Why do the OT and NT contradict so much?

[Kai]

No, fire and brimstone messages NEVER ever work.

Yeah right, tell that to the multi-million dollar industry of charismatic televangelism, the likes of which was pioneered by Oral Roberts. Proponents of the ideal of hell aren't so glamourous, especially when they originally come from a fundamentalist background. The vast number of churchgoers who abandoned Carlton Pearson, for example, is humourous to consider. Millions of Christians are endeared to this idea of hell, and don't want to lend their support to the contrary concept.

 

[R3quiem]

So it has to specifically be a child? It can harm adults, but not kids? The reason I'm pressing you on this is because you're being so broad with your statement.

I used a child as the example because infanticide is one of the more gruesome things in the Bible. If I want to make my statement more accurate, I'd have to broaden it further, by saying I don't mind religion unless it negatively affects other people.

Faith is based on fact. [bible]Hebrews 11:1[/bible]

What is a Muslim's faith based on?

What about the part in Acts, Ananias and Saphira? Lied to the Holy Spirit and died? What about the commands to love your neighbor and love God in the books of the law? What about the common sense relational stuff in Proverbs that goes with the idea of grace and mercy?

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying that the NT has tons of bad stuff in it, just like the OT?

By now I hope you realize that I totally disagree. When you take the entirety of the OT, you get the idea that God cares. If He didn't care, he wouldn't discipline sin. Perhaps you could expand your statement? I've said this before, when you look at the context of the text, it is nearly impossible to the the idea of a hateful, merciless God. I'm talking OT there, not NT.

I never said he was merciless, he does show mercy to some people. Sometimes he forgives, sometimes he kills everyone in the world, etc.

In the OT he cares, but only about the Jewish people. He doesn't seem to regard the lives of non-Jews to be anything worth saving. What made him suddenly start caring about the whole world?

There's a major difference between the two. Nothing in the NT contradicts anything in the OT. The Quran, however, contradicts both.

Haven't you said that you have not read the Qur'an? Where are you getting your information from? Brief summaries?

I've read all three. It seems to me, while all three are quite different, the Qur'an and the OT are a lot more similar than either are to the NT.

Psychologists have examined the writings of the NT and OT and determined that the people writing them were not insane or mentally disturbed in any way. My point is that what they wrote is reliable at least in its historic content.

1. Can you provide reliable sources to back this up?
2. I don't think the majority of the writers were insane, I just think they had a certain point of view in life that their culture gave them, and they expanded on it. They were born believing in God, and so when things happened, they attributed it to God. Just like nowadays, when something good happens to a Christian, they assume God helped them, or when something good happens to a Muslim, Allah willed it. One's point of view shapes everything that they think about, so I don't think the writers were crazy.
3. What do you mean by "reliable in its historic content"? Are you saying that since they were not insane, everything they wrote must be reliable and historical? That's not an acceptable logic jump.

Lest you forget, up to Deuteronomy was written by Moses.

You seem to like to bring up arguments that start with "Most scholars believe..." or "Psychologists have examined..." or something similar, so I'll do the same. Most scholars in this area believe that Moses did not write these books at all, that instead it was Jewish folklore/belief that Moses wrote them.

He's an eyewitness.

Or so he says. He lived what, 3000+ years ago? I can't even be sure he existed, let alone that he has any truth to his statements. My Jewish roommate doesn't even really believe Moses was an actual, living, person.

I figure he may have been real, but a lot could have been exaggerated.

And don't forget Revelation, written by John, who had the revelation.

As I have said, I don't think the majority of the authors were insane. John of Patmos sure seemed to be the exception.

There were multiple authors of the Bible who never contradicted each other.

Later writers had the older scriptures to use as a basis for their story. If they were decent writers, they would not have contradicted anything.

You don't get what I'm saying. Before Jesus came and died, people had to go through priests to have a relationship with God because their sins had to be atoned for through animal sacrifices. After Christ, that need was nullified because Christ's death atoned for the sins of all mankind. It is no longer though a priest. Now it is more direct. Before it was less direct.

I see what you are saying now.

As a side note, the whole "animal sacrifice" thing just makes me believe that this was just another pagan god, and not some universal supreme deity.

That's not what I said. I said 'you cannot expect to hear God without faith'. You've been talking about relational things with God- prayer and seeing results of prayer. I'm saying that generally doesn't happen without faith. That's backed by Jesus, who states, "if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, anything you ask will be given." If, then.
God knows who is really seeking the truth and who is not and acts accordingly.

1. Ah, the mustard seed. I've always wondered about this- if everyone who has faith as small as a mustard seed will have anything they ask given, why do so many people with such faith have things they have asked for not been given?
2. If by "faith as small as a mustard seed" is taken to mean "even a tiny amount of faith", then I would consider myself to have faith as small as a mustard seed. I've asked for stuff that has not been given.
3. As for the idea that God knows who seeks the truth, I agree. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then he knows who earnestly seeks the truth and who does not.

Doesn't matter, that's a moot point given the meaning of my statement.

Well, in your opinion, why does God decide to save some people who don't believe in him and forsake others?

Why? Sin blinds them. That's the simple answer, and I'm sure you knew it was coming. Am I saying I'm without sin? In God's eyes, yes. Otherwise, no. I still sin, but it's covered.

So different denominations disagree because of sin? I thought that the Holy Spirit guides people who believe to the truth. It can't be guiding them all to the truth, if it's guiding them to contradicting theologies.

