Why do the OT and NT contradict so much?

[R3quiem]

Sure it was wrong... in my book!
Of course I realize they thought they were right!
But if they are to be judged by International Standards, religious convictions have to be tossed out in favor of survival imperatives. Self-defense must be defined in terms of immediate threat, not ideological; imperatives, right?

Sure, the Jews were under more immediate threats than Islam. 9/11 wasn't done solely ideological, though- many believe they are being oppressed by more developed nations such as America.

And going back to the Jews situation- here's another verse.

Deuteronomy 13:6-11
If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

Kill your best friend because he decided to worship a different God. It also points out that you should be the person killing your best friend, you need to be the first putting him to death, and then we can all have a nice group stoning.

To me, God of the OT seems to be a tribalistic, war-God. He seems insecure- like he needs worshipers to feel ok. Sounds more like Zeus or Ares than the God Jesus described. This is why I doubt the OT- it starts off with a God of a specific nation, with more of a more human personality including feelings like jealousy and such, and some type of huge issue against all the other Gods. This shared so much in common with pagan religions around them- like I said, YHWH here sounds a lot like one of the Greek gods. Then overtime, as we changed, our view of God has changed. He went from being a war-God of a nation, to the loving creator of the universe.

It would be the same if I were to crash a C132 full of C1-4 & cyanide into downtown Mecca. A great strategic move, but a lousy blow against World Peace.
I'd rather be a multi-billionaire and start makin' cars that ran on the Joe Cell.
http://www.thejoecell.com/
That would realy hit 'em where it hurts!

Nice.

 

[CShephard53]

So you're saying that you'd kill a baby because God is omnipotent and has the power to send you to heaven or hell? That pretty much means you'd kill a baby for entirely selfish reasons.

How is questioning God's love a lame argument? God in the NT seems pretty moral and god-like, but God in the OT sounds a lot like Ares, the Greek God of war on steroids.

Seems like. That's your perspective of Him. That's your opinion of Him, and that is precisely why it is a weak argument. It relies on feelings, human ideas, rather than logic and an absolute. You rely on what you think to judge God, rather than judging Him within the context of the Bible.

And my reasons are not selfish. Since God, by definition is love and good (cannot sin), anything He tells me to do is for the good of others- that I follow what He says means that I do not ultimately seek my own good. It is not for my own good that I follow Him, but to accomplish the good of God. There are many reasons that I do what God tells me to do- it's not going to be contained in a one paragraph post.

By the way, your understanding of selfish is not biblical. Love is by definition somewhat selfish- it ultimately does not only meet the needs of others, but our own needs and wants in the process.
Love does not seek its own.
zēteō
Thayer Definition:
1) to seek in order to find
1a) to seek a thing
1b) to seek [in order to find out] by thinking, meditating, reasoning, to enquire into
1c) to seek after, seek for, aim at, strive after
2) to seek, i.e. require, demand
2a) to crave, demand something from someone
Part of Speech: verb

heautou
Thayer Definition:
1) himself, herself, itself, themselves
Part of Speech: pronoun

In other words, the primary concern is not in meeting your own desires, but the desire for the good of those around you. Usually when one is selfish, they are not considerate of others. When one gets their own needs and desires met while being considerate, it is not selfish at all.

 

[anawim]

I try hard to be a Christian, because I like Christ and his teachings, but I think the Old Testament is terrible. The OT is so full of killing and suffering at God's hands, that it is hard to understand how he can be considered loving when he solves so many problems through warfare. Christ on the other hand, preached love and kindness, but it's hard for me to believe any of it because he based all of his teachings on the OT. I'm going to post a few of the verses in the OT that are very cruel, and I would like for anyone to tell me what they think of them, and explain how they line up with the teachings of Christ. I ask this not to debate, but to understand.


Deuteronomy 13
6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

Deuteronomy 20
16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.

Joshua 10
29 Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Makkedah to Libnah and attacked it. 30 The LORD also gave that city and its king into Israel's hand. The city and everyone in it Joshua put to the sword. He left no survivors there. And he did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho. 31 Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Libnah to Lachish; he took up positions against it and attacked it. 32 The LORD handed Lachish over to Israel, and Joshua took it on the second day. The city and everyone in it he put to the sword, just as he had done to Libnah. 33 Meanwhile, Horam king of Gezer had come up to help Lachish, but Joshua defeated him and his army—until no survivors were left.
34 Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Lachish to Eglon; they took up positions against it and attacked it. 35 They captured it that same day and put it to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it, just as they had done to Lachish.
36 Then Joshua and all Israel with him went up from Eglon to Hebron and attacked it. 37 They took the city and put it to the sword, together with its king, its villages and everyone in it. They left no survivors. Just as at Eglon, they totally destroyed it and everyone in it.
38 Then Joshua and all Israel with him turned around and attacked Debir. 39 They took the city, its king and its villages, and put them to the sword. Everyone in it they totally destroyed. They left no survivors. They did to Debir and its king as they had done to Libnah and its king and to Hebron.
40 So Joshua subdued the whole region, including the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills and the mountain slopes, together with all their kings. He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded.

