[McKenna]

DCJ, on Apr 3 2008, 12:50 PM, said:

That was a command given to the Israelite nation.. Christians are not under the old covenant law. Islam doesn't have the benefit of a "New Testament." In fact, for Muslims, the Koran is the "New, New Testament."

So why are so many Christians so opposed to homosexuality? Or taking the Lord's name in vain, if the Ten Commandments no longer apply?

This seems, to me, to be a 'pick and choose' kind of thing which makes little sense if one claims the Bible to be the Word of God.

[McKenna]

DCJ, on Apr 3 2008, 12:50 PM, said:

That was a command given to the Israelite nation.. Christians are not under the old covenant law. Islam doesn't have the benefit of a "New Testament." In fact, for Muslims, the Koran is the "New, New Testament."

Also, how does this quote fit into this concept?

Matthew 5:17-18 (ESV): "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. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

Since they're not abolished, and heaven and earth still exist, shouldn't the Law still hold?

I realize that Paul argues that we are saved by grace, not works, but there seems to be contradiction on this point (i.e. Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 3:21-31 vs. James 2:14).

[October's Autumn]

McKenna, on Apr 3 2008, 05:23 PM, said:

This seems, to me, to be a 'pick and choose' kind of thing which makes little sense if one claims the Bible to be the Word of God.

That is because that is exactly what they are doing! When my mom disagreed with me, I asked her why she didn't wear a head covering in church

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

davidk, on Mar 28 2008, 12:42 AM, said:

---------
God being perfectly good cannot allow any imperfection of that good to enter Heaven. Because He is an all-loving God, and since we are not perfect, nor can we be, He has given us His perfect solution to the problem. It all began being explained in the Old Testament. We needed to understand that in order for there to be life, something has to die.

So are you saying someone or something has to drown? What is the something that prevents us from having life? Sin? Where did this sin come from? What caused humans to miss the mark? If it was known that the human would find access to the cookie jar and the appetite for nourishment would be destroyed then who revealed the location of the sin?

Children do watch and learn, and they can pick up on the secrets hidden with out being told where to look they will know intuitively, by listening, watching and talking.

Where did the devil come from?

Israel should not be attacked anymore than Israeli children should claim land as their inherent right a gift by their g-d... An inheritence written in a religious text that steals property rights of land owners or holders over thousands of years.

Would it be that a good g-d would take from the poor? Would that be the act of a good g-d?

World Peace will begin when we stop the killing in the name of land and g-d...

A Good GOD would act and be good!

Therefore all religious texts are flawed when they favor one over another and the foundation has a major missing portion.

Why did Adam need a help mate to be created from his own rib? Why didn't GOD create a help mate from the ground that Adam was also created from? Why was there a people to carry forth the procreation and progeny of Cain? There are parts missing and in the gaps the truth is covered up so if we want to know the truth we have to listen intuitively knowing that certain things missing reveal the real truth. What should be and what was and what could have been are destroyed for the truth is...

We should love each other and we should not lie...

We do not have to kill and we should not have to give up all of our possessions when another lies about us. The truth will set us free, maybe not from the hypocrites who delight in the lies but when it comes to eternal reward we will store up treasures and the Peace of GOD will be ours.

Balance in the Middle East will only be established when people learn to respect the rights of each other.

[Wayseer]

TheGreatWhiteBuffalo, on Apr 7 2008, 03:34 AM, said:

A Good GOD would act and be good!

You are blaming God here. That's Ok - God is big enough for that - but it does seems to be rather infectious at the present.

What you are illustrating by blaming God however is that God should intervene, at you choosing, during certain times and at certain places and that he does not choose to do so means - means what? That God is bad? That you don't pray hard enough? That the objects of your prayers are unworthy of being relieved of their burden? All of the above? What sort of God is that - the 'unmoved mover' model.

That's out-of-date theology. Get's yourself a new model.