Is sin stronger than the Holy Spirit?

God does not blind people. He gives them a choice, to respond or not to respond. If people seek real truth, truth is what they get. Sin, the choice to sin, determines the unequal distribution of believers. Not God. To blame people's decisions on God is to say that God has mind control, and I've already been over that with you.

Isaiah 6:9-12
He said, "Go and tell this people:
" 'Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
be ever seeing, but never perceiving.' Make the heart of this people calloused;
make their ears dull
and close their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed."
Then I said, "For how long, O Lord?"
And he answered:
"Until the cities lie ruined
and without inhabitant,
until the houses are left deserted
and the fields ruined and ravaged,
until the LORD has sent everyone far away
and the land is utterly forsaken.


Jesus referenced this when he was telling his disciples why he speaks in parables. Why would God not want people to believe or understand, when doing those very things will save them? Why does God choose to forsake some people?

I know only the basics on demonic possession, but I'm not about to judge all mental illnesses as demonic possession, some are indeed chemical. But what people do with that is different, as you well know.

To me, there seems to be a pretty big issue between God and chemical imbalances. Our brains are what hold our thoughts, our views, our ideas of religion. If people have certain chemical imbalances or brain damage, they can become unable to do certain things that God asks of them- even so much as be moral.

People can even forget and change their religion because of damage to the brain.

I'm saying that every person in the world, to some degree (weak or strong), is religious.

Depends on what you mean by religion.

I'm sure you'd agree that it would be far better to evaluate things as a whole, how things contradict or make sense- critical analysis of the ideas. Not on what stands out. Of course, we might be saying the same thing two different ways.
Is my perspective biased? Of course. Everyone's is. That doesn't mean it's useless.
In fact, if I were to only look at Christianity through the eyes of faith, I would not have much of an open mind. If I were to look at it in different lights, I would, and I do. But I certainly don't sell myself out to such perspectives.

You commented on the biased part, but failed to discuss my point about nothing standing out about Christianity. Shouldn't it stand out from the rest, if it is the only one that is true? What would lead an unreligious person who examines different religions to pick Christianity as the true one?

Unless such interaction would be useless in getting people's attention. If God loves people, He does not interfere in their lives in a harmful way. Hurtful, sure (short term). But not harmful (long term- eternal). God wants genuinely interested people. Not forced belief, or manipulated belief. They have to be seeking. Make sense?

I'm not really sure what your point was here.

Showing people the facts before forcing them to make such an important choice is not manipulation; it's fair.

Ambiguity and mystery are good as they provide people with the opportunity to seek or not to seek, to know or not to know, to believe or not to believe. The choice is theirs to do with what they choose the information that is given to them or available. If their own choices lead them to hell, I'd doubt if more clarity would mean much.

Why do you doubt that more clarity would mean much? If God made it clear to each and every person that he was real and what he wants from us, there would be a lot more people who follow him. They wouldn't be doing it out of manipulation, but because they've been told the truth, and are now able to make a much more complete decision because more complete information has been given to them.

It is intellectually dishonest to say that Jesus did not exist. It is equally intellectually dishonest to deny that He was crucified.
Those sources agree with the fact that Jesus had a brother, something the Bible claims, as well as Jesus being crucified. They verify the Bible's claims to some degree. Not just point to His existence.

But that's exactly what those points do- they just point out that Jesus existed and was crucified. They don't really mention much else.

By the way, this is an interesting debate. I've learned quite a bit. And you've brought up some good points.

Thanks. Debating for the reason of learning is probably the best reason to do it.

 

[CShephard53]

I'll respond tomorrow. I don't have the energy or the patience tonight.

 

[CShephard53]

I used a child as the example because infanticide is one of the more gruesome things in the Bible. If I want to make my statement more accurate, I'd have to broaden it further, by saying I don't mind religion unless it negatively affects other people.

In other words you approach religion subjectively rather than objectively.

What is a Muslim's faith based on?

The 'visions' a guy supposedly had. That contradicted each other often. Like the idea of a loving God or not. 'Allah loveth not transgressors', I believe it is, even after claiming that Allah is loving...
While we're on the subject:

Haven't you said that you have not read the Qur'an? Where are you getting your information from? Brief summaries?

I never said that I hadn't read parts of it. I said that I've never read the Quran. When someone says they haven't read something, they usually mean all of it, at least in my sphere of friends it does.
I've done research on Jihad, so I know quite a few of those passages (the concept of what they say). At the same time I did research on the character of Allah and the problems with the Quran and the OT. So yeah, I've read some. But not nearly all...

I've read all three. It seems to me, while all three are quite different, the Qur'an and the OT are a lot more similar than either are to the NT.

Yes, but Ishmael, per the OT, was not the chosen son of Abraham, whereas in the Quran he is. Contradiction, therefore cannot be a continuation. Muslims will claim that those verses of the Bible are wrong and theirs are right... but they have no evidence to the claim.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying that the NT has tons of bad stuff in it, just like the OT?

Subjective, and the terms are not defined.

I never said he was merciless, he does show mercy to some people. Sometimes he forgives, sometimes he kills everyone in the world, etc.

All deserve to die because of sin. You do realize that, don't you?

In the OT he cares, but only about the Jewish people. He doesn't seem to regard the lives of non-Jews to be anything worth saving. What made him suddenly start caring about the whole world?