Hosea 13
16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,
because they have rebelled against their God.
They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground,
their pregnant women ripped open."

Take a look at Joshua 1:10-11. The words of Rahab the Harlot to two of the twelve spies:

[10] For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red Sea before you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were beyond the Jordan, to Sihon and Og, whom you utterly destroyed.
[11] And as soon as we heard it, our hearts melted, and there was no courage left in any man, because of you; for the LORD your God is he who is God in heaven above and on earth beneath.

The people knew for 40 years what was coming. They had 40 years in which to repent and did not. Destroying them was not God's intent. He was calling them to repentence. If they had shown even a little bit, it would have been enough to ameliorate their punishment.

They other thing to consider is that these people were not innocent. They were engaging in infanticide and offering their children as sacrifice. The larger question isn't, 'why did God allow them to be destroyed?', but rather, 'why doesn't he destroy us for the sin and crime of abortion?'

The passage from Joel is much like the passage from Ps. 137. The Israelites were to look upon the pagans as sinful influence which should be snuffed out at it's earliest inception. Eliminate sin early, and it can't grow and take a foot hold.

Scripture needs to be looked at in it's 4-fold sense: literal, as well as allegorical, moral (or tropological), and anagogical. While everything is true, their are different ways to understand the text.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

I don't believe almost any of it happened. I believe it's a story told after hundreds of years of hindsight and exaggeration.

Trying to stay away from debate here, but my point is that it is hard for me to believe Christ when I don't believe almost anything about the scriptures he put so much emphasis on. Do you see what I am saying?

Hi there-

Christ did teach that the OT was true. Some of that bad stuff probably did happen, but there was a good reason for it. (We can go into that if you would like.) And yes, some of it probably was literal, as far as I can tell.

But the OT shows us that the Law can't save us, but only Christ, whom fulfilled the Law with love.

The OT was given as a means to put the people under the severity of the Law, since they did not want to come to God.

When people don't want God, they are on their way to Hell.

 

[Rhamiel]

God hates sin,
God is the same always, in the OT he got rid of sin by destorying the sinners, now because Christ died for us we have forgiveness of sin, we no longer have to be wiped out to get rid of the offense. The OT is real, did everything happen just as it was written? I don't know, I don't think it is always literal but it is always true

 

[BlessedPearl]

The NT God kills his son, after all.

No.

Yes, he did. But at the same time he said not a single word of the Old Law will be changed until Heaven and Earth come to an end.

But that is not the same as saying that every single thing which was written in the old testament is true. The Law of Moses was a good law to follow. Even the Humanists of today, follow it, to a certain extent.

The problem with that is that Jesus used the old scriptures as his base, his grounding. The NT relies on the OT being true.

Well, yeah, I'd like to do that too. It's important, though, to know the history of the religion you believe in, to see where it has come from and to see where it is going. Otherwise, why not just believe in anything?

Well, there is a theory that from the age of 1-12 years of age (i.e. his childhood), Jesus lived in the far east where he was heavily influenced by Buddism. Not sure how true that theory is, but it is interesting. (This is said to have come about following his parents exile into Egypt when King Herod was persecuting all the first born sons in the Holy Land.)

 

[Rick Otto]

R3quiem;Sure, the Jews were under more immediate threats than Islam. 9/11 wasn't done solely ideological, though- many believe they are being oppressed by more developed nations such as America.

Hey! I'm being oppressed by America!
But it also affords me more freedom & opportunity than the rest of the oppressive world. Besides, the sons of Ishmael are livin' up to this:
Gen 16:12: And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.
They are makin' trouble everywhere!

Kill your best friend because he decided to worship a different God. It also points out that you should be the person killing your best friend, you need to be the first putting him to death, and then we can all have a nice group stoning.

I think it was instructive. Certainly a way of thinnin' the herd. You got the heart of a humanist, R3q. You value human life above spiritual truth, maybe. I dunno.

To me, God of the OT seems to be a tribalistic, war-God.

Amen. He was very fashionable for the time...