[McKenna]

Wayseer, on Apr 6 2008, 06:58 PM, said:

You are blaming God here. That's Ok - God is big enough for that - but it does seems to be rather infectious at the present.

What you are illustrating by blaming God however is that God should intervene, at you choosing, during certain times and at certain places and that he does not choose to do so means - means what? That God is bad? That you don't pray hard enough? That the objects of your prayers are unworthy of being relieved of their burden? All of the above? What sort of God is that - the 'unmoved mover' model.

That's out-of-date theology. Get's yourself a new model.

If I read Gary correctly, I think his point was that no land should be stolen (and no people should be attacked) just because a religious text says or implies that one should do so...therefore because God is good the religious texts must be flawed interpretations of His will, at least (in Gary's words) "when they favor one over another." (Gary, sorry if I interpreted what you were saying incorrectly!)

I think you make a good point, Wayseer, as to why we should not blame God, but I'm just not sure it applies to Gary's post. Again, I could be wrong

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

McKenna, on Apr 7 2008, 11:53 AM, said:

If I read Gary correctly, I think his point was that no land should be stolen (and no people should be attacked) just because a religious text says or implies that one should do so...therefore because God is good the religious texts must be flawed interpretations of His will, at least (in Gary's words) "when they favor one over another." (Gary, sorry if I interpreted what you were saying incorrectly!)

I think you make a good point, Wayseer, as to why we should not blame God, but I'm just not sure it applies to Gary's post. Again, I could be wrong

Hi McKenna, yes that was a very good interpretation of some of what I had written Thank You...

Wayseer, on Apr 6 2008, 06:58 PM, said:

You are blaming God here. That's Ok - God is big enough for that - but it does seems to be rather infectious at the present.

What you are illustrating by blaming God however is that God should intervene, at you choosing, during certain times and at certain places and that he does not choose to do so means - means what? That God is bad? That you don't pray hard enough? That the objects of your prayers are unworthy of being relieved of their burden? All of the above? What sort of God is that - the 'unmoved mover' model.

That's out-of-date theology. Get's yourself a new model.

Hi Wayseer, So if I understand you correctly it is a flawed theology that needs to be replaced? With what model? I have a theory for a theological belief that might be newer than what others already have experienced but then you would have to know my theory to understand my point of view and the history that brought me to where I am in my belief... How can I teach you in any given moment?

How can I get you to eat the nourishing food of life and not to chase after the cookie jar? How can you be taught to enjoy the meat and potatoes when you only desire pizza? How can I encourage you to enjoy a wonderful breakfast and to greet the new day with a sense of wonder and awe?

How can I move mountains?

[DCJ]

McKenna, on Apr 3 2008, 06:23 PM, said:

So why are so many Christians so opposed to homosexuality? Or taking the Lord's name in vain, if the Ten Commandments no longer apply?

This seems, to me, to be a 'pick and choose' kind of thing which makes little sense if one claims the Bible to be the Word of God.

I must have missed the portion of the Ten Commandments that discusses cutting off wives' hands. Anyway, what does that have to do with the alleged violence in Christianity compared to Islam? You began by pointing to Philippians as a possible example. When that didn't work, you moved to Leviticus. Strike two, you tried Deuteronomy. Now, you bring up the doctrine of inspiration, completely ignoring my main point about Muslims and the Koran! Talk about "picking and choosing".....

[Wayseer]

TheGreatWhiteBuffalo, on Apr 10 2008, 12:27 PM, said:

How can I move mountains?

You can't - and neither can anyone else.

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

Wayseer, on Apr 10 2008, 02:02 AM, said:

You can't - and neither can anyone else.

How about the mountain of block that I moved over 10,000 in one week... In the midst of my regular duties and deliveries... Let's work this out for a month and a year and 10 years...

How about the mountain of roofing shingles that I moved when I drove and delivered for a roofing and siding supplier?