To make such a statement shows that you have a severe misunderstanding of the Old Testament. The Jews were to show other nations who God is, but their hearts were hard- they refused.
And God does often regard the lives of non-Jews. Rehab was a fine example. The king Abraham met at one point is another. If he only cared about Jews, he would not reveal himself to non-Jews in the OT.

1. Can you provide reliable sources to back this up?

Read Lee Strobel sometime, Case for Christ and Case for a Creator, though the 'not insane' stuff came from Case for Christ.

2. I don't think the majority of the writers were insane, I just think they had a certain point of view in life that their culture gave them, and they expanded on it. They were born believing in God, and so when things happened, they attributed it to God. Just like nowadays, when something good happens to a Christian, they assume God helped them, or when something good happens to a Muslim, Allah willed it. One's point of view shapes everything that they think about, so I don't think the writers were crazy.

Unless what they recorded was reliable fact, in which case there would be no disputes in other writings at the time about the truth claims. And there are not any. The other explanation is that they are insane and no one wanted to bother.

3. What do you mean by "reliable in its historic content"? Are you saying that since they were not insane, everything they wrote must be reliable and historical? That's not an acceptable logic jump.

No, I'm not saying that, and I'd prefer that you don't assume things about what I do not directly say. Read what I wrote above...

You seem to like to bring up arguments that start with "Most scholars believe..." or "Psychologists have examined..." or something similar, so I'll do the same. Most scholars in this area believe that Moses did not write these books at all, that instead it was Jewish folklore/belief that Moses wrote them.

Most scholars in that area, hmm? So how come most Christian theologians who have doctorates and articles and such on the topic firmly hold to and have evidence for Moses being the author? How come there are Jewish scholars who hold to Moses being the author?
And nevermind that, what you're suggesting is that there was someone other than Moses present when God spoke to him on Mt. Sinai. I highly doubt Moses, the leader of thousands, would ever be able to remember and dictate everything God said to him, especially the laws. And we're told Moses was alone. Thus, the only logical writer would have been Moses.

Or so he says. He lived what, 3000+ years ago? I can't even be sure he existed, let alone that he has any truth to his statements. My Jewish roommate doesn't even really believe Moses was an actual, living, person.

I figure he may have been real, but a lot could have been exaggerated.

So, do you think Plato was real? Aristotle? How about the Babylonians? Syrians? Philistines?

As I have said, I don't think the majority of the authors were insane. John of Patmos sure seemed to be the exception.

Though he wrote four other books? That had perfectly sane claims? Lee Strobel, once again. He quotes several psychologists that are fairly well known and respected in their field.

Later writers had the older scriptures to use as a basis for their story. If they were decent writers, they would not have contradicted anything.

So 66 books with mostly different authors not contradicting each other isn't amazing to you? If they were decent writers. The huge problem with that is that people did not have as much access to the Scriptures that we do today. Most of it had to be memorized if they wanted to 'carry it with them' from the select few that had them. Yet nothing contradicts.

As a side note, the whole "animal sacrifice" thing just makes me believe that this was just another pagan god, and not some universal supreme deity.

That is your opinion, for all its worth. And in this argument, it has none at all.

1. Ah, the mustard seed. I've always wondered about this- if everyone who has faith as small as a mustard seed will have anything they ask given, why do so many people with such faith have things they have asked for not been given?

Um, you're missing a huge part. It has to be within God's will. Jesus says that word for word in John. And within God's timing, Ecclesiastes 3.

2. If by "faith as small as a mustard seed" is taken to mean "even a tiny amount of faith", then I would consider myself to have faith as small as a mustard seed. I've asked for stuff that has not been given.

Again, within God's will and timing. That's what 'in my name' means. Look at the Greek for name, and you'll see what I mean.

3. As for the idea that God knows who seeks the truth, I agree. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then he knows who earnestly seeks the truth and who does not.

Good, then.

Well, in your opinion, why does God decide to save some people who don't believe in him and forsake others?

God decide? Where is that in the Bible? God forsakes only those who show by their actions, attitudes, and beliefs that they are not willing to be saved. Jesus calls it blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Moses calls it hardening of the heart. It's the same thing.

So different denominations disagree because of sin? I thought that the Holy Spirit guides people who believe to the truth. It can't be guiding them all to the truth, if it's guiding them to contradicting theologies.

People willingly sin, and those people cannot fully follow the will of God.

Is sin stronger than the Holy Spirit?

Only because people let it be. They choose to have sin be more important than God.

Isaiah 6:9-12
He said, "Go and tell this people:
" 'Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
be ever seeing, but never perceiving.' Make the heart of this people calloused;
make their ears dull
and close their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed."
Then I said, "For how long, O Lord?"
And he answered:
"Until the cities lie ruined
and without inhabitant,
until the houses are left deserted
and the fields ruined and ravaged,
until the LORD has sent everyone far away
and the land is utterly forsaken.


Jesus referenced this when he was telling his disciples why he speaks in parables. Why would God not want people to believe or understand, when doing those very things will save them? Why does God choose to forsake some people?

You didn't look at the historical context of the verse, did you? The people in that day were proud, having had a king who was proud and put his trust in military might. The people's hearts were hard already. They did not need God's help to blind them.

To me, there seems to be a pretty big issue between God and chemical imbalances. Our brains are what hold our thoughts, our views, our ideas of religion. If people have certain chemical imbalances or brain damage, they can become unable to do certain things that God asks of them- even so much as be moral.

People can even forget and change their religion because of damage to the brain.

To you there seems to be an issue. Sin is in the world. That's the issue. I'm not saying people's sins directly cause their ailments, but I am saying that sin causes ailments.