He seems insecure- like he needs worshipers to feel ok.

Naw, that would be a "I luv everybody god" who panders to everyone, no thought to standards, just mercy and blessings for everyone... THAT sounds insecure to me.

Sounds more like Zeus or Ares than the God Jesus described.

Jesus knew Him a little better.

This is why I doubt the OT- it starts off with a God of a specific nation, with more of a more human personality including feelings like jealousy and such, and some type of huge issue against all the other Gods. This shared so much in common with pagan religions around them- like I said, YHWH here sounds a lot like one of the Greek gods. Then overtime, as we changed, our view of God has changed. He went from being a war-God of a nation, to the loving creator of the universe.

Actualy, I think the Greek gods may have been real people. People that stood up to & rebelled against Noah & his followers.
There's a guy who allegedly deciphered the story on the Parthenon. Check this out:
http://bookstore.selfpublishing.com/viewdetails.php?bid=171

BTW, I must say I think Anawim made a great point, and the fact that she is a DR.Seuss fan heightens her credibility in my book! And I'm allegedly "anti-Catholic" (but pro-BigHair)

 

[R3quiem]

Seems like. That's your perspective of Him. That's your opinion of Him, and that is precisely why it is a weak argument.

All of Christianity is just a giant web of different opinions on God. Some denominations say "God is love!" and others say "God hates f*gs!"

It relies on feelings, human ideas, rather than logic and an absolute.

I'd really rather not get started on how much one must ignore logic in order to believe in Christianity. That would be a topic for a whole other thread.

You rely on what you think to judge God, rather than judging Him within the context of the Bible.

I'm not sure how killing infants then would be any different than killing infants now.

And my reasons are not selfish. Since God, by definition is love and good (cannot sin), anything He tells me to do is for the good of others- that I follow what He says means that I do not ultimately seek my own good.

The good for who? You and your people? It sure wasn't good for the murdered babies.

It is not for my own good that I follow Him, but to accomplish the good of God. There are many reasons that I do what God tells me to do- it's not going to be contained in a one paragraph post.

If you agree that you would murder a baby if God commanded you too, would you kill your best friend because he decided to convert to a different religion?

By the way, your understanding of selfish is not biblical. Love is by definition somewhat selfish- it ultimately does not only meet the needs of others, but our own needs and wants in the process.
Love does not seek its own.
zēteō
Thayer Definition:
1) to seek in order to find
1a) to seek a thing
1b) to seek [in order to find out] by thinking, meditating, reasoning, to enquire into
1c) to seek after, seek for, aim at, strive after
2) to seek, i.e. require, demand
2a) to crave, demand something from someone
Part of Speech: verb

heautou
Thayer Definition:
1) himself, herself, itself, themselves
Part of Speech: pronoun

In other words, the primary concern is not in meeting your own desires, but the desire for the good of those around you. Usually when one is selfish, they are not considerate of others. When one gets their own needs and desires met while being considerate, it is not selfish at all.

This was a pretty big tangent. True, humans are designed to love and feel good by loving. This doesn't relate in almost any way to what we were talking about. Being content in loving someone else is not comparable to killing babies so your God will continue to find favor with you.

 

[R3quiem]

No.

But that is not the same as saying that every single thing which was written in the old testament is true. The Law of Moses was a good law to follow. Even the Humanists of today, follow it, to a certain extent.

I wasn't implying that because every word will not go away, makes it all true. I was implying that because every word will not go away, it seems meaningless to pick and choose which of the old laws we like, and follow those.

What I was saying about the OT being true- if Jesus used it so often as an example, he must have believed at least the majority of it to be true.

 

[R3quiem]

Hey! I'm being oppressed by America!
But it also affords me more freedom & opportunity than the rest of the oppressive world.

I'm not sure what you meant by this- You're being oppressed, but it affords you more freedom than the oppressive world? Can you elaborate?

I think it was instructive. Certainly a way of thinnin' the herd. You got the heart of a humanist, R3q. You value human life above spiritual truth, maybe. I dunno.

I value human life above what I know to be true about the spiritual world- which is nothing.

I'd certainly not kill in the name of a God whom I don't know for sure exists. The fact that the god of the OT ordered genocide and was the God of a specific group of people just makes me think it was an invented deity like any other. Can't know anything for sure, but I can only go on the facts I have.

If you lived back in OT times, and your best friend started to believe in a different religion and told you how cool it was, would you kill him because a book told you to?

Amen. He was very fashionable for the time...

This is one way of looking at it. God was more violent in a violent time, and more peaceful in a bit more educated time in order to try to relate to us? Possibly.

