearbhall]

By George I think some of you are getting it! Faith in God is not rational! It's faith! It's nuts! Praise God!

Then you can understand why we don't all trip over each other to follow your religion out of all the options that are offered to us.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, you said there that it was simply an expression of anguish. Then I come in here and you say that all scriptures are God-breathed. Which is it? Is "happy is he who dashes their infants upon the rock" simply an expression of anguish (vile, disgusting, immoral expression), or is it God-breathed since it is scripture? You can't have both.

Yes the scriptures are inspired. The author I quoted has described them as God breathed. That doesn't mean that God wrote them. It means that people who believed in God were inspired to write down things they believed and sometimes felt as a human. It is through the vessel of a imperfect human. In the new testament it is mostly about Jesus and his life and teachings. Some are eye witnesses or claim to be writing from eye witness accounts. The rest is about the growth and teachings to the early church.

The old testament is of a different time in history. Ancient times had a different way of doing things. They were not so informed or had the advantage of long time experience to change and modernize. That is how it was and God didn't control people like puppets. He worked with them for how they were. The law was introduced to stop mayhem. Already the belief and ways were about war and pillaging. This happen throughout the land whether it was to do with the Greeks or the Persians or any nation. Thats what they knew and to us it may have been barbaric but that is the way they ruled. God brought in the mosaic law of an eye for an eye to bring some ordnance to things. He could have controlled everyone and made them obey him by taking peoples free will or he could have destroyed everyone. So he worked with how the people were and where they were at. They were not going to understand anything else because they were humans and thats where history was at.

So the psalmist is lamenting about what had happened to Gods people. They had been killed, raped and their children killed. He was expressing a desire to have the same happen to the oppressors. It was also a prophesy that came true. But that is what happen in those days. If someone attack and killed others then the same would happen to them. Or at least this was their belief and was how they believed the law worked. God did not say do it or taught to do it. But you keep attributing it to him and not allowing the people to be humans. Humans wrote the bible so they will have all the weaknesses and imperfections like you and me. But you repeated focus on this one sentence and eject the many surrounding ones that also tell the story. You dont focus on the many beautiful psalms but choose only this one sentence. So this is your position and I cant change that. But you have made your point several times and now seem to want to use the same thing over and over again even into irrelevant topics.

The bible is a contradictory compilation of various teachings by various authors over millennia. In Psalms 139 we have an author who believes killing infants is joyful and appropriate, and someone in captivity chose to elevate it to scripture and have people sing it. The fact that this Psalm doesn't match other viewpoints about God collected over other centuries and included in scripture for other reasons is obvious to see.

It has various authors but it doesn't have various teachings. The old testament was of that time and is about the law being established and Gods promise of a savior. It is the evolution of time in preparing for the coming of Christ through the line of holy people who had relationships with God. Thought the teachings are about the law they are the same and when Christ came that was the fulfillment of this which was prophesied. The new testament is consistent with the old testament as the fulfillment of the prophesy and Christ says this. The new testament is consistent with what it teaches that Christ is the promised savior which God had sent and we now can come to God through him instead of trying to win favor with God by keeping the laws and always failing because of our weak human fleshly nature. We can accept Christs blood and be made new and creatures that are able to defeat sin and death because Christ did.

Yes, this alleged teaching of Yeshua is not in agreement with the author of Psalms 139.

You keep attributing God with this Psalm as a teaching and that he said it. It was a human saying it with his anguish and feelings warts and all. It shows how human they were. But you want to make them like they dont have any human feelings and should be saying everything perfectly. This would be unreal and show that we were magical robots who should have always be perfect. I think is shows realness and the reality of our weakness before God. God didn't agree with it but was only trying to work with people in those times of war and destruction just as he is now. He is no more responsible for a religious person who may feel this way nowadays or someone who kills in the name of God. That is a person doing it not God. Now we have the spirit of God which exposes the truth and gives us a way to overcome these things and no resort to the old ways of doing things with the laws.

