Re: Security Guard - God Guided Me And Protected Me


"Jean Paul" <jobbahut@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4761bb42$0$2344$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"John Galt" <whoisjohngalt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:13m2ovse8t39e23@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:led2m3p1jnj5bebkdbi5kd4kma29evbl0p@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 04:52:09 -0600, "John Galt"
<whoisjohngalt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:kmk1m3568ujfjgflo0jgvgm8po2ntk8tgd@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:27:31 -0600, "John Galt"
<whoisjohngalt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
news:0761m3d6lnrifekosq94a7pjpijr67vq3v@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:01:23 -0600, "John Galt"
<whoisjohngalt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
news:a1e0m3hkcnl1uvsutjsgff630debg56grh@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:03:07 -0600, "John Galt"
<whoisjohngalt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

Certainly an important message. God and faith are often castigated
as
"crutches for the weak", but if man was to create a God for that
purpose,
he
most certainly would not have created the just God that he did.

"Just"? You've got to be kidding!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/just>

The world holds no absolute definition of what defines "just", Rump.

Well why do you expect me to accept your usage of
it then,

I don't. It is a statement of fact: that the God of the Bible expects
humans
to adhere to a code of behavior and judges them by it. That's called
being
"just".

Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot were "just" by that standard.

If you think they were consistently applying their code, yes.

It's not the nature of humanity to enjoy being required to adhere to a
code
of behavior which is contrary to carnal impulse.

Same comment as above, more or less.


Ergo, your feeling about it it is no different than that of His
adherents.
But the adherents do their best to follow said code, because they are
convinced that it is in their best interests to do so.

The code is incoherent. In the New Testament we have "love thy
neighbor", and in the Old Testament we have killing witches and
men who "lie with man as with woman", and stoning one's children
if the deny their religion. The adherents of Christianity pick and
choose which things they like, then pretend the things they like are
the word of god and the others don't matter or have to be interpreted
in a way they feel is correct though others feel differently. That's
not "the word of god", that's "making it up as you go along".

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the
voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they
have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father
and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of
his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the
elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will
not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men
of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou
put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. --
Deuteronomy 21:18-21

He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to
death. -- Exodus 21:15

He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to
death. -- Exodus 21:17


There's a few more like that at
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/children.html
It took me about thirty seconds to find that site, using
the google search
stone children bible
and I could have found as many abominations as I wanted
with a different choice of search words. The bible is packed
with them.

Here's my "favourite" of all. Think of the consequences of
following the "just" lord for centuries based on this one:
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Exodus 22:18

Please don't try to tell me these are mistranslations, because
to do so is to admit that those following the bible were not
following the word of god, and moreover the credibility of a
god who would allow humans to do injustice based on
mistranslations is destroyed, because that god is either not
just or not all-powerful.

Even the New Testament is not free of such things.
Also in Matthew 5:17, Jesus affirms that he did not come to
invalidate the old testament.
"Do not think that I came to destroy the law of the prophets.
I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say
unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or tittle
will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

You've now quoted the entire "full circle". In the OT, the covenant
relationship is fulfilled by the Law. In the NT, the covenant
relationship
is fulfillled (above quotation) by faith in Christ. You've got the whole
core of the theology in what you've quoted above. In short, we (those
who
live in covenant) no longer have to do THIS (follow all the mitvahs of
the
OT Law of Moses), because we now can replace it with THAT (faith in
Christ
as a proxy for the Law.)



Ah, now you're interpreting, though.

Not personally. That's the general consensus of Christianity over 2K
years.

That's not what
the people believe who quote Leviticus to condemn
homosexuality (though they do skip over the parts of
Leviticus that would be inconvenient to themselves
personally).

No, they believe it. Just ask them when they had their last hot dog when
they quote it.

Here's the issue: The Law remains the expression of righteousness. It's
no longer required to keep to it in an Orthodox Jewish fashion if Christ
is your proxy. The Christians you're thinking of are correct in using it
as guidance for righteousness, but NOT as a justification for bigotry,
and certainly not for any violence.