I think the more probably view though is the opposite way around- a god always seems to have the same ideals as the people who worship him- over time, stories add up and they believe in a god that represents all that they themselves believe in. Not many people pray to a god that they are not a big fan of.

Naw, that would be a "I luv everybody god" who panders to everyone, no thought to standards, just mercy and blessings for everyone... THAT sounds insecure to me.

Do you feel insecure when you give gifts to your children? I think a God who demands worship is less secure then a God who does not crave worship. Not that worshiping is wrong, but when a deity specifically asks for it- isn't that a bit insecure?

Jesus knew Him a little better.

That is if he was who he claimed to be.

Aside from that, God has shown concretely his actions, and actions speak louder than words.

 

[R3quiem]

They other thing to consider is that these people were not innocent. They were engaging in infanticide and offering their children as sacrifice. The larger question isn't, 'why did God allow them to be destroyed?', but rather, 'why doesn't he destroy us for the sin and crime of abortion?'

They offered their children as a sacrifice? Terrible, I agree.

Do you consider Abraham bad? He was about to kill his child because God told him to, the only difference is that God stopped him before he went through with it. He is exactly the same as those who sacrifice their children to whatever god they believe in.

The passage from Joel is much like the passage from Ps. 137. The Israelites were to look upon the pagans as sinful influence which should be snuffed out at it's earliest inception. Eliminate sin early, and it can't grow and take a foot hold.

How present would you say sin is currently?

Scripture needs to be looked at in it's 4-fold sense: literal, as well as allegorical, moral (or tropological), and anagogical. While everything is true, their are different ways to understand the text.

Fair enough.

 

[CShephard53]

All of Christianity is just a giant web of different opinions on God. Some denominations say "God is love!" and others say "God hates f*gs!"

Tell me: if you saw two printers that did the same thing but had notable differences in efficiency and power usage, but ignored the time at which each was made, the brand, and the materials and knowledge on hand at the time each was made, would it make sense for you to condemn the manufacturer of the printer that was less efficient? Because that is basically what you do when you say that God is unloving. You subject Him to your own ideas rather than viewing Him in context of the Bible. Debate, science, and reason does not deal in subjective opinion, but objective fact. Why are you not using it?

I'd really rather not get started on how much one must ignore logic in order to believe in Christianity. That would be a topic for a whole other thread.

Ignore logic? You are aware that CS Lewis was one of the most logical minds to Christianity, right? Yet still committed his life to it after careful consideration.

I'm not sure how killing infants then would be any different than killing infants now.

Hm. Different time period... different culture... different mindsets... different liberties...

The good for who? You and your people? It sure wasn't good for the murdered babies.

Do you know war? Strategy? Then you know that there are times when the few must die so the many can live. You also know that sacrifices must be made. Cold? I don't think so. If I had a choice between

If you agree that you would murder a baby if God commanded you too, would you kill your best friend because he decided to convert to a different religion?

That's a moot point, and avoids what I stated. God would not likely command me in this present age to do such a thing (see the last two verses in James 5). But if He did, then yeah. But I'd have to know it's Him.

This was a pretty big tangent. True, humans are designed to love and feel good by loving. This doesn't relate in almost any way to what we were talking about. Being content in loving someone else is not comparable to killing babies so your God will continue to find favor with you.

You showed a misunderstanding for the meaning of selfish. I think it was a very relevant tangent. Especially if you call me or my reasons selfish.

I'll end by noting that you have yet to clearly state how the NT and OT contradict.

 

[CShephard53]

I'll add that your obsession with God killing babies is odd. Because God is much more than a God of wrath. He's also a God of peace, mercy, forgiveness, kindness, justice, and relationship. You cannot single out one aspect to attempt to tip the scale simply because of a few things the Guy does.

 

[R3quiem]

Tell me: if you saw two printers that did the same thing but had notable differences in efficiency and power usage, but ignored the time at which each was made, the brand, and the materials and knowledge on hand at the time each was made, would it make sense for you to condemn the manufacturer of the printer that was less efficient? Because that is basically what you do when you say that God is unloving.

The printers you used in your example do the same thing, Christians do not all do the same things.
Some are loving and help people, some go on crusades, burn witches, and hold up signs saying that a certain group of people are going to hell.

You subject Him to your own ideas rather than viewing Him in context of the Bible. Debate, science, and reason does not deal in subjective opinion, but objective fact. Why are you not using it?

No, the reason I'm having a problem here is because I am viewing him in the context of the Bible. When I was younger, I had my own image of God as a loving guy in heaven who was always watching over me. Upon reading the Bible more, I changed my opinions drastically.