I'm not going to respond to each and every biblical reference on loving children. The same book that has Yahweh commanding abortion also has other verses about loving babies. It is a contradictory compilation of writings by many authors with many viewpoints, some of whom contradict even themselves.

I dont want you to. But I am just trying to show you that the bible is full of these verses which show the God of love, mercy and forgiveness. The two cant be in the same God so its one or the other. That means that these other verses have some sort of context to be put in. You are taking the one sentence and elevating it without the rest of the passages or book and giving it a meaning that you choose. That is more to do with how you feel than what the verses are actually saying.

 

[BL2KTN]

Yes the scriptures are inspired. The author I quoted has described them as God breathed. That doesn't mean that God wrote them. It means that people who believed in God were inspired to write down things they believed and sometimes felt as a human. It is through the vessel of a imperfect human. In the new testament it is mostly about Jesus and his life and teachings. Some are eye witnesses or claim to be writing from eye witness accounts. The rest is about the growth and teachings to the early church.

So if someone writes something terrible, but they believe in God, it is God-breathed? Who decided Psalms 139 should be called "scripture"?

Also, I'm flabbergasted that you would say "happy is he who dashes their infants upon the rocks" is God-breathed.

The old testament is of a different time in history. Ancient times had a different way of doing things. They were not so informed or had the advantage of long time experience to change and modernize. That is how it was and God didn't control people like puppets. He worked with them for how they were. The law was introduced to stop mayhem. Already the belief and ways were about war and pillaging. This happen throughout the land whether it was to do with the Greeks or the Persians or any nation. Thats what they knew and to us it may have been barbaric but that is the way they ruled. God brought in the mosaic law of an eye for an eye to bring some ordnance to things. He could have controlled everyone and made them obey him by taking peoples free will or he could have destroyed everyone. So he worked with how the people were and where they were at. They were not going to understand anything else because they were humans and thats where history was at.

So God gave His people imperfect teachings because they couldn't handle the truth? Is God Jack Nicholson? How do I know your beliefs aren't just God giving you what you can handle, but they still aren't totally true? Why did God give stupid, useless laws like forcing women to leave everyone while they menstruated? And all of this makes it okay to include "happy is he who dashes their infants upon the rocks" in a God-inspired songbook to sing at church/temple?

So the psalmist is lamenting about what had happened to Gods people. They had been killed, raped and their children killed. He was expressing a desire to have the same happen to the oppressors. It was also a prophesy that came true. But that is what happen in those days. If someone attack and killed others then the same would happen to them. Or at least this was their belief and was how they believed the law worked. God did not say do it or taught to do it. But you keep attributing it to him and not allowing the people to be humans. Humans wrote the bible so they will have all the weaknesses and imperfections like you and me. But you repeated focus on this one sentence and eject the many surrounding ones that also tell the story. You dont focus on the many beautiful psalms but choose only this one sentence. So this is your position and I cant change that. But you have made your point several times and now seem to want to use the same thing over and over again even into irrelevant topics.

So the bible has weaknesses and imperfections? Why should I take it as authoritative if it is weak and imperfect in parts? Who decides which parts are weak and imperfect? Who decides which parts come from God-breathed human imperfection and which parts are God-breathed perfection?

It has various authors but it doesn't have various teachings. The old testament was of that time and is about the law being established and Gods promise of a savior. It is the evolution of time in preparing for the coming of Christ through the line of holy people who had relationships with God. Thought the teachings are about the law they are the same and when Christ came that was the fulfillment of this which was prophesied. The new testament is consistent with the old testament as the fulfillment of the prophesy and Christ says this. The new testament is consistent with what it teaches that Christ is the promised savior which God had sent and we now can come to God through him instead of trying to win favor with God by keeping the laws and always failing because of our weak human fleshly nature. We can accept Christs blood and be made new and creatures that are able to defeat sin and death because Christ did.