John, what you really are saying here is if you accept Jesus as your
savior then the law no longer applies to you. But that would also be
saying that if you accept Jesus as your savior then the 10 commandments no
longer apply to you also. Try finding a Jesus Christian who thinks the 10
commandments are optional.

I never used the word "optional." I said an accurate description of
righteousness, BUT no longer effacious for salvation, as demonstrated by the
story of the Good Thief.

JG


JP






About six posts back, I said "this gets nuanced." That's the nuance.

It's also not what Matthew 5:17 says,
except by contrived logic, which I can understand since
one way or another, an intelligent person just has to
escape from Leviticus somehow, unless he's going to
live like a murderous barbarian in the modern world. I
guess it means that all those people who take the bible
literally are going to hell - yet another way to guess
wrong and go to hell. Unless of course you go to
heaven as long as you believe something, no matter
what it is, and perhaps try to kill 999 people in order to
please Shari like a faithful devotee, unlike those awful
atheists and "secular humanists" who have no respect
for a god.



http://www.ukapologetics.net/Jesusandthelaw.html
Please refer back to my statement about Jehovah allowing
people to be ruled by mistranslations, before interpreting
the above by your own lights, since that is not the way
other people have used these passages. The same
not-just or not-all-powerful result for Jehovah continues to
obtain.

I can't speak for others who have dealt with those verses in an aberrant
fashion. All I can say that it is *clear* from the NT itself that His
Apostles themselves all came to the understanding, within 15 years or so
after His death, that Christ had replaced Jewish Law as the Covenant
responsibility. Paul floated that dogma first, it was controversial
until
the first Council they had on the subject on or about 49AD and referred
to
in the book of Acts, after which Peter affirmed in his own canonical
letters
his agreement with Paul's teaching.

I feel for all those poor people who are going to hell because
they didn't listen to Paul, who is the true founder of Christianity
of course, not Christ. And Paul was politically a very shifty
dude, not at all the kind of guy one would look to as a moral
paragon, which is why Christ is necessary as a figurehead,
though not one who really represents what the religion named
after him is.

If that were true, then Peter, who was closest to Christ, wouldn't have
endorsed Paul. However, seeing the matter as you do makes you halfway to
becoming a Muslim. That's the way they see it.



As lifetime observant Jews, it comes as
no surprise that there was some back-and-forth on the topic, and Jesus'
brother James, who took the position of the bishop of Jerusalem after
the
death of his brother, even appears in the Rabbinical histories of the
day,
spoken of with great respect because of his unfailing adherence to the
Law.
(In a word, if you were going to lead a Jewish personality cult around
Jesus
immediately after His death, you BETTER make sure that you didn't look
like
heretics to the Sanhedrin, as they had already demonstrated a rather low
tolerance for challenges to their authority.)

Now, if you (or any other internet source) wishes to self-appoint
themselves
as Judge and Jury and collectively decide that the Apostles,

Well, you did that, or at least you accepted pronouncements
from people who are neither God nor Jesus, so why shouldn't
I think for myself too, also without relying on God or Jesus.

No problem with thinking for oneself.

It very much looks to me that my views are more coherent,
enlightened, merciful, and just, than anything those strange
ancient dudes came up with.

Don't we all? :-)



the Apostolic
Fathers, Justin Martyr, John Climacus, Augustine, the
Cappadocians.....yadayadayada up to Thomas Aquinas and then all the way
through the second millenia of Chrisitanity and up to the present day
have
ALL gotten it wrong on the Law/Christ interpretation because a bunch of
internet atheists got together and decided that all of the
aforementioned
theologians goofed, that's your business.

The theologians seem to have changed their positions quite
a lot over the ages.

There is no question that people see theology through the lens of their
personal experiences, which is highly tempered by the sociology of the
day. It takes some thought and wisdom to find those organic threads of
development throughout history.

We don't burn witches or torture heretics
anymore, which would surely condemn us to hell for disobeying
the Word in the eyes of Torquemada or Savonarolla. Are all
the people of those days now in hell, or do they get a pass
just because they believed something, anything, as long as
they weren't atheists or followers of something other than what
Christianity was at that time but no longer is?

I have no idea.