Why am I not using objective fact? Objective fact would tell me that God does not exist, and I'd be an atheist. I don't want to be an atheist, I want to keep an open mind. Using objective fact, one can only use knowledge that is available around them. So, if I were to use only objective fact to figure out if God exists or not:
1. Have I ever seen God specifically? No.
2. Have I ever had a direct conversation with him; has he revealed himself to me? No.
3. Have I ever seen a miracle like those found in the Bible? No.
4. Does our available knowledge of the world and its history disagree with that found in Genesis? Yes.
5. Prayer: One would think Christians would have more joyful lives than others, but they don't. Christians have a much higher divorce rate than atheists. So do I see prayer working, or have any of my prayers been answered as far as I can tell? No.

What should I conclude? To believe in God, one has to put aside objective fact unless that said God has personally revealed himself. It's called "faith" for a reason.

Ignore logic? You are aware that CS Lewis was one of the most logical minds to Christianity, right? Yet still committed his life to it after careful consideration.

He tried, I'll give him that. He was good at finding very improbably "what ifs". He wasn't particularly logical compared to many other people throughout history though.

Hm. Different time period... different culture... different mindsets... different liberties...

Does that excuse them? Sure, they had different mindsets, God didn't though.

Do you know war? Strategy? Then you know that there are times when the few must die so the many can live. You also know that sacrifices must be made. Cold? I don't think so. If I had a choice between.

This only holds with normal warfare. If God is taking sides, then nothing has to be sacrificed, no one has to be killed. Being omnipotent, he had infinite options other than violence. Apparently he examined all of those options, and decided that the best would be through bloodshed.

That's a moot point, and avoids what I stated. God would not likely command me in this present age to do such a thing (see the last two verses in James 5). But if He did, then yeah. But I'd have to know it's Him.

In the beginning of this thread, I was specifically adding on the clause "if you lived in the OT days" to my questions. I forgot to this time.

And how would you know it was really him?

You showed a misunderstanding for the meaning of selfish. I think it was a very relevant tangent. Especially if you call me or my reasons selfish.

I don't think it was relevant. You compared loving someone as being selfish to killing for your own well being selfish. They are not comparable.

I'll end by noting that you have yet to clearly state how the NT and OT contradict.

OT: How to pray for enemies:
2 Kings 2:23-24
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.

NT: How to pray for enemies:
Matthew 5:44
But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

I'll add that your obsession with God killing babies is odd. Because God is much more than a God of wrath. He's also a God of peace, mercy, forgiveness, kindness, justice, and relationship. You cannot single out one aspect to attempt to tip the scale simply because of a few things the Guy does.

Well, if I were to pick an act that I'd consider to be one of the most horrible things someone would do, killing a baby is pretty high up on that list.

If he's a God of all those things, then he is extremely bi-polar.

 

[JesusFreak4L]

old testament = the old covenant
new testament = the new convenant

 

[R3quiem]

old testament = the old covenant
new testament = the new convenant

Matthew 5:17-19
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same 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.

 

[CShephard53]

Well, if I were to pick an act that I'd consider to be one of the most horrible things someone would do, killing a baby is pretty high up on that list.

Horrible does not equal wrong. I think it would be horrible to for a hundred people to die so that a thousand could live, but if I had the option of the thousand or the hundred, I'd take the hundred. If I told a kid that he needs to change or be in a time out, and he doesn't change, I'd feel horrible putting him in the time out, but I'd do it. What's your point here?

If he's a God of all those things, then he is extremely bi-polar.

Subjective, once again. There's a balance when you put it in context with the Bible.

2 Kings 2:23-24
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.

NT: How to pray for enemies:
Matthew 5:44
But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

That's not a contradiction. Is it loving to let someone disrespect God? Is it loving to sit there and listen to it? I think not. And that's precisely what was going on when Elisha was getting dissed. Everyone knew who he was- God's servant. In that culture, you didn't miss those things. So for them to be making fun of Elisha would not be to make fun of Elisha, but God. And God chose to punish them immediately rather than letting His name be dissed.

I don't think it was relevant. You compared loving someone as being selfish to killing for your own well being selfish. They are not comparable.

You missed the point, then. I clearly stated what selfish is. Seeking only your own good. When you also seek the good of others, it is not selfish. Do you seriously think I'd be serving just myself by obeying God? Do you really think that would be my only reasoning? Bad things happened to the NATION of Israel when they disobeyed God. If I had the choice, I'd be a leader of some kind. So if I didn't obey, I'd be leading the nation astray. If I wasn't a leader, I'd still have influence on people. And if I disobeyed I'd not only be condemning myself, but casting doubt in others. Selfish? Not when you look at the entire situation and the effects you would have with a decision.