You commented on the biased part, but failed to discuss my point about nothing standing out about Christianity.

I've addressed it a couple times already.

Shouldn't it stand out from the rest, if it is the only one that is true?

What do you mean, shouldn't it? It does and it is. The stuff I've given you should be plenty for any rational common sense person.

What would lead an unreligious person who examines different religions to pick Christianity as the true one?

Odds. Probability. Outstanding claims and outstanding evidence to back those claims.

I'm not really sure what your point was here.

Showing people the facts before forcing them to make such an important choice is not manipulation; it's fair.

My point is that if people want to sin, God lets them. If people want to seek Him, God will reveal Himself to them eventually- when the timing is right.

Why do you doubt that more clarity would mean much?

Because I know how people work and I know how God works. People are going to believe what they want to believe, regardless of the facts.

If God made it clear to each and every person that he was real and what he wants from us, there would be a lot more people who follow him.

Is there a case study on this? Is there an experiment that would prove your point?

They wouldn't be doing it out of manipulation, but because they've been told the truth, and are now able to make a much more complete decision because more complete information has been given to them.

Do they want to believe or not? That is what it depends upon.

But that's exactly what those points do- they just point out that Jesus existed and was crucified. They don't really mention much else.

Just because I don't mention that my clock is an atomic clock doesn't mean it isn't an atomic clock.


Are you here to learn? Or are you here to prove a point? If both, fine, but not fine if just the latter.

 

[R3quiem]

Ugh- I nearly finished a response and my computer had problems. I had to type a new one, so it's considerably shorter than I first had it.

In other words you approach religion subjectively rather than objectively.

Depends what you mean by "approach". I ask for objective evidence supporting it, but I am subjective when it comes to what I will tolerate. If a religion hurts other people, I'm not a fan of it, and unfortunately, most religions have hurt a lot of people.

The 'visions' a guy supposedly had. That contradicted each other often. Like the idea of a loving God or not. 'Allah loveth not transgressors', I believe it is, even after claiming that Allah is loving...

Allah is not said to love everyone in the Qur'an. He loves whom he loves, he does not love whom he does not love.

Christianity on the other hand has the idea that God loves everyone, he hates sin but he loves the sinner. Did he love the people he drowned in the flood? Did he love the women and children he ordered to be killed in various parts of the OT? Did he love the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Psalm 11
The LORD examines the righteous,
but the wicked and those who love violence
his soul hates.
On the wicked he will rain
fiery coals and burning sulfur;
a scorching wind will be their lot.
For the LORD is righteous,
he loves justice;
upright men will see his face.

God examines the righteous, hates the unrighteous and does bad things to them.

All deserve to die because of sin. You do realize that, don't you?

Do I realize that? Not really. I realize that nobody is perfect, but that's how we were created. If god wants to make imperfect creations and then give us perfect standards, then there's not much I can do about it, can I?

I'm sure you're already to bring out the idea that God made us perfect but we choose to sin. Where was I when Adam sinned? 1. I don't believe Adam existed and 2. Even if I did, I wasn't there. I didn't ask to be born with original sin, or to be born at all, but it happened. I was born imperfect with no say in the matter, and am judged by perfect standards.

As for death, do you mean physical death or the eternal, agonizing, "conscious death" that Christians like to threaten people with?

To make such a statement shows that you have a severe misunderstanding of the Old Testament. The Jews were to show other nations who God is, but their hearts were hard- they refused.
And God does often regard the lives of non-Jews. Rehab was a fine example. The king Abraham met at one point is another. If he only cared about Jews, he would not reveal himself to non-Jews in the OT.

Sure God deals with other people too, but focuses mostly on the Jews. My point is, God started out as a god of a certain people that required animal sacrifices and such just like an pagan deity, and is now some creator of the universe.

Did God reveal himself to the ancient Chinese around this time? The Native Americans? The Africans?

Most scholars in that area, hmm? So how come most Christian theologians who have doctorates and articles and such on the topic firmly hold to and have evidence for Moses being the author? How come there are Jewish scholars who hold to Moses being the author?
And nevermind that, what you're suggesting is that there was someone other than Moses present when God spoke to him on Mt. Sinai. I highly doubt Moses, the leader of thousands, would ever be able to remember and dictate everything God said to him, especially the laws. And we're told Moses was alone. Thus, the only logical writer would have been Moses.

1. Christian and Jewish scholars? Of course they're going to have a particular view.
2. Your second paragraph here is entirely subjective.

So 66 books with mostly different authors not contradicting each other isn't amazing to you? If they were decent writers. The huge problem with that is that people did not have as much access to the Scriptures that we do today. Most of it had to be memorized if they wanted to 'carry it with them' from the select few that had them. Yet nothing contradicts.

In the Bible, often when Jesus was asked something, he responded with "You've read the scriptures..." and then go on to explain something. He seemed to believe people had access to the scriptures.

Um, you're missing a huge part. It has to be within God's will. Jesus says that word for word in John. And within God's timing, Ecclesiastes 3.

Again, within God's will and timing. That's what 'in my name' means. Look at the Greek for name, and you'll see what I mean.

I didn't miss the part about God's will- I knew you'd bring it up
Now that you have, I must point out that "Anything you ask will be given" and "Only God's will will be done" are contradictory. NOT anything I ask will be given if God doesn't want it to happen.