The Old Testament says "don't eat pork," the New Testament says "go for it." The Old Testament says "chop off dude's foreskins," the New Testament says "chop not." The

New Testament says:
"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive"
(1 Cor. 15:22)

Old Testament says:
"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin"
(Deut. 24:16)
______________
New Testament says:
"...God alone has immortality...whom no man has ever seen or can see"
(1 Tim. 6:16)

Old Testament says:
"And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel; for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved"
(Gen. 32:30)
_________________
New Testament says:
There is no one righteous, not even one...
(Rom 3:10)

Old Testament says:
The fool says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.
(Psalms 14:1)

Getting the idea?

You keep attributing God with this Psalm as a teaching and that he said it. It was a human saying it with his anguish and feelings warts and all. It shows how human they were. But you want to make them like they dont have any human feelings and should be saying everything perfectly. This would be unreal and show that we were magical robots who should have always be perfect. I think is shows realness and the reality of our weakness before God. God didn't agree with it but was only trying to work with people in those times of war and destruction just as he is now. He is no more responsible for a religious person who may feel this way nowadays or someone who kills in the name of God. That is a person doing it not God. Now we have the spirit of God which exposes the truth and gives us a way to overcome these things and no resort to the old ways of doing things with the laws.

So the Psalms did not have the spirit of God?

I dont want you to. But I am just trying to show you that the bible is full of these verses which show the God of love, mercy and forgiveness. The two cant be in the same God so its one or the other. That means that these other verses have some sort of context to be put in. You are taking the one sentence and elevating it without the rest of the passages or book and giving it a meaning that you choose. That is more to do with how you feel than what the verses are actually saying.

Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, "Strike me!" But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, "Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me." And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him. (1 Kings 20:35-36 NLT)

No child of an incestuous union may be admitted into the community of the Lord, nor any descendent of his even to the tenth generation. (Deuteronomy 23:3 NAB)

The next day an evil spirit from God came over Saul, and he raged in his house. David was in attendance, playing the harp as at other times, while Saul was holding his spear. Saul poised his spear, thinking to nail David to the wall, but twice David escaped him. (1 Samuel 18:10-11 NAB)

No one whose testicles have been crushed or whose penis has been cut off may be admitted into the community of the Lord. (Deuteronomy 23:2 NAB)

The Lord has made everything for his own ends, even the wicked for the evil day. (Proverbs 16:4 NAB)

Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood. (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB)

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man 'against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one's enemies will be those of his household'". (Matthew 10:34-36 NAB)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

I can keep going.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes, you said there that it was simply an expression of anguish. Then I come in here and you say that all scriptures are God-breathed. Which is it? Is "happy is he who dashes their infants upon the rock" simply an expression of anguish (vile, disgusting, immoral expression), or is it God-breathed since it is scripture? You can't have both.

"Terrible" in your opinion. (BTW, by attacking that Psalm you not only attack Christians but also Jews, since that particular psalm is frequently read in Judaism, to remember the loss of Zion and the exile. In fact I'd say that psalm is even more important in Judaism than Christianity).

"Divine inspiration" of the Bible doesn't mean the Bible has to be free of anything offensive to certain sensibilities. It also doesn't mean there was no human influence in the Bible.. The Psalms are hymns written by human beings, they are not God's thoughts about perfect moral conduct.

Everyone has a shadow side, a less than "nice" side, and the Psalms address that. Cynthia Bourgeault, an Episcopal priest, has written a book on chanting the psalms and addresses imprecatory (cursing) psalms- they are basically a way to recognizing ones Jungian shadow, in her estimation, and giving voice to what we feel but do not necessarily acknowledge. Don't knock it until you try it.

You find the Bible confusing... this is not a surprise. Most historic Christian churches with deep intellectual traditions, such as Catholics or Anglicans, do not pretend the Bible is perspecuitous (clear to the unlearned). That's why we have church councils, dogma from those councils recorded in creeds, theology, and church governance. Baptist-style "sola scriptura" is not part and parcel of being Christian or believing in God.

 

[stevevw]

"Terrible" in your opinion. (BTW, by attacking that Psalm you not only attack Christians but also Jews, since that particular psalm is frequently read in Judaism, to remember the loss of Zion and the exile. In fact I'd say that psalm is even more important in Judaism than Christianity).