In the beginning of this thread, I was specifically adding on the clause "if you lived in the OT days" to my questions. I forgot to this time.

And that changes things? True, if I lived in OT days how I would go about things would be different. But the expectations of God do not change from OT to NT, the way they are met changes.

And how would you know it was really him?

Personal relationship with Him through the priest. If you're dedicated enough to God, then you'll have that.

No, the reason I'm having a problem here is because I am viewing him in the context of the Bible. When I was younger, I had my own image of God as a loving guy in heaven who was always watching over me. Upon reading the Bible more, I changed my opinions drastically.

That's not the God I know. I'm sorry if it looks like I'm ripping on you, I'm not. But the god you describe is the one I knew in Sunday school. I don't follow that god. That's not God at all. Which is why there's not a capital G there. And I don't subject God to my opinions. I don't think He's a guy who just sits back and watches. The Bible doesn't describe Him that way.

Why am I not using objective fact? Objective fact would tell me that God does not exist, and I'd be an atheist. I don't want to be an atheist, I want to keep an open mind.

Right then. How come most scholars believe Jesus existed? That He was crucified? That the Scriptures are reliable, if not true? How come people who use objective evidence have come to the conclusion that God is real and exists?

Using objective fact, one can only use knowledge that is available around them. So, if I were to use only objective fact to figure out if God exists or not:

Using objective fact, one can only use what is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

1. Have I ever seen God specifically? No.

I've never seen Antarctica. Does that mean it's not there? Experiential argument.

2. Have I ever had a direct conversation with him; has he revealed himself to me? No.

Experiential arguments don't mean a thing.

3. Have I ever seen a miracle like those found in the Bible? No.

Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it hasn't happened- experiential argument, which again doesn't mean anything. I've never seen a nuclear bomb, or experienced being anywhere close to one that has. But it's happened. Weak argument as stated.

4. Does our available knowledge of the world and its history disagree with that found in Genesis? Yes.

That's very debatable. That's why both are theory, not just Creation or Evolution. Both have ample evidence to them. But that's a different thread. Suffice it to say, nothing is conclusive.

5. Prayer: One would think Christians would have more joyful lives than others, but they don't. Christians have a much higher divorce rate than atheists. So do I see prayer working, or have any of my prayers been answered as far as I can tell? No.

Key words: as far as you can tell. Also key: you compare Christians with atheists, which means jack. How about Christians with nonchristians? And how do you determine who is a Christian and who is not? By those who profess? People lie. Any poll, any survey, any case study will end up being flawed. Christianity does not mean you're happy. It means you live out what is written in the Bible.

What should I conclude? To believe in God, one has to put aside objective fact unless that said God has personally revealed himself. It's called "faith" for a reason.

My faith in the unseen- God- is not founded by subjective 'I'd like to think this'. It's founded in what was seen and recorded. Because of that I can trust the unseen. Yes, faith is based on objective fact. Hebrews 11:1. Faith is an active trust... usually trust is earned somehow.

Does that excuse them? Sure, they had different mindsets, God didn't though.

Excuse them? What did they do wrong, exactly?

This only holds with normal warfare. If God is taking sides, then nothing has to be sacrificed, no one has to be killed. Being omnipotent, he had infinite options other than violence. Apparently he examined all of those options, and decided that the best would be through bloodshed.

Again, subjective. You seem to have this idea that God's a magical genie or something. God has limits, you know. He can't sin. He cannot be unloving. And usually, forcing someone to do something that would be harmful for them to do, or something for them to do that they do not want to, would be unloving. But then, you'll say, how do we know they did want to obey? If they didn't want to obey, they didn't obey. If they did, they did. There's an effect of either option.

In other words, He gives people free will while using that free will and His foreknowledge to work out His plans. Does that mean they're perfectly understandable to us? Far from it. 1 Corinthians 13:12- we have limited understanding now. Then we will not. And by we I mean Christians, as defined later, and by now I mean before we die, and by then, I mean in heaven, or eternal life.

He tried, I'll give him that. He was good at finding very improbably "what ifs". He wasn't particularly logical compared to many other people throughout history though.

Explain how many scholars come to be Christians while being intellectually honest.

The printers you used in your example do the same thing, Christians do not all do the same things.
Some are loving and help people, some go on crusades, burn witches, and hold up signs saying that a certain group of people are going to hell.

