Quoting from the Bible - DPChallenge Forums

08/04/2008 08:07:05 PM · #276

Originally posted by togtog:

My favorite part of the Bible, I think from around the area of Numbers, maybe a little before or after, the command from God to stone any child to death for speaking against or disobeying their parents. That there is some proper parenting.

They were commanded to stone adulterers, sabbath-breakers, and idolators, too.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/04/2008 08:15:51 PM · #277

Originally posted by farfel53:

Hey, I'm trying real hard to argue nice, here. I've been a little sarcastic and unrealistic in my approach, and I'm really going to try to not do that anymore.

I was with my little family at a Cardinals game a few years ago. We had 2nd deck tickets, way up high. My boy wanted to get there early to get some autographs. He wandered down to the dugout, and got stuck in a big crowd, and being small, he got elbowed out of the way, and didn't succeed at all. About then a couple of his favorites came out from the other end of the dugout, unnoticed by the crowd. I whistled my "Hey" at him. Out of the crowd of 400-500 kids, only one looked up immediately and looked at me. I waved him over to the other end, and he got his treasures.

Yes, I and some others can "discern" between God's word and some "other" gibberish, as you characterise it...same as my son can hear me whistle from a hundred yards away, in a crowd. It's not hard, if you listen, and know what He sounds like. He doesn't sound like "kill!", or "lie", or "steal", or "dominate". He sounds like love, and peace, and understanding, and yes, tolerance.

But to you, that's just voodoo, magic, and sounds like b.s. So why does it matter to you?

Oh, that's a beautiful parable :-)

R.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

08/04/2008 08:31:09 PM · #278

An elephant seal and her pup can identify each other across a beach stacked with other seals too ...

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/04/2008 08:42:46 PM · #279

Originally posted by GeneralE:

An elephant seal and her pup can identify each other across a beach stacked with other seals too ...

And you don't think THAT's beautiful? C'mon, friend....

R.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

08/04/2008 08:46:44 PM · #280

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
An elephant seal and her pup can identify each other across a beach stacked with other seals too ...

And you don't think THAT's beautiful? C'mon, friend....

R.

Absolutely it's beautiful -- I just don't think it means the seals hear the voice of God ...

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/04/2008 09:01:18 PM · #281

It doesn't mean the seal hears God. It only means there is familiarity, enough that only one voice will be heard or heeded. I don't get your objection, either.

Message edited by author 2008-08-04 21:11:00.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

08/04/2008 09:32:10 PM · #282

Originally posted by farfel53:

It doesn't mean the seal hears God. It only means there is familiarity, enough that only one voice will be heard or heeded.

And so you are familiar with the sounds of your herd. That familiar voice others hear just happens to be Allah, Vishnu, Buddha or whoever/whatever else they think they should be hearing.

08/05/2008 06:57:36 AM · #283

DrAchoo,

farfel53,

dponlyme,

Buckeye_Fan,

Phil, do you agree that disobedient children should be killed? Would you do it?

I do hope your answer is no.

However, this would mean that you ignore the word of God, of the creator of the universe. How do you dare?

You'll have to make up very weird excuses to explain this... Looking forward to hearing them.

08/05/2008 07:51:25 AM · #284

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Lots of theory here, let's get practical:

God clearly demands that disobedient children be killed. Several times. Even in the New Testament (Mark 7:9-10):

And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'" (New International Version)

The believers among you have argued that the word of God has been preserved correctly. And as you know, it is infallible, eternal and unchangeable.

DrAchoo, farfel53, dponlyme, Buckeye_Fan, Phil, do you agree that disobedient children should be killed? Would you do it?

I do hope your answer is no.

However, this would mean that you ignore the word of God, of the creator of the universe. How do you dare?

You'll have to make up very weird excuses to explain this... Looking forward to hearing them.

Ok so I will be the first to answer this. No of course I wouldn't killed my child if they were being disobedient. God send down the rules he wanted us to live by, the 10 Commandments, but he also gave us free will and a mind to choose what is right and wrong. He started with the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve. Eve had a choice to listen to the serpent or not. She chose to listen to the serpent and God threw them out of the Garden to fend for themselves. Its all about choices but in the end, you have a choice of whether you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ or not. If you do, as the Bible states, you will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven and all sins are forgiven.

Has God's word been perserved correctly? I go back to my theory that God told man, man wrote what he thought he heard God say but in the human mind, we interperete what we hear and repeat what we think we heard. I believe what the Bible says but I may not always agree.

Nothing in this world is black or white. We all have a choice. We all have opinions. God gave us life and love. Isn't that what is most important?

08/05/2008 08:40:20 AM · #285

Buckeye_Fan, you follow the passages in the Bible you like and you disregard the others, right? And you think that believing in Jesus is all you have to do to reserve a seat in heaven (a belief also based on your selection of Bible passages you like).