"Divine inspiration" of the Bible doesn't mean the Bible has to be free of anything offensive to certain sensibilities. It also doesn't mean there was no human influence in the Bible.. The Psalms are hymns written by human beings, they are not God's thoughts about perfect moral conduct.

Everyone has a shadow side, a less than "nice" side, and the Psalms address that. Cynthia Bourgeault, an Episcopal priest, has written a book on chanting the psalms and addresses imprecatory (cursing) psalms- they are basically a way to recognizing ones Jungian shadow, in her estimation, and giving voice to what we feel but do not necessarily acknowledge. Don't knock it until you try it.

You find the Bible confusing... this is not a surprise. Most historic Christian churches with deep intellectual traditions, such as Catholics or Anglicans, do not pretend the Bible is perspecuitous (clear to the unlearned). That's why we have church councils, dogma from those councils recorded in creeds, theology, and church governance. Baptist-style "sola scriptura" is not part and parcel of being Christian or believing in God.

Yeah I think it is amazing that you can find so many different ways that the scriptures can have a meaning. There is a lot of wisdom and knowledge of life and people to be found if you open your heart and mind to them. They can be a counselor and a friend in different times for where a person can be at. Its great how such an old book can be related to in today's world.

 

[BL2KTN]

"Terrible" in your opinion. (BTW, by attacking that Psalm you not only attack Christians but also Jews, since that particular psalm is frequently read in Judaism, to remember the loss of Zion and the exile. In fact I'd say that psalm is even more important in Judaism than Christianity).

I correctly identify the meaning and virtue of text. I am not attacking any person, nor any group. I simply have the audacity to analyze text.

"Divine inspiration" of the Bible doesn't mean the Bible has to be free of anything offensive to certain sensibilities. It also doesn't mean there was no human influence in the Bible.. The Psalms are hymns written by human beings, they are not God's thoughts about perfect moral conduct.

I suspect the joyful, brutal killing of innocent babies - in order to gain revenge on adults - probably offends most sensibilities.

Everyone has a shadow side, a less than "nice" side, and the Psalms address that. Cynthia Bourgeault, an Episcopal priest, has written a book on chanting the psalms and addresses imprecatory (cursing) psalms- they are basically a way to recognizing ones Jungian shadow, in her estimation, and giving voice to what we feel but do not necessarily acknowledge. Don't knock it until you try it.

You want me to chant "happy is he who bashes their infants upon the rocks"? Shall we also chant "happy is he who burns their women alive," or "happy is he who eats a man's still-beating heart"? I don't see that any of those are more reprehensible than the other.

You find the Bible confusing... this is not a surprise.

I do not find it confusing at all. Do you find it confusing? I will be doing a formal debate soon on this site about whether or not the bible is divine... you should check it out.

Most historic Christian churches with deep intellectual traditions, such as Catholics or Anglicans, do not pretend the Bible is perspecuitous (clear to the unlearned).

I have a degree in biblical studies. What exactly have I said which made you think I am "unlearned"?

That's why we have church councils, dogma from those councils recorded in creeds, theology, and church governance. Baptist-style "sola scriptura" is not part and parcel of being Christian or believing in God.

I'm not worried about sola scriptura... I'm worried that you seem inclined to endorse as scripture a text which proclaims joyful infanticide is appropriate revenge.

Here's a direct question, and let's see if you'll answer it:

Do you believe killing innocent infants is appropriate revenge against a society that has wronged you?

Yeah I think it is amazing that you can find so many different ways that the scriptures can have a meaning. There is a lot of wisdom and knowledge of life and people to be found if you open your heart and mind to them. They can be a counselor and a friend in different times for where a person can be at. Its great how such an old book can be related to in today's world.

For the sake of humanity, let us hope nobody opens their heart or mind to Psalm 139.