How about the mountain of firewood that we created when I worked for the saw mill? Now there is a good place to find a firewood niche... We modified an old splitter and I rebuilt the engine and hydralic cylinder and we made a mountain of firewood...

In most cases no I could not do these things alone, and yet in some aspects it was and is my ability to deliver the goods or be good at the work that I deliver.

[McKenna]

DCJ, on Apr 9 2008, 10:42 PM, said:

I must have missed the portion of the Ten Commandments that discusses cutting off wives' hands. Anyway, what does that have to do with the alleged violence in Christianity compared to Islam? You began by pointing to Philippians as a possible example. When that didn't work, you moved to Leviticus. Strike two, you tried Deuteronomy. Now, you bring up the doctrine of inspiration, completely ignoring my main point about Muslims and the Koran! Talk about "picking and choosing".....

The cutting off of wives' hands does not come from the Ten Commandments, nor did I say (or even imply) such. That commandment/law/order/whatever you want to call it comes from Deuteronomy 25:11-12, as I explicitly stated.

I pointed out the Philippians passage (Philippians 2:9-11) as one that could be twisted to support world domination. DavidK responded that this would require quite a lot of twisting. I don't disagree but that wasn't my point. I stand by my initial statement that it could be twisted. I let the subject drop because I did not feel like arguing over whether or not it could in fact be twisted.

I mentioned Leviticus as a rather violent portion of the Bible and DavidK responded that God is teaching us lessons through the "hard-hearted" verses. I responded with a ridiculous passage from Deuteronomy. There was no "strike two" with Leviticus. I just happened to come across a Deuteronomy passage first when I was glancing through the Bible (I'm sure if I had tried to find one for Leviticus I could have, from prior knowledge/reading and also from the fact that DavidK himself admitted some of the passages in Leviticus "seem pretty hard-hearted"). I figured DavidK's rule that God is teaching us through hard-hearted Leviticus passages would apply to Deuteronomy as well, since DavidK believes both to be inspired. Therefore I do not see a problem. I was not jumping around ignoring DavidK's points; I was working on the assumption that DavidK believes God is teaching us lessons through all seemingly hard-hearted verses, rather than just those in Leviticus.

I was not trying to ignore your point about Muslims and the Koran. You responded to a point I was trying to make (you said, "That was a command given to the Israelite nation.. Christians are not under the old covenant law."), and I responded back. I did not understand what you were trying to say when you said, "Islam doesn't have the benefit of a "New Testament." In fact, for Muslims, the Koran is the "New, New Testament."" Perhaps I should have tried harder to understand you. Did you mean that Because Muslims don't have the New Testament, they are still under Old Covenant Law? But then, so are Jews...so I still don't understand your point...

Thus, I was not trying to "pick and choose." I was merely continuing an off-topic point. So, I'm still at fault. But I disagree with your accusation.

Still, I'll let the subject drop. I apologize to all for getting this thread so far off topic.

[DCJ]

McKenna, on Apr 10 2008, 07:04 PM, said:

I did not understand what you were trying to say when you said, "Islam doesn't have the benefit of a "New Testament." In fact, for Muslims, the Koran is the "New, New Testament."" Perhaps I should have tried harder to understand you. Did you mean that Because Muslims don't have the New Testament, they are still under Old Covenant Law? But then, so are Jews...so I still don't understand your point...

I should have explained myself better. Usually, when people point to ugly parts of the Old Testament, Christians can respond that those were commands or narratives isolated to the ancient Israelite community, and that since Christ has fulfilled many of those requirements, we are left with following His teachings about loving our neighbor, etc. Islam does not have the benefit of this Old/New dichotomy. They cannot point to a "New Testament" of the Koran and say, "Well, yeah, Mohammad did and taught some bad things in the beginning, but look at what happened later...". Muslims believe the Koran supersedes the New Testament, which is why I called it their "New, New Testament." Hope that clears it up.

