Straightforward, hard-to-answer-questions about the Bible/Christianity

So the OT has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with christianity? I think jeebus disagrees with you.

---

So, because ytou suck at debating, or just didn;t know enough to "best" these Chrsistians, evidence is suddenly worng?And please please PLEASE, click the peek button to see how I did that quotebox and use it yourself, it makes posts so much easier to read and looks so much better.

ICANT, it seems that hooah212002 has beaten me to the point. However I would like to reiterate that claiming the Old Testament has nothing to do with Christianity and its teachings is absolute lunacy.In what context does Jesus fit at all without it? Would anything he said or did make any sense whatsoever?

Hi hooah, Absolutely. The only thing it is good for is history and to show us we should not follow the examples set in it by the children of Israel. Me thinks you don't have any idea what Jesus agrees with or does not agree with. Jesus said he came to fulfill the law. Something no man could do as no one has ever kept the law but Jesus. Paul tell us Christ nailed the law to His cross.It has been fulfilled.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Phage, Everything.The OT is a story of a people prepared to be a pure people which Christ would enter into the world through their linage.Do I need the prophesies of the OT No. But it is nice to know they are there as they prove the Bible to be the Word of God.But going into the world and making disciples of all nations then baptizing them and then teaching them all things which Christ has commanded has absolutely nothing to do with the OT.Followers of Christ was given those orders in Matthew 28:19, 20.Being a Christian is following Jesus in complete obedience.Love God with all your mind body and spirit.Love your neighbor as much as you love yourself.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

The concept of who is God is established in the Old Testament; jumping in with "son of God" makes no sense without that concept already existing. This is obviously crucial to everything Jesus is about, because what exactly is he saving us from? Disobedience from God's rules, again established in the OT, which makes Jesus necessary or at all important.Heck, Jesus isn't even "Christ" without those OT prophecies so don't try to tell me it isn't important to "Christianity"! Without the OT Jesus's claims would be completely out of left field; "I represent some being you have never heard of, proven by prophecies you have never heard of, saving you from transgressions you have never heard of." Without the OT as context the account of Jesus would be completely disjointed raving lunacy.

Well, I think you just make shit up and re-word the babble to suit your needs. See? I can make assertions too.

---

"Not if it affects your actions and conclusions. If I can make you understand how the story of Adam and Eve is an account of an immoral god then perhaps you will examine your beliefs with a critical eye. I think what you will find will dramatically change your outlook.Besides, debate is a joy unto itself."Well put. But first you have to tell me what is moral, and immoral. Because putting the Bible aside, morality is subjective. My wife may think it is perfectly fine to screw the neighbor, whereas I may have a problem with this. But who am I to push my morality on her. She has done nothing illegal, in the worlds eyes. There are no laws against cheating.Since morality is subjective, and so is the law in many cases, who chooses what is moral and immoral? What makes you think that God is immoral? If there is a God, wouldn't anything he did be considered moral to Him?Define morality."I know about many things, and can reference many more sources, that I don't own books about. The Bible is easily available online, a format that is actually much more accessible given that it can be searched."I can search online how to build a bridge. Google it. This doesn't mean I can.This is exactly the reason that many people think the Bible talks about space ships and dragons. Because they read a little bit, and take it how they want."Nope! This quote shows that you are wrong:Genesis 3:22 - King James Translation
"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:..." "I have no idea what you are getting at here...man became like God because he CHOSE to eat the fruit. What is the point here?Oh I see, sorta. No God created man in his image, in that he had the right to choose. God did not prevent them from eating the fruit. Man was the only creation capable of choice."You also cannot argue that they already conceptually knew about sin"And I won't. I will argue that they knew that God was the creator of all, and that he commanded them not to eat of the tree, or they would die. If Adam was created in Gods image, he would probably understand this."but I do see how your position puts you in the minority "Again, not many people believe what I do in this case. But the Bible does teach that you are born with the sins of your father, so I, personally, assume that no babies are innocent in the eyes of God, only innocent in the eyes of a human, because they are cute."God confused the languages and caused the knowledge to be lost, then God is taking away people's free will."Interesting point. But wrong. In fact, confusing the language was Gods doing. He did not cause their knowledge to be lost of Him. Every person was christian up until that point. Over time, each group would have decided to turn from their original beliefs. But this would have been a CHOICE. Every human today has the freedom to choose. Missionary work specifically targets those groups that would have turned from their original beliefs in the past, to give a choice to those who were not taught christianity.You yourself have to right to choose. I have been on many missions trips (to mexico mainly) for this reason alone. Does it seem fair that someone lives their whole life a good person, but dies and goes to hell because they were never offered a choice? No. But thats my opinion, and thats my morality. It's not fair to ME, but perfectly fair to GOD, who offered his son in earthly form to die.