 

[stevevw]

So if someone writes something terrible, but they believe in God, it is God-breathed? Who decided Psalms 139 should be called "scripture"?
Well i dont know what else I can say. It has already been explained to you and still you will choose to believe in a God of hate so I guess that is what you will believe and nothing is going to satisfy or explain things any other way. You are fixated on it being something God promoted then thats what you will see.

Also, I'm flabbergasted that you would say "happy is he who dashes their infants upon the rocks" is God-breathed.

If you want to see it that way then that is how you will see it. Like it has been said, God did not say it and it is not a instructional thing telling anyone to be like that. It is an expression from someone just like when you may curse someone fro doing something. Its showing a persons feelings warts and all. But you are determined to turn it into something else after being shown this so I guess that is how you will see it and after explaining this several times I cant do anything else. Maybe someone else can give you the answers you are looking for. I am not the best at the old testament and there maybe someone who is versed in the study of these things that can put it better than me.

So God gave His people imperfect teachings because they couldn't handle the truth? Is God Jack Nicholson? How do I know your beliefs aren't just God giving you what you can handle, but they still aren't totally true? Why did God give stupid, useless laws like forcing women to leave everyone while they menstruated? And all of this makes it okay to include "happy is he who dashes their infants upon the rocks" in a God-inspired songbook to sing at church/temple?

As I have said that verse is not a law or instruction or teaching or anything like that. The psalms are poems songs and lamentations. You have to give them some poetic justice and like modern expressions in rap and so forth you have to know and understand where they are coming from. Real people expressing real feelings but also in the context of that time and place.

So the bible has weaknesses and imperfections? Why should I take it as authoritative if it is weak and imperfect in parts? Who decides which parts are weak and imperfect? Who decides which parts come from God-breathed human imperfection and which parts are God-breathed perfection?

The bible isn't weak the humans that wrote it are imperfect. They are the vessel in which God uses and works through. They can trip up and be angry and sin and make mistakes.

The Old Testament says "don't eat pork," the New Testament says "go for it." The Old Testament says "chop off dude's foreskins," the New Testament says "chop not." The

New Testament says:
"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive"
(1 Cor. 15:22)

Old Testament says:
"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin"
(Deut. 24:16)
______________
New Testament says:
"...God alone has immortality...whom no man has ever seen or can see"
(1 Tim. 6:16)

Old Testament says:
"And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel; for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved"
(Gen. 32:30)
_________________
New Testament says:
There is no one righteous, not even one...
(Rom 3:10)

Old Testament says:
The fool says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.
(Psalms 14:1)

Getting the idea?

Now we are moving into a whole area of scripture in which we would have to spend some time understanding. I am not a bible scholar to give it the best support it deserves. But generally as I understand it the new testament and Jesus is the fulfillment of the old testament and the laws.

Because God’s revelation in Scripture is progressive, the New Testament brings into sharper focus principles that were introduced in the Old Testament. The book of Hebrews describes how Jesus is the true High Priest and how His one sacrifice replaces all previous sacrifices, which were mere foreshadowings. The Passover lamb of the Old Testament (Ezra 6:20) becomes the Lamb of God in the New Testament (John 1:29). The Old Testament gives the Law. The New Testament clarifies that the Law was meant to show men their need of salvation and was never intended to be the means of salvation (Romans 3:19).

Read more: Old Testament vs. New Testament - What are the differences?

But things like circumcision are symbolic things to do with Abrahamic laws. Circumcision was a representation of the covenant between God and Abraham.
​

Abram, as part of his covenant with God, was commanded to circumcise his foreskin.

Genesis 17:10
This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male child among you shall be circumcised;

The covenant was with Abraham that God gave the promised land and a great nation would come from him. Many great kings and rulers would come and the nation of the Israelites would be born and eventually the messiah would come from this. This is all prophesied and then fulfilled in the new testament.

