so i was reading the bible...

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
For a serious answer...

The Old Testament.. people were servants of God. They needed to live under rules and laws.
Christ, supposedly, came to fulfill the law.
The New Testament... People are now Sons & daughters of God and live under Grace. There is no longer a need to live under rules and laws. The Old Testament is considered, by many, a kind of history book, of what God expected of them. The New Testament is kind of like a guide book of what God wants for and and how we are to achieve that.

You mileage may vary here...

🙂

finally, someone gets it right! the Bible bashers are allways trying to bash and berate, but have little knowledge of what theyre doing.

Although I wouldnt say that there was no longer a need for Christians to live under the rules and regulations set forth by God in the Old Testament. God still expects us to follow the Ten Commandments, still consideres homosexuality an abomination, etc. But, pork is now allowed to be eaten, and I believe that punishments were less strict [such as no more stoning and such]

Hi, don't run, i am not going to ask you any of the hard questions this time.

God still expects us to follow the ten commandments, interesting, what does that has to do with homosexuality though? Who tells you what you can pick and choose from the bible?

 

[Klixxer]

Um, genesys, my good (well, everything is relative) man, you have a statement in german in your signature, why is that?

I mean, it is not a quote so why would you write it in german?

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
For a serious answer...

The Old Testament.. people were servants of God. They needed to live under rules and laws.
Christ, supposedly, came to fulfill the law.
The New Testament... People are now Sons & daughters of God and live under Grace. There is no longer a need to live under rules and laws. The Old Testament is considered, by many, a kind of history book, of what God expected of them. The New Testament is kind of like a guide book of what God wants for and and how we are to achieve that.

You mileage may vary here...

🙂

finally, someone gets it right! the Bible bashers are allways trying to bash and berate, but have little knowledge of what theyre doing.

Although I wouldnt say that there was no longer a need for Christians to live under the rules and regulations set forth by God in the Old Testament. God still expects us to follow the Ten Commandments, still consideres homosexuality an abomination, etc. But, pork is now allowed to be eaten, and I believe that punishments were less strict [such as no more stoning and such]

Hi, don't run, i am not going to ask you any of the hard questions this time.

God still expects us to follow the ten commandments, interesting, what does that has to do with homosexuality though? Who tells you what you can pick and choose from the bible?

lol. follow the conversation. it was mentioned that when Christ came, the set of laws and standards that Christians are supposed to follow, however, there were some that Christ didnt do away with, such as the 10 Commandments, or homosexuality being a sin. The 10 Commandments themselves dont pretain to homosexuality [unless we're talking about McGreavey (adultry)] The only reason I mentioned the 10 Commandments and homosexuality in the same post is because they were established in the Old Testament, and by in large, Christians dont follow the outdated and archaic laws and customs of the Old Testament, but the new and updated versions established by Christ in the New Testament.

sorry if my post looks and sounds a little confusing, but it's 2am, and I just got back from Las Vegas today, so im really tired.

and I have a phrase in German in my sig because I like the German language and people. And they used to be great war mongers, but for some reason, as of late, they're acting like a bunch of silly pansies
[just kidding] But anyway, I see the German language as more of a forceful language [as compared to some of the romantic languages like Spanish, French, or Italian] To me, German [and Russian] sounds a lot more menacing than most of the other languages in the world.
Lame reasoning, but hey, what are ya gunna do?

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
For a serious answer...

The Old Testament.. people were servants of God. They needed to live under rules and laws.
Christ, supposedly, came to fulfill the law.
The New Testament... People are now Sons & daughters of God and live under Grace. There is no longer a need to live under rules and laws. The Old Testament is considered, by many, a kind of history book, of what God expected of them. The New Testament is kind of like a guide book of what God wants for and and how we are to achieve that.

You mileage may vary here...

🙂

finally, someone gets it right! the Bible bashers are allways trying to bash and berate, but have little knowledge of what theyre doing.

Although I wouldnt say that there was no longer a need for Christians to live under the rules and regulations set forth by God in the Old Testament. God still expects us to follow the Ten Commandments, still consideres homosexuality an abomination, etc. But, pork is now allowed to be eaten, and I believe that punishments were less strict [such as no more stoning and such]

Hi, don't run, i am not going to ask you any of the hard questions this time.

God still expects us to follow the ten commandments, interesting, what does that has to do with homosexuality though? Who tells you what you can pick and choose from the bible?

lol. follow the conversation. it was mentioned that when Christ came, the set of laws and standards that Christians are supposed to follow, however, there were some that Christ didnt do away with, such as the 10 Commandments, or homosexuality being a sin. The 10 Commandments themselves dont pretain to homosexuality [unless we're talking about McGreavey (adultry)] The only reason I mentioned the 10 Commandments and homosexuality in the same post is because they were established in the Old Testament, and by in large, Christians dont follow the outdated and archaic laws and customs of the Old Testament, but the new and updated versions established by Christ in the New Testament.

sorry if my post looks and sounds a little confusing, but it's 2am, and I just got back from Las Vegas today, so im really tired.

and I have a phrase in German in my sig because I like the German language and people. And they used to be great war mongers, but for some reason, as of late, they're acting like a bunch of silly pansies
[just kidding] But anyway, I see the German language as more of a forceful language [as compared to some of the romantic languages like Spanish, French, or Italian] To me, German [and Russian] sounds a lot more menacing than most of the other languages in the world.
Lame reasoning, but hey, what are ya gunna do?