So basically, you simply do whatever the heck you want and hope for the best...

08/05/2008 09:10:44 AM · #286

I believe Jesus was quoting Moses in the passage you cite, not re-issuing the commandment as you imply. The passage is intended to show how poorly the Israelites had kept the law.
The O.T. in general displays the love of God offered to Israel, and their faithlessness in response. But one would have to take it as a whole, not just pick out objectionable passages. As many hard-to-swallow pills as you point out, there are twice as many offers of blessing, peace, prosperity and hope.
The N.T. in contrast is an offering of grace as opposed to law. The law is shown to be impossible for anyone to follow, but grace is shown to be available to the worst of sinners. Such grace is not available to the righteous, however.
No, I don't think many of us would stone disobedient children...though I've rocked mine to sleep a few times.
But I also don't think most of us would stone adulterers, idolators, witches or homosexuals. Something about grace and our own sinfulness...kinda like the disqualified passage from Mark...let he that is without sin, etc.
But then I think I wouldn't have to look very far to find Christians burned, stoned, crucified, or fed to lions, for the mere sin of refusing to dance to a pagan tune. EH?

Message edited by author 2008-08-05 09:11:58.

08/05/2008 09:28:59 AM · #287

Originally posted by farfel53:

I believe Jesus was quoting Moses in the passage you cite, not re-issuing the commandment as you imply. The passage is intended to show how poorly the Israelites had kept the law.

That's correct. Mark is recounting the meeting of Jesus with the Pharisees. The Pharisees had criticized Jesus's followers because they were eating without washing their hands first, and in the Jewish tradition this is forbidden. Jesus is pointing out to them that they are holding the laws of men above the law of Moses.

In other words, that the Pharisees were "cherry picking" the laws they would follow, pretty much exactly what Sam's saying the Believers among us are doing.

R.

08/05/2008 09:37:03 AM · #288

farfel53, you seem to take a similar approach to the one of

Buckeye_Fan: You take what you like and disregard the rest.

However, you have to ask yourself: Why would God include so many passages in his perfect book that directly contradict his main message (that you think you identified)?

The commandment to kill disobedient children is in there several times and I think God would not have included it multiple times if he didn't really mean it.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

08/05/2008 09:56:20 AM · #289

Originally posted by Sam94720:

farfel53, you seem to take a similar approach to the one of Buckeye_Fan: You take what you like and disregard the rest.

However, you have to ask yourself: Why would God include so many passages in his perfect book that directly contradict his main message (that you think you identified)?

The commandment to kill disobedient children is in there several times and I think God would not have included it multiple times if he didn't really mean it.

That's Old testament stuff. The Hebrew God was a God of Wrath. This is basically where Jesus, the Messiah, parted ways with the Hebrews; he brought the message of a God of Compassion. Christianity focuses on the New Testament, which is basically about the teachings of Jesus.

R.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

08/05/2008 10:08:04 AM · #290

Originally posted by farfel53:

Yes, I and some others can "discern" between God's word and some "other" gibberish, as you characterise it...same as my son can hear me whistle from a hundred yards away, in a crowd. It's not hard, if you listen, and know what He sounds like. He doesn't sound like "kill!", or "lie", or "steal", or "dominate". He sounds like love, and peace, and understanding, and yes, tolerance.

Did you ever think he might not speak the same to you as he does to everyone else?

Maybe he doesn't sound like love, peace, understanding and tolerance.

I'd say that to many, he sounds like exactly the opposite.

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

08/05/2008 10:11:00 AM · #291

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Now I'm really confused.
The Bible is the word of God. The Bible consists of the Old Testament and the New Testament. Granted, the books of each testament were chosen by men, but both are considered the word of God by Christians.

Except that stuff where God is Wrathful?

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/05/2008 10:19:34 AM · #292

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Absolutely not...that's definitely not what I think. I may not understand everything the Bible has to say, that doesn't mean I disregard what I don't understand. That's why I have questions for God. I don't doubt him just want to know why. And of course I hope for the best, don't we all. I think we all have our place in heaven, God will be the only one that can judge us. No one else. Everyone has their take on the Bible. I can't say that your take is wrong the way you read it and you can't say that I'm wrong the way I think the Bible reads. I believe in Jesus Christ. God will decided whether I get into Heaven or not. I certainly hope that I do.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

08/05/2008 10:20:21 AM · #293

Originally posted by Buckeye_Fan:

He started with the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve...