[McKenna]

DCJ, on Apr 11 2008, 07:37 PM, said:

I should have explained myself better. Usually, when people point to ugly parts of the Old Testament, Christians can respond that those were commands or narratives isolated to the ancient Israelite community, and that since Christ has fulfilled many of those requirements, we are left with following His teachings about loving our neighbor, etc. Islam does not have the benefit of this Old/New dichotomy. They cannot point to a "New Testament" of the Koran and say, "Well, yeah, Mohammad did and taught some bad things in the beginning, but look at what happened later...". Muslims believe the Koran supersedes the New Testament, which is why I called it their "New, New Testament." Hope that clears it up.

Ah, okay, I see what you were trying to say now. Yes, that's true. Muslims have a tougher time getting around the more savage parts of their Scripture than Christians, and probably Jews as well, just due to the nature of the revelations they base their religion off of. I have heard of recent attempts by more moderate/liberal Muslims to interpret the Qu'ran in a historical light - i.e. "this made sense for that ancient community but doesn't necessarily apply now." I hope they gain some ground, though I don't see such scholarship influencing the more radical strands of Islam in the Middle East, because unfortunately once someone becomes that fanatical I think the religion really stops having much to do with their claims and just becomes a form of justification, even if it doesn't say anything they're espousing (where in the Qu'ran does it say women can't wear nail polish??). Power and hatred corrupt.

I don't know how to cure such fanaticism. I certainly agree that radical Islam - the "Islam" espoused by many religious and political leaders in the Middle East today - is very dangerous. Again, I would point to the book Reading Lolita in Tehran as one example. There are probably better books/memoirs that address the issues there more fully, but that book was definitely an eye-opener for me. The complete and total disregard for human rights (at least a couple decades ago in Iran, which is what the book focuses on) is appalling.

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

I'm just going to add a simple comment that all three texts the Old, New and New New Testemants that you talk of should all be re-edited to remove the fanaticisms...

Instead of Rome exorcising people Rome should start with an exorcism of the Bible! You can quote me on that

[davidk]

McKenna, on Apr 3 2008, 07:52 PM, said:

Matthew 5:17-18 (ESV): "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. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

Since they're not abolished, and heaven and earth still exist, shouldn't the Law still hold?

I realize that Paul argues that we are saved by grace, not works, but there seems to be contradiction on this point (i.e. Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 3:21-31 vs. James 2:14).

Allow me to throw in a couple of other 'Law' propositional statements for context: Matthew 7:12; 22:37-40. Romans 8, 10, 13:8-14; Galations 5:14.
-
I have, in the past, discussed that Jesus Christ said we can do nothing without Him. (John 15:5,16)
Therefore; the Law was given to expose our sin, to make us realize we were not able to be perfect (sinless) on our own, we need a Savior, God's fulfillment of the Law, His personalized grace, Jesus Christ.
-
Deuteronomy is God's reemphasis of His Law in view of the new conditions in which they would soon face. Perhaps a re-reading of these texts ( Leviticus/Deuteronomy) would shed some light on your brief experiences with them. Leviticus describes the role of sacrifice in God's plan.
("God being perfectly good cannot allow any imperfection of that good to enter Heaven. Because He is an all-loving God, and since we are not perfect, nor can we be. He has given us His perfect solution to the problem. It all began being explained in the Old Testament. We needed to understand that in order for there to be life, something has to die.") post #98.
Paul is not contradictory in the 'grace/works' debate, but I'm not sure this thread is necessarily the place for a full discussion.
We all seem to have a need to talk about a lot of these subjects and they do tend to overlap.

TGWB:
For you to live, something must die. Do you eat?
-
I like the way you moved wayseer's 'mountain'. My Dad would ask me, "How do you eat an elephant?" To which I learned to respond, "One bite at a time."

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

davidk, on Apr 14 2008, 12:25 AM, said:

Allow me to throw in a couple of other 'Law' propositional statements for context: Matthew 7:12; 22:37-40. Romans 8, 10, 13:8-14; Galations 5:14.