God decide? Where is that in the Bible? God forsakes only those who show by their actions, attitudes, and beliefs that they are not willing to be saved. Jesus calls it blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Moses calls it hardening of the heart. It's the same thing.

You didn't look at the historical context of the verse, did you? The people in that day were proud, having had a king who was proud and put his trust in military might. The people's hearts were hard already. They did not need God's help to blind them.

So God forsakes those who have hard hearts? Wouldn't they be the very people who need him the most?

Only because people let it be. They choose to have sin be more important than God.

Isn't the purpose of the Holy Spirit to guide people? It's a pretty weak guide if people have to do everything themselves. In fact, that would make it not a guide at all.

My point is that if people want to sin, God lets them. If people want to seek Him, God will reveal Himself to them eventually- when the timing is right.

Where is his timing when non-Christians die? Many of them seek the truth, but go unanswered.

Because I know how people work and I know how God works.

That's quite a confident statement.

People are going to believe what they want to believe, regardless of the facts.

This probably emphasizes my point better than I could have said it. People ARE going to believe whatever they want, and no amount of facts or anything will convince them otherwise. That's probably why religion exists. People want to believe there is something more, that death is not the end. People want to believe that someone is watching over them. Regardless of what the truth is, people are going to believe what they want to believe.

Is there a case study on this? Is there an experiment that would prove your point?

Well if I had an unmistakable experience where God talked to me, I would believe in him.

Do they want to believe or not? That is what it depends upon.

Believe in what? It's not just a believe or not situation. It's WHAT to believe in.

Just because I don't mention that my clock is an atomic clock doesn't mean it isn't an atomic clock.

I'm not sure how this relates to what I said. I'm not using the argument that since they don't mention the miracles, they certainly didn't happen. I'm just saying that all those things mention is that Jesus was around, had a brother, and was crucified. That's it. I already think that it's pretty probable that Jesus existed one way or another.


If you don't mention that your clock is an atomic clock doesn't mean it's not an atomic clock, but it certainly doesn't give me any reason to think that it IS an atomic clock.

Are you here to learn? Or are you here to prove a point? If both, fine, but not fine if just the latter.

My main reason is to learn. I do find debating interesting though- both sides usually learn a lot. I try to bring up interesting points and see how people answer them.

 

[CShephard53]

You've not listened to a word I said. Your responses show this.

God didn't make people flawed, they chose to be that way by sinning.

People with hard hearts have hard hearts. That means they're not changing their mind. A wasted effort.

Jesus never said 'you've read the Scriptures', it was 'You have heard it said...' Huge difference, and totally proves my point rather than disagreeing with it.

Now that you have, I must point out that "Anything you ask will be given" and "Only God's will will be done" are contradictory. NOT anything I ask will be given if God doesn't want it to happen.

What, are you blind? You've claimed to have read the Bible. Do you understand a word of it? Your posts suggest otherwise.
Joh 14:13 "Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
Joh 14:14 "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.

Where's the contradiction there?

I could go on to make similar cases against everything else you wrote, but it doesn't matter because for the past couple responses, you haven't listened to a word I said. You've been backpedalling in your arguments- going back to points I've already argued against, points I've already either directly or indirectly answered. You have also neglected most of what the Bible says. You think this, you think that. The Bible is meant to be understood, interpreted, and applied a certain way- that is how its authors intended it. And you are going outside of that.

So rather than me wasting my time with words, choose what you'll do. Are you going to get offended by what I said and reject it, or are you going to stick with the open mind approach and at least try to understand Christianity as it's meant to be understood? Are you going to claim you have points (which are easily dispelled in the Bible), or are you going to actually read the Bible instead of taking bits and pieces out of it to suit your argument?
What is your choice?

 

[R3quiem]

You've not listened to a word I said. Your responses show this.

Of course I've been paying attention to what you've written. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I haven't thought about all of it.

God didn't make people flawed, they chose to be that way by sinning.

This is what I said I knew you'd bring up.

One of the main principles of Christianity is the concept of "Original Sin", is it not? All have sinned, all are BORN with sin. We don't choose to be born sinful. Even people who try to not sin still sin, right?

People with hard hearts have hard hearts. That means they're not changing their mind. A wasted effort.

First of all, if God can't get to hard-hearted people, then he's not as powerful or creative as we make him out to be.

Second of all, if he's GOD, he has unlimited effort, waste doesn't have meaning with him.

Jesus never said 'you've read the Scriptures', it was 'You have heard it said...' Huge difference, and totally proves my point rather than disagreeing with it.

Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures:
" 'The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone;
the Lord has done this,
and it is marvelous in our eyes?

John 5:36-40
I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me. And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

What, are you blind? You've claimed to have read the Bible. Do you understand a word of it? Your posts suggest otherwise.
Joh 14:13 "Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
Joh 14:14 "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.

Where's the contradiction there?

The contradiction is- not everything I ask for will be given. If God exists, I don't even know what he wants from me or for me, so asking for things would be like guess work.

And do I understand the scriptures? Do you? Christians can't agree on what the scriptures say, what makes you think that your denomination or interpretation is correct? Perhaps if they were written more clearly or concisely, they would be better for interpretation.

I could go on to make similar cases against everything else you wrote, but it doesn't matter because for the past couple responses, you haven't listened to a word I said. You've been backpedalling in your arguments- going back to points I've already argued against, points I've already either directly or indirectly answered. You have also neglected most of what the Bible says. You think this, you think that. The Bible is meant to be understood, interpreted, and applied a certain way- that is how its authors intended it. And you are going outside of that.