To quote people, click on the "peek" button next to the reply button (lower right hand corner) and see how I quoted you. Morals are opinions on ethical behavior. You'll come to find that God is no different, as you can see the massive paradigm shift in morality from OT to NT. The point is that the tree provided the knowledge of good and evil. So if they committed an "immoral" act BEFORE they knew the difference between right and wrong, did they actually do anything immoral? Not if we take a literal interpretation of the bible. The bible says that death entered the world during the Fall of Man. There was no death, so inferentially they could have no concept of what death is. They also did not know it was wrong to eat of the fruit since eating the fruit was the only way to know right from wrong! See the theological problem? Imagine executing babies because their fathers were thieves. If that sounds just to you then maybe you're endemic of the problem.Also the bible contradicts itself on the point you just made.

quote:

---

I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me -- Exodus 20:5

---

Contrasted with

quote:

---

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. -- Deuteronomy 24:16

---

The bible in no way indicates that. Please provide scripture if you feel otherwise. But you keep stressing CHOICE. If these heathens have never heard the gospel and die, where is the choice in that?

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

And how is this a problem? Stoning women to death for not wearing a burka is both illegal and immoral in the US, but perfectly legal and moral in say Iraq. Subjective morality is not a problem if it is the truth. Laws do not define morality, it is the individual. If you don't like your wife doing that it is your prerogative to take offense and divorce her; you are not forcing your morality on her, you are reacting to her behavior based on your own morality. Now this is the trickier question. God is immoral because his actions don't conform to our ideas of morality. By making you realize that God's actions conflict with *your* ideas of morality I can show you that you don't actually get your morality from God. Sure, but even in that case you would still have your own ideas of morality. Even if a god existed you would still need to establish why its views of morality are any more valid than yours. Conceptually a god could exist that is evil, or at least less than perfectly moral. You are going to need to do that for yourself. Don't worry though, you already have for the most part. Can you provide objective proof that one interpretation of the Bible is better than another? A poorly built bridge will fall down, a poorly interpreted Bible will... be indistinguishable from any other. My point (which I thought I had already made) is that if they became like God in knowing good and evil because of the choice, they couldn't have known about it beforehand. How can God punish them for making a choice like that before they understood good and evil?They were morally incompetent to make the choice, so punishing them for it is immoral. It would be like beating the crap out of a retarded kid who didn't know he was doing anything wrong. Except for the first generation after the knowledge was lost from the population. Those people would be damned for no choice of their own, or any choice they had knowledge of their ancestors making. They would be completely ignorant of God and his vendetta against them, and if they showed up in hell it would be a complete surprise. There, *that* is what I am getting at. God is not, in your view, completely moral. Once you admit that you can judge for yourself if such a concept is worthy of worship, and assess the claim critically.

"The point is that the tree provided the knowledge of good and evil. So if they committed an "immoral" act BEFORE they knew the difference between right and wrong, did they actually do anything immoral?"Good question. Since morals are subjective, they may or may not have. But they did do something immoral in Gods eyes. Like any father who attempts to teach their personal views on morality to their children, it was wrong to the father. If God is real, and knows all, then it should be in our best interests to follow his view of morality, correct?"Not if we take a literal interpretation of the bible. The bible says that death entered the world during the Fall of Man. There was no death, so inferentially they could have no concept of what death is. They also did not know it was wrong to eat of the fruit since eating the fruit was the only way to know right from wrong! See the theological problem?"I do, but you are misunderstanding what knowledge was gained. They did not gain the knowledge of right and wrong, but the knowledge of good and evil. When they ate of the fruit, sin entered the world. Before this there was no sin. God made man in his image (it's interesting to note that God created everything in the Biblical text, but only breathed life into man; everthing else created was just alive). This is not very descriptive, either physically or mentally. But if the biblical God is correct and right, then the bible describes God as being just and fair. So it would not make sense that God would expose his most important creation to an unfair life obstacle. Remember, the main reason the tree of knowledge of good and evil was put there was to test Satan, who at the time was a high ranking angel in heaven. The tree shows us two things:1. The true nature of Satan.2. The carnal nature of man.Exodus 20:5 is God delivering the ten commandments. These are the commandments of the Lord, and if broken, are considered sin.Deut. 24:16 is not. The entire chapter (if you read it) Speaks about what it means to be a Christian. God is saying that no man shall be punished in Gods eyes for the sin his child commits. And no child will have to answer for any sin his father commits.What I am talking about is mans sin generically. A baby does not go to hell because his/her father committed any specific sin, but because he is sinful in nature, so is the child. Either the father or mother must believe in Christ for any child or baby to be saved, and you can find this described in great detail in 1 corinthians 7. But specifically:1 Corinth. 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now they are holy.Romans 5 also tells us that sin rules all mankind, from Adam to Moses (before the ten commandments were given).Taking references from the old testiment is tricky. Since sin required a price. Christians offered clean sacrifices for their sins. There are major differences in teaching from before Christ and after. Although the books of the old testiment offer wisdom and history (as well as the books of law), the new testiment teaches more towards mankind after Christ. The first 8 chapters of Romans is a good place to start."The bible in no way indicates that. Please provide scripture if you feel otherwise."Gen. 11:6 And the lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restained from them, which they have imagined to do.Also Noah lived 350 years after the flood, so he would have been around to teach and tell the stories. Also before the flood, the bible says that God found righteousness in Noahs generations. If they were not Christian, God would not have seen them as righteous.