That story is literal history? Wow. You have to wonder what Adam and Eve thought when they were told a man shall leave his father and mother, and that women would suffer through childbirth since none of the above existed yet.... and how exactly did a serpent learn to talk without so much as a lisp? Maybe the serpent was sent to test the will of these people who had no concept of evil or deceit... but then the serpent is punished for its role (snakes eat dust?), so that can't be it. The snake would have had to independently develop the inside knowledge, linguistic ability and motivation to tempt some other species into eating magic learning fruit. Why is it that this part of the OT, along with stories of the 10 Commandments and the Great Flood are regarded as literal history to be heeded while other parts are dismissed as "Old Testament stuff" unless people are simply picking the parts they want to follow...?

Message edited by author 2008-08-05 10:22:47.

08/05/2008 10:26:31 AM · #294

Originally posted by Sam94720:

AH AH AH...hold on. That "perfect" book, was written by man. Man is not perfect. He wrote what he thought God said. We will never know what God actually meant until we meet him on our judgement day. I seriously would love to sit down with the Bible and God and ask, "when did you stop talking as a burning bush?" "What happened to the dinosaurs?" "Did you mean for evolution and creation to co-exist?" "Why don't people live for 500 years anymore?" and many many more questions. You assume that I disregard the Bible, quite the opposite actually. I revere it and depend on it. Just as I depend on God, which I can't see or hear but I know, in my heart, He is there.

08/05/2008 10:28:50 AM · #295

I don't disregard any of it, Sam. It's all there for a purpose. Do I completely understand the purpose? Not likely. However, as I stated before, the law was given to Israel to teach them dependence entirely on God. It wasn't given to you or I to tell us to stone our kids when they smart off. It wasn't given to command us to not eat pork, or to dress in a certain way, or to participate in the temple ordinances. I don't think you can properly make the case otherwise.

08/05/2008 10:31:52 AM · #296

Buckeye_Fan, you say that you consider certain parts of the Bible unrealiable because they were written by man who had their own interpretations of what God told them.

Originally posted by Buckeye_Fan:

We will never know what God actually meant until we meet him on our judgement day.

How do you know that you'll meet him on judgement day? Is this a part of the Bible you consider reliable? How do you know which parts of the Bible to trust and which not? I have the impression that you simply choose to trust those you like...

08/05/2008 10:32:11 AM · #297

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Buckeye_Fan:
He started with the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve...

That story is literal history? Wow. You have to wonder what Adam and Eve thought when they were told a man shall leave his father and mother, and that women would suffer through childbirth since none of the above existed yet.... and how exactly did a serpent learn to talk without so much as a lisp? Maybe the serpent was sent to test the will of these people who had no concept of evil or deceit... but then the serpent is punished for its role (snakes eat dust?), so that can't be it. The snake would have had to independently develop the inside knowledge, linguistic ability and motivation to tempt some other species into eating magic learning fruit. Why is it that this part of the OT, along with stories of the 10 Commandments and the Great Flood are regarded as literal history to be heeded while other parts are dismissed as "Old Testament stuff" unless people are simply picking the parts they want to follow...?

I can't answer that, its what I was taught in Sunday school. Its one of the many thousands of questions I have for God. I don't get this "picking of parts they want to follow" line of questioning. I don't go to church. I don't listen to a sermon every Sunday. Does that make me a bad Christian. I don't ever claim to know anything about the Bible. But I do consider myself a decent Christian. I falter, many many times but my view of the Bible is mine. I believe in God. I believe that I will go to Heaven. How you think about it all, is up to you.

08/05/2008 10:37:43 AM · #298

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

A lot of the Christian views which influence current political discussions (on gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, war etc.) are based on Old Testament texts. However, whenever Old Testament cruelties are criticized, Christians will say something like "That's OT, we've had an update since then, it is no longer relevant.". It's all part of the cherry picking. Should we disregard the Ten Commandments, too, because their in the OT?

Jesus reminds people of the law that disobedient children have to be killed in the New Testament, Mark 7:9-10. So your "That's OT!" argument doesn't even apply here.

08/05/2008 10:41:35 AM · #299

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Buckeye_Fan, you say that you consider certain parts of the Bible unrealiable because they were written by man who had their own interpretations of what God told them.

I never said that certain parts of the Bible are unreliable. You took that out of context of me saying that it is a interpertation of what man heard from God. That's why I have questions for God. I don't doubt His word, I wonder what and why he meant to say and do what He has done.

Originally posted by Buckeye_Fan:
We will never know what God actually meant until we meet him on our judgement day.

How do you know that you'll meet him on judgement day? Is this a part of the Bible you consider reliable? How do you know which parts of the Bible to trust and which not? I have the impression that you simply choose to trust those you like...

Because I believe in my heart that I will meet him. I could be totally wrong. I consider all of the Bible reliable and uplifting and it gives me security. I still don't get the whole "choosing what parts I like". I loved reading Revelations. The Psalms are beautiful. The story from the OT and NT are facinating. But that is my belief. You making me sound like a bad Christian. Why is that?