I'm going back to previous arguments because I haven't seen good answers for them yet, and sometimes you bring up a point that directly relates to a previous argument, so I bring it up again.

So rather than me wasting my time with words, choose what you'll do. Are you going to get offended by what I said and reject it,

I haven't gotten offended...

or are you going to stick with the open mind approach and at least try to understand Christianity as it's meant to be understood? Are you going to claim you have points (which are easily dispelled in the Bible), or are you going to actually read the Bible instead of taking bits and pieces out of it to suit your argument?
What is your choice?

Try to understand Christianity? I was a Christian for just about my whole life. The more I read the Bible, the less faith I had. The more I went to church, the more it seemed fake.

And the "bits and pieces" I'm taking out aren't to suit my argument, they are the very things that have given me these arguments. Reading the OT as a whole portrays a very violent god.

 

[CShephard53]

Of course I've been paying attention to what you've written. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I haven't thought about all of it.

Still, you're looking at it from your point of view, still keeping things way out of context with the rest of the Bible.

This is what I said I knew you'd bring up.

One of the main principles of Christianity is the concept of "Original Sin", is it not? All have sinned, all are BORN with sin. We don't choose to be born sinful. Even people who try to not sin still sin, right?

All have sinned, beginning with Adam and Eve. And all, regardless of how sinless they'd like to be, sin and want to sin far before they'd like to stop. Yes, even little kids raised in the faith. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Romans 3:22-23.

First of all, if God can't get to hard-hearted people, then he's not as powerful or creative as we make him out to be.

God limits His power, this is clearly seen in Scripture. The best example is how He doesn't sin. He has the power to, but chooses limit Himself.

Second of all, if he's GOD, he has unlimited effort, waste doesn't have meaning with him.

You have quite a few assumptions that aren't backed by the Bible. Just because God has unlimited strength doesn't mean He uses all of it. He limits it. Does that make sense? Do we understand that? Of course not. That's why 1 Corinthians 13:12 was written.

Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures:
" 'The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone;
the Lord has done this,
and it is marvelous in our eyes?

John 5:36-40
I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me. And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

Jesus is talking to the Pharisees, Sadducees, and other Jewish priests- not to common people, and if there are common people around they are not the one asking the original questions that leads Jesus to say what He says in those instances.

The contradiction is- not everything I ask for will be given. If God exists, I don't even know what he wants from me or for me, so asking for things would be like guess work.

It's generally revealed in the Bible and specifically revealed through the Holy Spirit and through prayer. It's not guesswork. Nor is it contradiction...

And do I understand the scriptures? Do you?

I do not understand them fully, no one can. But that doesn't mean you cannot know what they say. That's a jump in logic. But I understand enough to honor God.
The point is that we understand what it says, not why it says.

Christians can't agree on what the scriptures say, what makes you think that your denomination or interpretation is correct?

I'm nondenominational, thank you. What makes me think mine is correct? The Spirit. But that moves into an area within Christianity that you're not going to understand at all.

Perhaps if they were written more clearly or concisely, they would be better for interpretation.

They are very clear. You can't get much more clear than 'do not murder' or 'abide in me' or 'love one another'. I could list dozens of them if I wanted to.

Try to understand Christianity? I was a Christian for just about my whole life. The more I read the Bible, the less faith I had. The more I went to church, the more it seemed fake.

Of course church seems fake. It's got people who aren't really Christians in it. They put on masks. You have no guarantee that people really are Christians unless they are real with you. And the churches like that are few and far between, unfortunately.
Christianity isn't just about reading the Bible. It's about living it. That's 90% of it right there. And your thing says you're 20. Most of your life is childhood or adolescence. That doesn't count for much, as most of your life you haven't had an adult understanding of things. And no, I'm not claiming I always had that. I'm saying you really aren't convincing me of anything. Especially the validity of your understanding of the Bible.

And the "bits and pieces" I'm taking out aren't to suit my argument, they are the very things that have given me these arguments.

Yeah, except they're bits and pieces. Doesn't give you much of an argument.

Reading the OT as a whole portrays a very violent god.

You've yet to address the comments I've made about 'love the Lord your God...' and 'love your neighbor as yourself'. That's in the OT. Leviticus 19:18 for the 'love your neighbor'. Deuteronomy 6:5 for loving God.
Or the bit about the Israelites not keeping to what God commanded them. Or the balance of characteristics.
You didn't make any argument for them at the time. You just keep quoting parts about God killing people, completely ignoring that stuff.

 

[R3quiem]

Still, you're looking at it from your point of view, still keeping things way out of context with the rest of the Bible.

Part of the reason for making the thread was to see how it fits together. To me, when reading it, it certainly doesn't fit together.

All have sinned, beginning with Adam and Eve. And all, regardless of how sinless they'd like to be, sin and want to sin far before they'd like to stop. Yes, even little kids raised in the faith. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Romans 3:22-23.

Who's fault is that?

God limits His power, this is clearly seen in Scripture. The best example is how He doesn't sin. He has the power to, but chooses limit Himself.

You have quite a few assumptions that aren't backed by the Bible. Just because God has unlimited strength doesn't mean He uses all of it. He limits it. Does that make sense? Do we understand that? Of course not. That's why 1 Corinthians 13:12 was written.

So is your argument here that God can save everyone, but chooses not to save some people?

Jesus is talking to the Pharisees, Sadducees, and other Jewish priests- not to common people, and if there are common people around they are not the one asking the original questions that leads Jesus to say what He says in those instances.