So things like Circumcision were symbolic and related to the laws. But then were fulfilled later and God revealed the meaning with the coming of Christ. The cutting of the flesh was the physical and symbolic act of a covenant with God to keep the laws and join with God. But it was also had a spiritual meaning in Christ.
However, Christians still have an act that represents circumcision -- a witness to the acceptance of God's covenant. Since the emphasis is placed on the removal of sin from a person's life, this equivalent act to circumcision represents the removal of sin. "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead" (Colossians 2:11-12).
Why did God command circumcision?

you will have to read the link attached as it explains this in more detail. But as you can see just by one small verse about circumcision there is a lot of meaning to be understood to put it in context and not just pull out a verse and read it on its own. It has context in Jewish laws and symbolism of Jewish times of the covenant with Abraham and has to be read with this in mind.

But it can all be summed up with the coming of Christ and like the law demanded sacrifices to make the people feel clean before God Christs sacrifice was the fulfillment of that law and was the ultimate sacrifice that takes away sin and makes us worthy before God. So by accepting Christ we are born again and live by the spirit and not the flesh which is subject to the laws in which we can never keep as we are always failing to do so.

Romans 10
1Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,…

I will have to answer the rest later as I havnt got time at the moment. But it is also along similar lines to what we are talking about.

 

[BL2KTN]

Well i dont know what else I can say. It has already been explained to you and still you will choose to believe in a God of hate so I guess that is what you will believe and nothing is going to satisfy or explain things any other way. You are fixated on it being something God promoted then thats what you will see.

I do not believe in a god of hate. I do believe that Yahweh of the Old Testament definitely fits the bill as a god of hate much of the time.

Now, if you wouldn't mind, please show me where you (or anybody else) have explained to me in the past why Psalms 139 was chosen to be called "scripture."

If you want to see it that way then that is how you will see it. Like it has been said, God did not say it and it is not a instructional thing telling anyone to be like that. It is an expression from someone just like when you may curse someone fro doing something. Its showing a persons feelings warts and all. But you are determined to turn it into something else after being shown this so I guess that is how you will see it and after explaining this several times I cant do anything else. Maybe someone else can give you the answers you are looking for. I am not the best at the old testament and there maybe someone who is versed in the study of these things that can put it better than me.

Answer me directly, yes or not... would you sing "happy is he who dashes their infants upon the rocks" in church?

That is the purpose of Psalms, and we've even seen other posters suggest I chant such vitriol.

As I have said that verse is not a law or instruction or teaching or anything like that. The psalms are poems songs and lamentations. You have to give them some poetic justice and like modern expressions in rap and so forth you have to know and understand where they are coming from. Real people expressing real feelings but also in the context of that time and place.

So if there was a Psalm about how the faithful should praise God and keep a sharp sword in their hand so they can execute vengeance... that's just an expression right?

The bible isn't weak the humans that wrote it are imperfect. They are the vessel in which God uses and works through. They can trip up and be angry and sin and make mistakes.

So the bible isn't weak, Psalms 139 isn't weak, it was just written perfectly by an imperfect person? So when the imperfect person says a person will be happy if they bash an innocent child on rocks, that statement is perfect but the author is not. Am I getting this?

Now we are moving into a whole area of scripture in which we would have to spend some time understanding. I am not a bible scholar to give it the best support it deserves. But generally as I understand it the new testament and Jesus is the fulfillment of the old testament and the laws.

"But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter in the law to drop out." -- Jesus

"Don’t assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For I assure you: Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all things are accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches people to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." -- Jesus

Because God’s revelation in Scripture is progressive, the New Testament brings into sharper focus principles that were introduced in the Old Testament. The book of Hebrews describes how Jesus is the true High Priest and how His one sacrifice replaces all previous sacrifices, which were mere foreshadowings. The Passover lamb of the Old Testament (Ezra 6:20) becomes the Lamb of God in the New Testament (John 1:29). The Old Testament gives the Law. The New Testament clarifies that the Law was meant to show men their need of salvation and was never intended to be the means of salvation (Romans 3:19).

Would you tell the author of Old Testament vs. New Testament - What are the differences? that I'm currently debating him? I thought I was having a discussion with Stevevw, but that's obviously not the case. And because these aren't Stevevw's thoughts or ideas, when I show why these statements are ridiculous I'd rather have the author to tell that to rather than someone who wasn't able to analyze them to begin with.