Does this statement make anyone else's wackaloon meter go off?Are you trying to say that Noah was a christian? If so please try to explain how the heck that works. Are you saying there didn't need to be a christ in order for there to be christianity?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

LEARN HOW TO QUOTE PROPERLY MORON Yea, I've got a few babies laying around to slam against rocks. I just need to get some slaves so I can be moral like god. Say what? Surely you have some scripture you can back this up with......By your logic, god cannot be omnipotent then, huh? I find that as perplexing as you do, Theodoric.

---

"Subjective morality is not a problem if it is the truth."there is no truth in morality. Morality is a personal belief."you are not forcing your morality on her, you are reacting to her behavior based on your own morality."Actually, by divorcing her I would be forcing my morality (and Gods, since infedility is grounds for divorce by biblical standards), because it influences her negitively. Since I am not perfect, how is it logical to consider what she did immoral?"Now this is the trickier question. God is immoral because his actions don't conform to our ideas of morality. By making you realize that God's actions conflict with *your* ideas of morality I can show you that you don't actually get your morality from God."No, in doing that you show that I do not always follow the path God wants for all of us. But by correcting mistakes, my actions can find favour in Gods eyes.You seem to confuse subjective truths with objective truths. Morality is a subjective truth. I can say the best movie in the world is The Notebook. You can say the best movie in the world is The Matrix. And we are both right. Subjective truth is irrelevant to evolution vs creation. We cannot both point out that a light is two different colors, when the light in question is red. One person, or more importantly both of us, must be wrong. This is objective truth.Defining if something is immoral is generally based on popular morality. Most people believe it is immoral to kill or rape. Subjects like abortion cause a moral firestorm on the other hand. Since morality is not concrete anywhere in the world, I fail to see the relevance. I will say this however. If there is a supreme entity, I think it's level of morality on any subject would be given more weight than mine or yours."perfectly moral."I believe this is self refuting. Define perfectly moral."Can you provide objective proof that one interpretation of the Bible is better than another? "generally, yes. Deuteronomy teaches that no teaching or prophet will conflict with any other, or it is not from God. So if an interpretation conflicts with other scriptural teaching, then it has been interpreted incorrectly."My point (which I thought I had already made) is that if they became like God in knowing good and evil because of the choice, they couldn't have known about it beforehand. How can God punish them for making a choice like that before they understood good and evil?"hmmm let's think about this for a moment. Did God say that they would gain knowledge of good and evil after they ate the fruit? No. Satan did. They did not become like God from eating the fruit. God created them in his image. They were already like God before eating the fruit."There, *that* is what I am getting at. God is not, in your view, completely moral. Once you admit that you can judge for yourself if such a concept is worthy of worship, and assess the claim critically."again morality is subjective. Just because I believe it's not fair, it does not mean it it true. The bible also teaches that if you forget to cut some of your crops, to leave them, and do not pursue them, for they are for the strangers and your neighbors. And not to go asking for the stuff back that you lend out, but to let it be, because it is better to keep favour with your brother than to gain worldly possessions. Personally, if I forgot 500 bucks on the tablesaw at work, I would want it. And when I lend stuff out, I want it back, and in a timely fashion. But why should I force my morality on my brother by saying he has had whatever I lend him too long? How long is too long? Why is my morality more important than his? Is it in my best I interests to back my morality no matter the cost?Gods teachings are moral, because they appeal to the higher nature of man. They teach to be humble, wise, loving, loyal, and to love your enemies. This is one of the main reasons I became a christian again at 24 (raised christian, turned evolutionist in school, researched little by little over thr years, became Christian again).

Read the bible. God knew in advance Satan was jealous of God. he created the tree to expose him to the Angels. Like I said before, God is just, and would not punish Satan for a crime he didn't commit.And God freed people from slavery in the Bible. The only times God alowed his people to be enslaved was when they did not obey him, and he always freed them after.