-Allow me to throw in a gift, as in Matthew 18:15 When a Brother sins against a Brother are you going to remove one dot? Are you going to say to me that this doesn't apply to me and my case? If it is true that I am the gifted one then you have to see again the visions that have been given to me from the source of all life...

davidk, on Apr 14 2008, 12:25 AM, said:

I have, in the past, discussed that Jesus Christ said we can do nothing without Him. (John 15:5,16)
Therefore; the Law was given to expose our sin, to make us realize we were not able to be perfect (sinless) on our own, we need a Savior, God's fulfillment of the Law, His personalized grace, Jesus Christ.

-For if GOD could save us through a Savior, then why couldn't GOD save us with a word? Did Jesus really have to die? I know that question applies to the comment below with the question about life and death and eating... Nourishment from heaven do you really know GOD? Where are your treasures?

davidk, on Apr 14 2008, 12:25 AM, said:

Deuteronomy is God's reemphasis of His Law in view of the new conditions in which they would soon face. Perhaps a re-reading of these texts ( Leviticus/Deuteronomy) would shed some light on your brief experiences with them. Leviticus describes the role of sacrifice in God's plan.
("God being perfectly good cannot allow any imperfection of that good to enter Heaven. Because He is an all-loving God, and since we are not perfect, nor can we be. He has given us His perfect solution to the problem. It all began being explained in the Old Testament. We needed to understand that in order for there to be life, something has to die.") post #98.
Paul is not contradictory in the 'grace/works' debate, but I'm not sure this thread is necessarily the place for a full discussion.
We all seem to have a need to talk about a lot of these subjects and they do tend to overlap.

First for life something has to die? Are you so sure? Of course to eat a plant you have to kill even the living plant, or the start of the animal world with an eye, a snail an amoeba an eye with a foot and then an arm, the ocean is a wonderous place... With the thinking that for something to live something must die we have come to the fanantical process for teaching terrorism in the name of religion. For my life to continue as I have dreamed my marriage had to die... For my theory to live the current theological belief system must die... For peace to take hold and the world to be a better place the Church must be destroyed... We need harmony without emphasizing evil... For good to live evil must die...? Actually I like for a good deed to live a bad deed must be removed or repaired... So are you saying that the spirit of a plant is equal to the spirit of an animal? And should we not be respectful of the life force we consume when we partake of what was once living flesh? More below...

davidk, on Apr 14 2008, 12:25 AM, said:

TGWB:
For you to live, something must die. Do you eat?

-Certainly I eat and I'm an omnivore and a survivalist... I have a great desire to live and I'm pro-life... If I hunt and fish I will eat what is good for the nutritional requirements of my physical needs and I don't believe in killing indiscriminately, I respect all human life and do not like to see aimless, senseless killing of innocent people especially at the hands of women who are emotionally distraught and not thinking clearly... Has your mother pointed a gun at your father? Has your wife signed your rights to life away? Has the police been an extension of a bad intervention? Has a lie defamed you and your civil rights? I'm pro-life and very much into having other people tell the truth... How about you? Do you love the truth? A word that is true is justice to the heart of GOD and music in the mind and ear of one that knows the source of life...

davidk, on Apr 14 2008, 12:25 AM, said:

I like the way you moved wayseer's 'mountain'. My Dad would ask me, "How do you eat an elephant?" To which I learned to respond, "One bite at a time."

Yeah - I noticed he didn't have much to say about that after my post for an individual that has worked and worked hard knows that it is possible to move mountains, a little at a time, you can do anything if you put your mind to it... You can be anything...

Most importantly remain true... True to the Constitution of your country, the Fourth Amendment allows you to own a safe haven and that is a right that should not ever be violated that and the marriage bed should never be violated, a wife should love her husband enough to tell the truth all the time... No truth = No Love... No talk = No Love... No touch = No Love... I love to talk and touch the truth...