But things like circumcision are symbolic things to do with Abrahamic laws. Circumcision was a representation of the covenant between God and Abraham.
Abram, as part of his covenant with God, was commanded to circumcise his foreskin.

Yup. And I take it you don't follow the part of the bible that teaches laws.

The covenant was with Abraham that God gave the promised land and a great nation would come from him. Many great kings and rulers would come and the nation of the Israelites would be born and eventually the messiah would come from this. This is all prophesied and then fulfilled in the new testament.

There is no mention of a messiah in the covenant with Abraham. The prophecies of a grand nation are not fulfilled in the New Testament; in the NT, the Jews have been conquered multiple times over and are now a part of the Roman Empire.

So things like Circumcision were symbolic and related to the laws. But then were fulfilled later and God revealed the meaning with the coming of Christ. The cutting of the flesh was the physical and symbolic act of a covenant with God to keep the laws and join with God. But it was also had a spiritual meaning in Christ.
However, Christians still have an act that represents circumcision -- a witness to the acceptance of God's covenant. Since the emphasis is placed on the removal of sin from a person's life, this equivalent act to circumcision represents the removal of sin. "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead" (Colossians 2:11-12).
Why did God command circumcision?

God did not command circumcision. Circumcision was recorded as being commanded by either the war-god Yahweh, or the chief of all Canaanite gods, El, in an effort to identify true followers of that religion.

you will have to read the link attached as it explains this in more detail. But as you can see just by one small verse about circumcision there is a lot of meaning to be understood to put it in context and not just pull out a verse and read it on its own. It has context in Jewish laws and symbolism of Jewish times of the covenant with Abraham and has to be read with this in mind.

People can imagine a lot of symbolism when they feel the need to do so. Finding symbolism in chopping off part of your genitalia is a stretch, but at least they weren't mutilating women's vaginas.

But it can all be summed up with the coming of Christ and like the law demanded sacrifices to make the people feel clean before God Christs sacrifice was the fulfillment of that law and was the ultimate sacrifice that takes away sin and makes us worthy before God. So by accepting Christ we are born again and live by the spirit and not the flesh which is subject to the laws in which we can never keep as we are always failing to do so.

The law was to make people feel clean before God...? Seriously? Seriously???

"32 While the Israelites were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses, Aaron, and the entire community. 34 They placed him in custody because it had not been decided what should be done to him. 35 Then the Lord told Moses, “The man is to be put to death. The entire community is to stone him outside the camp.” 36 So the entire community brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the Lord had commanded Moses."
-- Numbers 15:32-36

Sure am glad that law kept people feeling Zest-fully clean! And hey, if the whole town had to throw rocks at a man until he died (wonder how long that took and how many rocks hit him in the face, blood running down his body), because he picked up wood on Saturday... at least they felt clean!

Romans 10
1Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,…

"On that day many will say to Me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in Your name, drive out demons in Your name, and do many miracles in Your name?’ Then I will announce to them, ‘I never knew you! Depart from Me, you lawbreakers!" -- Jesus

Which one of these is right?

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

You find the Bible confusing... this is not a surprise. Most historic Christian churches with deep intellectual traditions, such as Catholics or Anglicans, do not pretend the Bible is perspicuous (clear to the unlearned). That's why we have church councils, dogma from those councils recorded in creeds, theology, and church governance. Baptist-style "Sola Scriptura" is not part and parcel of being Christian or believing in God.

And we should remember the following scriptural verses which tell us about the unbeliever, of how they are spiritually dead in their sins and trespasses (Ephesians 2:1-3; Colossians 2:13) and cannot truly understand the things of God (Romans 8:7; 1 Corinthians 2:14).

"The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be (Romans 8:7).

"But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them." (2 Corinthians 4:4)

"These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned"
(1 Corinthians 2:13-14).