When I say Christians, I do not mean the modern term. I mean the term given at Antioch. To people indwelt with the Holy Spirit. To people who actually had a relationship with God and lived out the Bible. And followed it. Under that definition, Westboro Baptist, the crusaders, and any who disobey the Bible's teachings- as a whole- are not Christians.


By the way, if you've got an open mind, do something for me. Think about this for 24 hours after you read it. Don't post. Just read it and think about it. Is your mind open to that?

 

[Steve Petersen]

As to the OP:

If this has already been said, then it is good to say it again:

The OT is mostly directed to a nation (Israel). The NT is mostly directed to individuals.

There are things that a nation may do that an individual may not. Individuals are expected to obey the laws of their nation, not vice versa. Individuals may not take the law into their own hands and so on.

 

[R3quiem]

As to the OP:

If this has already been said, then it is good to say it again:

The OT is mostly directed to a nation (Israel). The NT is mostly directed to individuals.

There are things that a nation may do that an individual may not. Individuals are expected to obey the laws of their nation, not vice versa.

That makes some sense.

Individuals may not take the law into their own hands and so on.

But it seems to be directed a lot towards individuals. For example, one of the verses I posted says to kill your best friend if he starts worshiping a different God, and that you must be the first person to put him to death.

 

[R3quiem]

Horrible does not equal wrong. I think it would be horrible to for a hundred people to die so that a thousand could live, but if I had the option of the thousand or the hundred, I'd take the hundred. If I told a kid that he needs to change or be in a time out, and he doesn't change, I'd feel horrible putting him in the time out, but I'd do it. What's your point here?

Subjective, once again. There's a balance when you put it in context with the Bible.

That's not a contradiction. Is it loving to let someone disrespect God? Is it loving to sit there and listen to it? I think not. And that's precisely what was going on when Elisha was getting dissed. Everyone knew who he was- God's servant. In that culture, you didn't miss those things. So for them to be making fun of Elisha would not be to make fun of Elisha, but God. And God chose to punish them immediately rather than letting His name be dissed.

You missed the point, then. I clearly stated what selfish is. Seeking only your own good. When you also seek the good of others, it is not selfish. Do you seriously think I'd be serving just myself by obeying God? Do you really think that would be my only reasoning? Bad things happened to the NATION of Israel when they disobeyed God. If I had the choice, I'd be a leader of some kind. So if I didn't obey, I'd be leading the nation astray. If I wasn't a leader, I'd still have influence on people. And if I disobeyed I'd not only be condemning myself, but casting doubt in others. Selfish? Not when you look at the entire situation and the effects you would have with a decision.

And that changes things? True, if I lived in OT days how I would go about things would be different. But the expectations of God do not change from OT to NT, the way they are met changes.
Personal relationship with Him through the priest. If you're dedicated enough to God, then you'll have that.

That's not the God I know. I'm sorry if it looks like I'm ripping on you, I'm not. But the god you describe is the one I knew in Sunday school. I don't follow that god. That's not God at all. Which is why there's not a capital G there. And I don't subject God to my opinions. I don't think He's a guy who just sits back and watches. The Bible doesn't describe Him that way.
Right then. How come most scholars believe Jesus existed? That He was crucified? That the Scriptures are reliable, if not true? How come people who use objective evidence have come to the conclusion that God is real and exists?
Using objective fact, one can only use what is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.
I've never seen Antarctica. Does that mean it's not there? Experiential argument.
Experiential arguments don't mean a thing.
Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it hasn't happened- experiential argument, which again doesn't mean anything. I've never seen a nuclear bomb, or experienced being anywhere close to one that has. But it's happened. Weak argument as stated.
That's very debatable. That's why both are theory, not just Creation or Evolution. Both have ample evidence to them. But that's a different thread. Suffice it to say, nothing is conclusive.
Key words: as far as you can tell. Also key: you compare Christians with atheists, which means jack. How about Christians with nonchristians? And how do you determine who is a Christian and who is not? By those who profess? People lie. Any poll, any survey, any case study will end up being flawed. Christianity does not mean you're happy. It means you live out what is written in the Bible.

My faith in the unseen- God- is not founded by subjective 'I'd like to think this'. It's founded in what was seen and recorded. Because of that I can trust the unseen. Yes, faith is based on objective fact. Hebrews 11:1. Faith is an active trust... usually trust is earned somehow.

Excuse them? What did they do wrong, exactly?