The original argument here that we are going back and forth on is about how much access the writers of the bible had to the older scriptures. The people that wrote the newer parts of the Bible were probably not "common people", in that they are literate. If they can read and write, they probably had access to read the scriptures.

It's generally revealed in the Bible and specifically revealed through the Holy Spirit and through prayer. It's not guesswork. Nor is it contradiction...

On occasion when I pray, I feel that just about everything I pray for is reasonable and things that God wouldn't mind answering. Most of the things aren't about me, and the ones that are are about important things. Good or bad prayer though, doesn't seem to change the outcome.

I do not understand them fully, no one can. But that doesn't mean you cannot know what they say. That's a jump in logic. But I understand enough to honor God.
The point is that we understand what it says, not why it says.

But it says a bunch of different things that don't go together. It also says things that contradict all the evidence we have about our world.

I'm nondenominational, thank you.

I wasn't sure if you were or not, so that's why I included "interpretation" in there as an alternative to denomination

What makes me think mine is correct? The Spirit. But that moves into an area within Christianity that you're not going to understand at all.

Do the Christians who hold up signs that say "God hates [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]" have the Spirit in them too? Did the Christians that went on the Crusades have the Spirit in them?

They are very clear. You can't get much more clear than 'do not murder' or 'abide in me' or 'love one another'. I could list dozens of them if I wanted to.

The NT is clear, but it's very much different than the unclear OT. "Do not murder" becomes a lot less clear when God commands his people to kill.

Of course church seems fake. It's got people who aren't really Christians in it. They put on masks. You have no guarantee that people really are Christians unless they are real with you. And the churches like that are few and far between, unfortunately.
Christianity isn't just about reading the Bible. It's about living it. That's 90% of it right there. And your thing says you're 20. Most of your life is childhood or adolescence. That doesn't count for much, as most of your life you haven't had an adult understanding of things. And no, I'm not claiming I always had that. I'm saying you really aren't convincing me of anything. Especially the validity of your understanding of the Bible.

It may not count for much, but it counts for all that I know. I can only go by events that have happened in my lifetime, and so far those events do not seem to indicate the presence of a loving, omnipotent god.

Yeah, except they're bits and pieces. Doesn't give you much of an argument.

My original argument is that the OT as a whole is opposed to the NT as a whole. Can't get much more broad of an argument than that.

You've yet to address the comments I've made about 'love the Lord your God...' and 'love your neighbor as yourself'. That's in the OT. Leviticus 19:18 for the 'love your neighbor'. Deuteronomy 6:5 for loving God.
Or the bit about the Israelites not keeping to what God commanded them. Or the balance of characteristics.
You didn't make any argument for them at the time. You just keep quoting parts about God killing people, completely ignoring that stuff.

So he's contradictory. I realize that there are parts in the OT that preach peace. Sometimes God wants you to love your neighbor and be merciful, sometimes he wants you to show no mercy and kill people. It's not straightforward or clear.

 

[CShephard53]

Part of the reason for making the thread was to see how it fits together. To me, when reading it, it certainly doesn't fit together.

Then perhaps you should listen to people who say it does instead of questioning them.

Who's fault is that?

Certainly not God's. It was Adam and Eve, and Satan. You really cannot logically give God the blame.

So is your argument here that God can save everyone, but chooses not to save some people?

I certainly wouldn't say it like that. God certainly can save everyone, but it would violate His character to do so, given the sinful nature of the world. God wants joyful obedience, not forced labor. It's not more that God chooses not to save some, it's that they don't want to be saved.

The original argument here that we are going back and forth on is about how much access the writers of the bible had to the older scriptures. The people that wrote the newer parts of the Bible were probably not "common people", in that they are literate. If they can read and write, they probably had access to read the scriptures.

That's not a good if then statement. It's inaccurate. Because it assumes that the writers of the Bible had the same kind of access to earlier writings that we have today, which, going back to my original point, is not the case. They could not compare everything side by side to the degree that we can today, and certainly not with the same efficiency. The point being that it would be impossible for the Bible writers to write what they did without contradiction unless they did nothing else during their lifetime, or unless God was guiding them directly.

On occasion when I pray, I feel that just about everything I pray for is reasonable and things that God wouldn't mind answering. Most of the things aren't about me, and the ones that are are about important things. Good or bad prayer though, doesn't seem to change the outcome.

Timing?

But it says a bunch of different things that don't go together. It also says things that contradict all the evidence we have about our world.

Right. Examples, please?

Do the Christians who hold up signs that say "God hates [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]" have the Spirit in them too? Did the Christians that went on the Crusades have the Spirit in them?

Probably not.

The NT is clear, but it's very much different than the unclear OT. "Do not murder" becomes a lot less clear when God commands his people to kill.

Do you understand the difference between murder and killing?

It may not count for much, but it counts for all that I know. I can only go by events that have happened in my lifetime, and so far those events do not seem to indicate the presence of a loving, omnipotent god.

You're relying on subjective junk again.

My original argument is that the OT as a whole is opposed to the NT as a whole. Can't get much more broad of an argument than that.

It is not much of an argument if there is not much evidence to it.

So he's contradictory. I realize that there are parts in the OT that preach peace. Sometimes God wants you to love your neighbor and be merciful, sometimes he wants you to show no mercy and kill people. It's not straightforward or clear.

Where is the 'be merciful' part of it in those passages I quoted?