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things." (Romans 1:18-23)

"18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” 20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." (1 Corinthians 1:18-25)

 

[BL2KTN]

And we should remember the following scriptural verses which tell us about the unbeliever, of how they are spiritually dead in their sins and trespasses (Ephesians 2:1-3; Colossians 2:13) and cannot truly understand the things of God (Romans 8:7; 1 Corinthians 2:14).

Well, since you - a spiritually alive believer - can understand the things of God, please answer the following:

Why would God not allow men with crushed testicles in the temple?

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

Well, since you - a spiritually alive believer - can understand the things of God, please answer the following:

Why would God not allow men with crushed testicles in the temple?

And why does that matter exactly, especially in the big picture of eternity?

 

[Gadarene]

And why does that matter exactly, especially in the big picture of eternity?

Well, quite - why should it be in there in the first place?

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

Well, quite - why should it be in there in the first place?

Because God put it there, for whatever reason He had for doing so. He is God and He can do whatever He wants.

And so I ask again, why exactly does it matter, especially in the big picture of eternity?

 

[BL2KTN]

And why does that matter exactly, especially in the big picture of eternity?

Please just answer the question: Why would God not allow men with crushed testicles in the temple? You are a true-believer, spiritually alive and able to understand the things of God, are you not?

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

And why won't you just answer my question? I don't understand why you are so obsessed with knowing the answer to your question. It seems like such a foolish question to me. Who cares why God did not allow such men in the temple? Does it matter from the perspective of eternity? No! It does not. Why do you even care? You do not even believe in God in the first place! Why do you care what He did if you don't even believe in His existence? What exactly is your secret agenda for asking this kind of a question? Why would you be upset over something that you don't even believe in?

 

[BL2KTN]

And why won't you just answer my question?

Which question came first?

I don't understand why you are so obsessed with knowing the answer to your question. It seems like such a foolish question to me.

Are you or are you not a true-believer, spiritually alive, able to understand the things of God?

Who cares why God did not allow such men in the temple?

Me.

Does it matter from the perspective of eternity?

Yes.

No! It does not.

Exclamations do not help you communicate.

Why do you care?

Because I don't see any reason for God to disallow injured men from the temple, but you have said that true-believers are spiritually alive and able to understand the things of God. Now I'm beginning to think that is untrue based on your lack of answers.

What is your secret agenda for asking this kind of a question?

I'd tell you, but first I'd have to kill you.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes, you said there that it was simply an expression of anguish. Then I come in here and you say that all scriptures are God-breathed. Which is it? Is "happy is he who dashes their infants upon the rock" simply an expression of anguish (vile, disgusting, immoral expression), or is it God-breathed since it is scripture? You can't have both.



The bible is a contradictory compilation of various teachings by various authors over millenia. In Psalms 139 we have an author who believes killing infants is joyful and appropriate, and someone in captivity chose to elevate it to scripture and have people sing it. The fact that this Psalm doesn't match other viewpoints about God collected over other centuries and included in scripture for other reasons is obvious to see.

Psalm 139 says nothing about killing infants. Which Psalm of David are you referring to?

 

[BL2KTN]

Sorry for the typo: Psalms 137:9

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

I have never researched this kind of topic before. I don't know why in the world I would want to in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, it does not matter. It is a foolish question and I feel it is only being asked to mock God, Christianity, and Christians for being in God and Christianity. A red herring, if you will. Am I wrong? And to answer your question, since I have never taken it upon myself to research this off the wall topic before, you might want to read the Taryag Mitzvot to learn more about the rituals and regulations of the Jewish Temple and religion for yourself. Because as I have already told you, it does not matter to me personally, especially from the perspective of eternity. All I know is God had His own laws, rules and regulations regarding the Jewish Temple and religion for His own reasons. None of that applies to me, as a Christian, today. The reasons why God disallowed men with crushed testicles into the Temple may be interesting or even intriguing history of the Jewish religion to some, but it isn't to me. I'm not Jewish, by ethnicity or religion, so none of that really matters in regards to my personal faith and belief in God Himself. So, you don't see any reason for what God did? So what? Neither do I but I am not God.