Again, subjective. You seem to have this idea that God's a magical genie or something. God has limits, you know. He can't sin. He cannot be unloving. And usually, forcing someone to do something that would be harmful for them to do, or something for them to do that they do not want to, would be unloving. But then, you'll say, how do we know they did want to obey? If they didn't want to obey, they didn't obey. If they did, they did. There's an effect of either option.

In other words, He gives people free will while using that free will and His foreknowledge to work out His plans. Does that mean they're perfectly understandable to us? Far from it. 1 Corinthians 13:12- we have limited understanding now. Then we will not. And by we I mean Christians, as defined later, and by now I mean before we die, and by then, I mean in heaven, or eternal life.

Explain how many scholars come to be Christians while being intellectually honest.
When I say Christians, I do not mean the modern term. I mean the term given at Antioch. To people indwelt with the Holy Spirit. To people who actually had a relationship with God and lived out the Bible. And followed it. Under that definition, Westboro Baptist, the crusaders, and any who disobey the Bible's teachings- as a whole- are not Christians.


By the way, if you've got an open mind, do something for me. Think about this for 24 hours after you read it. Don't post. Just read it and think about it. Is your mind open to that?

I'm going to shift this from arguing statements one by one, to posting a more whole idea.

You seem to be focused a lot on subjective vs objective, so let me ask, what makes you believe in God, objectively? How do you know he's real, and that he is the only god that exists? How do you know your religion is true, and all others are false? What separates Christianity from all the other religions? What made you decide to become a Christian? Did you grow up in a Christian family? Did you grow up in a country that has a Christian majority? What made you choose Christianity to be true instead of any other religion?

You've seem to misunderstand my main point, by the way. I've never stated that God does not exist because I've never seen him. That's a silly argument. My main point is that I see a lack of evidence in God, a lack of coherency in the Bible, and a lack of evidence of an afterlife. What then, should make me believe objectively?

Reasons I have little faith:
1. None of my five senses can detect God: I don't know what he looks like, I've never had a conversation with him, I've never felt his presence, etc. Either he does not exist, or he chooses not to reveal himself to me. You used the argument that you never have seen Antarctica- but I don't see how it is very related. I've seen pictures of Antarctica, my physics professor routinely works in Antarctica and shares stories, there are man-made things in Antarctica. Sure, I can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt it's really there, because I've never been there, but an overwhelming amount of evidence supports its existence. Every semi-educated person on the planet would agree that Antarctica is there. God is a much different story. If he chooses to reveal himself to me, then I'll change my mind, but unless that happens I see no reason to believe.

2. I've never seen a miracle like those found in the Bible. Just because I haven't seen a miracle doesn't mean that they don't exist, but it means I very much doubt they exist. There is a lack of hard evidence for it too- it's not like just I haven't seen one, but there are no solidly documented miracles. There was never an undeniable miracle caught on tape, unless you would like to provide evidence otherwise. Jesus pointed out that his miracles show who he was, but that doesn't apply anymore- all I have to go by about his miracles were 2000 year old men I've never met. Jesus said that anyone who has faith as little as a mustard seed will be able to move mountains- his disciples were able to cure people just like him, yet for some reason all that stopped. There are no people today who have been proven to be able to cure people. What should make me believe that he did his miracles, when I've never witnessed one?

3. The large number of religions. There are a huge number of religions spread across the world, each one being connected to a culture in a certain way. Christianity is not different. With so many religions around, what allows one to realize which one is really true, if any of them are? Why do most people get it wrong? Even if I did believe in some sort of God, which God should I pick? How do I pick? Should I roll dice?

4. Christians are no different than anyone else. You'd think they'd be more moral, more loving, have more inner joy, better relationships- but they don't. Instead, Christianity has a majority control of the very rich and developed nations. So, instead of having superior inner qualities such as love and joy, they have money and greed. Even priests aren't especially holy. This has been shown by the large number of Catholic priests found to be pedophiles, and the number of evil popes that have ruled in the past.

5. I can't stand going to church. I still go sometimes, and even though I try to be positive, I can't stand it. I would think in the worshiping and presence of God, there would be some type of joy, but there is not. It all seems so fake to me, so made up.

6. Genesis, as well as most of the OT and a large portion of the NT seem so fake to me. Genesis seems to be a complete lie to me, made up by people telling a story they made up. The rest of the OT and NT seem to just be stories passed down over time that got exaggerated and changed to be better stories.

6. Lastly, and back to my original post- there has been so much bad stuff done in the name of God. Christians have done the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch burnings, etc. Muslims have done terrorist attacks. Worse yet, all of this can be morally backed by the OT, which supports the killing of people different from you.