No matter how you spin all this stuff, it just can't be made to
make sense in a manner that a child shouldn't be able to see
through, unless he were thoroughly brainwashed. I expect my
12-year-old nephew, who has never been in a church, would
find all this twisting and turning ludicrous, even at his age.

No telling.




If a person does not believe in the existence of said God, then it is
wholly
irrational that he/she should be concerned about adhering to that
God's
code
of behavior, OR even give much of a mind to the fact that others do.

If those adhering to what they think is god's word
negatively act toward others on that basis, it is most
definitely a concern for those negatively impacted,
and those have every right to speak out against the
believers, Jehovah be damned (if you'll pardon the
expression).

Fair enough, but your opnion holds value only to the point of where you
are
affected. As I've stated many times before, the prevailing teaching of
the
Church on sin is that the believer must remember that sin and sinner are
two
different things, and you hate the former and love the latter. You're
quite
right that in gay matters, the Church has a history of failing in this
regard, and is rightfully criticized for doing so.


Oh yeah, people can believe what they want, and I may scoff
but I won't try to stop them, unless they step on my dress. But
they do step on my dress. If I were dictator, I certainly wouldn't
outlaw churches, but I also certainly wouldn't allow churches,
or the individuals in churches, to set laws for everybody in
violation of "humanistic" equality and basic rights. If I have a
religion, it's nontheistic "humanism", and I think far more of it
than of Christianity or Islam, for reasons that should be completely
obvious to anyone not saturated in some bizarre ancient creed
that's been repeatedly contorted out of recognition compared to
what it had been before the most recent round of contortions.
All IMV, of course.




especially when applied to a fiend like Jehovah
who wipes out whole cities because he's p.o.'d?

I think it's perfectly just that you carry on your affairs as you
see
fit.



Unfortunately, you're in the minority among Christians,
and will be in the minority for the foreseeable future,

I have never been in the minority in any Church i have been involved
with,
and suspect my personal experience is a better barometer than what you
read
in the media.


It's not what I read in the media, it's the law of the land
that these people have imposed on everybody, with the
agency and "moral justification" of their "immoral"
so-called "beliefs".

There's no "law of the land." Consider this, Rump. When the media wants
to do a "piece" on gay life in America, do they come to interview you
sitting at Starbucks with a friend, or do they tape some footage of the
most outrageous moments of a Gay Pride parade?

The media is sensationalistic by nature. They'll tape Fred Phelps every
time. Hell, even Jerry Falwell ended up being good friends with Larry
Flynt over the years. They two had no agreement politically, socially, or
anything, but that wasn't an issue for the guy who was generally
considered by most critics to be the intolerant-of-the-intolerant.

JG



If all Christians were like you, there'd be no problem, at
least based on what I've seen of your views so far.








.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Merry Christmas and God Bless
    ... as some rather spurious thinking by the early Church that some holy figures were killed or died on the day of their conception, and that Jesus' conception took place in March. ... exploring what would happen if Christianity hadn't co-opted the Norse religion in the way it historically did. ... Well it isn't but would God be God if he did ungodly things. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Security Guard - God Guided Me And Protected Me
    ... most certainly would not have created the just God that he did. ... "Do not think that I came to destroy the law of the prophets. ... That's the general consensus of Christianity over 2K years. ... what you really are saying here is if you accept Jesus as your savior then the law no longer applies to you. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Merry Christmas and God Bless
    ... as some rather spurious thinking by the early Church that some holy figures were killed or died on the day of their conception, and that Jesus' conception took place in March. ... exploring what would happen if Christianity hadn't co-opted the Norse religion in the way it historically did. ... Well it isn't but would God be God if he did ungodly things. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Bored already ? But also a Thursday spoiler thoughts
    ... Are you saying is was Jesus' idea that this should happen? ... The relationship between God the father and God the son ... Either you're saying that it's Christianity, specifically, ...
    (uk.media.radio.archers)
  • Re: Merry Christmas and God Bless
    ... as some rather spurious thinking by the early Church that some holy figures were killed or died on the day of their conception, and that Jesus' conception took place in March. ... exploring what would happen if Christianity hadn't co-opted the Norse religion in the way it historically did. ... Well it isn't but would God be God if he did ungodly things. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)