How it it unloving to kill someone? Especially if their heart is hardened enough not to change, and all they'll do is bring more evil into the world and harden more hearts?
How is it loving to show mercy all the time?
It requires wisdom, much of which is gained through experience and seen in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, to know God's timing. But that's usually for general stuff. Not specific. Thus, prayer and spending time with God.

 

[R3quiem]

Certainly not God's. It was Adam and Eve, and Satan. You really cannot logically give God the blame.

God put them in a garden, told them not to eat from that one tree, then put that tree smack in the middle of the garden, then let Satan in to mess with them. He knew exactly what would happen.

I certainly wouldn't say it like that. God certainly can save everyone, but it would violate His character to do so, given the sinful nature of the world. God wants joyful obedience, not forced labor. It's not more that God chooses not to save some, it's that they don't want to be saved.

God is vague, hidden, and if the Bible portrays him correctly, violent. Perhaps I shouldn't expect much out of him, reading about his past and all.

That's not a good if then statement. It's inaccurate. Because it assumes that the writers of the Bible had the same kind of access to earlier writings that we have today, which, going back to my original point, is not the case. They could not compare everything side by side to the degree that we can today, and certainly not with the same efficiency. The point being that it would be impossible for the Bible writers to write what they did without contradiction unless they did nothing else during their lifetime, or unless God was guiding them directly.

I see this argument going nowhere. We're arguing over whether or not these people could logically continue to lengthen this book without forming any contradictions, and yet from reading it, I see tons of contradictions.

Timing?

Yeah, you're probably right. I'm sure he's just saying "wait" to every prayer, hiding in the shadows, and pretending to not exist.

Right. Examples, please?

Genesis doesn't work with evolution.

The OT is a violent, terrible story with little or no relevance for today.

Probably not.

Then Christianity holds no weight.

Gandhi:
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

Do you understand the difference between murder and killing?

Yes, and what God does in the OT is murder. Killing an enemy in war to defend a country, or to kill bad people to save good people is killing.
Killing unarmed women and children is murder.

You're relying on subjective junk again.

It's not subjective, it's objective from a personal perspective. Sounds like a contradiction, but it isn't really. I can't see God, hear God, understand God, have any reason to believe in God, know which god or group of gods is real, if any, etc. Maybe other people have experienced miracles or have some kind of proof, but I do not. Therefore, until I see a reason to believe, I will not.

It is not much of an argument if there is not much evidence to it.

The entire Bible is the evidence against itself.

It requires wisdom, much of which is gained through experience and seen in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, to know God's timing. But that's usually for general stuff. Not specific. Thus, prayer and spending time with God.

Can't spend time with someone who I don't even know. If he hasn't shown to me that he exists, there is no way for me to spend time with him.

Then perhaps you should listen to people who say it does instead of questioning them.

Sigh...Like I said, just because I am debating doesn't mean I am not listening.

I've decided that Christianity just isn't for me. I like the morality teachings of Jesus, but I don't see any reason to believe in any of it. I don't really like the religion, it has done terrible things in the past and suppresses knowledge. It threatens people with Hell to believe in something contradictory to everything they know about the world.

People feel free to continue posting on this thread, and I'll read them, but I'm done arguing after this post. Thanks for your time, jawsmetroid.

 

[CShephard53]

All I'll respond with is that you still have yet to back your claims. The argument isn't going to go anywhere unless you do, but seeing as you are done arguing, I guess we won't see evidence for your claims after all.

 

[R3quiem]

All I'll respond with is that you still have yet to back your claims. The argument isn't going to go anywhere unless you do, but seeing as you are done arguing, I guess we won't see evidence for your claims after all.

Wow, I couldn't even stay away from responding for like 10 minutes. -_-`.

The point of this thread was to try to understand how the NT and OT fit together. I asked for clarification, for a reason to believe, and it is unanswered. You may have posted things, but they have failed to convince me. I guess it was foolish of me to expect anything out of this thread to convince me. Maybe if I get to witness a miracle or something, but just about anything anyone says to convince me just won't.

My "claims" and "arguments" are not really those things- they are questions. You believe in certain things, I don't. I believe in nothing that I have to back up. I don't even believe in atheism, I just have a big old "?".

 

[CShephard53]

Wow, I couldn't even stay away from responding for like 10 minutes. -_-`.

The point of this thread was to try to understand how the NT and OT fit together. I asked for clarification, for a reason to believe, and it is unanswered. You may have posted things, but they have failed to convince me. I guess it was foolish of me to expect anything out of this thread to convince me. Maybe if I get to witness a miracle or something, but just about anything anyone says to convince me just won't.

My "claims" and "arguments" are not really those things- they are questions. You believe in certain things, I don't. I believe in nothing that I have to back up. I don't even believe in atheism, I just have a big old "?".

They are not question, you've made claims. Which have not been backed. I've thoroughly answered your questions, but you have not understood them. I've given evidence, but you've neglected to seek understanding. The answers are there.

 

[CShephard53]

And finally, it is not my job to convince you of anything.

 

[R3quiem]

And finally, it is not my job to convince you of anything.

Then why did you post in this thread? To argue?

 

[R3quiem]

They are not question, you've made claims. Which have not been backed. I've thoroughly answered your questions, but you have not understood them. I've given evidence, but you've neglected to seek understanding. The answers are there.

If you say so. The last time I discussed things with some Muslims down in the non-christian area, they said the same exact thing.

 

[CShephard53]

That doesn't prove anything.