So in other words, you decide what you want to follow, how nice for you, i however wonder why you always ran away from our previious discussion about hormone infliction while in the womb and how hormone treatment only made gays more likely to have sex with someone of their own sex (rephrased upon request)

Well, i am Jewish, and i am German you have to excuse me if i see nothing funny in anything in that comment, and i see nothing that makes me want to laugh in the next pieces of that either.

I see a scared little child trying to be tough, that is all i see.

Actually, when it comes to you, it is all i ever see, when you don't run away from the discussion.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

So in other words, you decide what you want to follow, how nice for you, i however wonder why you always ran away from our previous discussion about hormone infliction while in the womb and how hormone treatment only made gays more likely to have sex with someone of their own sex

a tendency towards homosexual desire, or alcoholism, or any thing of the like is not an excuse for not having personal responsibility.

The basic precept of the Christian walk is that we war with the flesh. If one gives in to the desires of the flesh in a manner that is contrary to the lifelong commitment and covenant of marriage is overtly falling in this, and as such is certainly not part of the path that Jesus came to show us.

But that?s all unimportant as long as we follow after what we know that the Lord convicts us of, and in that we have only right the help our brother continue his walk, not to cast dispersions on him when he fails in it, as we all have. As Jesus said

And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

, Matthew 12:31

 

[cquark]

it was mentioned that when Christ came, the set of laws and standards that Christians are supposed to follow, however, there were some that Christ didnt do away with, such as the 10 Commandments, or homosexuality being a sin. The 10 Commandments themselves dont pretain to homosexuality [unless we're talking about McGreavey (adultry)] The only reason I mentioned the 10 Commandments and homosexuality in the same post is because they were established in the Old Testament, and by in large, Christians dont follow the outdated and archaic laws and customs of the Old Testament, but the new and updated versions established by Christ in the New Testament.

Can you show us where in the NT that Jesus goes over the 613 commandments (mitvoh) listed in the Torah and picks which ones that Christians are to follow?

According to the Torah, the 613 commandments are for Jews, while the Gentiles are only supposed to follow the 7 laws given to Noah.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: PatboyX

Originally posted by: cquark

But the evidence that I need is there; so much so that one of the founders of Harvard once said that the evidence of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ after being executed on a Roman cross is so strong that it would stand up in a court of law today.

While one may admire his faith, his claim is absurd. How would you argue a case where you have:

1. No physical evidence.
2. No witnesses that you can bring to the stand.
3. No testimony written by those supposed witnesses.

The best anyone can do are our earliest manuscripts, which are fragmentary copies of supposed copies of documents written by people who tradition claims to be the original witnesses, but even the Gospels themselves are silent as to who their authors are and none are written in the first person. There's no chain of evidence tying the Gospels to the Apostles, and worse yet, our earliest manuscript fragments disagree in places where they overlap, so we know for certain that copyists made some mistakes.

id like to see the stuff the harvard guy said/wrote about the evidence. do you happen to remember a name?

I don't know the name. You'll have to ask the original power, FlyingShawn.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
For a serious answer...

The Old Testament.. people were servants of God. They needed to live under rules and laws.
Christ, supposedly, came to fulfill the law.
The New Testament... People are now Sons & daughters of God and live under Grace. There is no longer a need to live under rules and laws. The Old Testament is considered, by many, a kind of history book, of what God expected of them. The New Testament is kind of like a guide book of what God wants for and and how we are to achieve that.

You mileage may vary here...

🙂

finally, someone gets it right! the Bible bashers are allways trying to bash and berate, but have little knowledge of what theyre doing.

Although I wouldnt say that there was no longer a need for Christians to live under the rules and regulations set forth by God in the Old Testament. God still expects us to follow the Ten Commandments, still consideres homosexuality an abomination, etc. But, pork is now allowed to be eaten, and I believe that punishments were less strict [such as no more stoning and such]

Hi, don't run, i am not going to ask you any of the hard questions this time.

God still expects us to follow the ten commandments, interesting, what does that has to do with homosexuality though? Who tells you what you can pick and choose from the bible?

lol. follow the conversation. it was mentioned that when Christ came, the set of laws and standards that Christians are supposed to follow, however, there were some that Christ didnt do away with, such as the 10 Commandments, or homosexuality being a sin. The 10 Commandments themselves dont pretain to homosexuality [unless we're talking about McGreavey (adultry)] The only reason I mentioned the 10 Commandments and homosexuality in the same post is because they were established in the Old Testament, and by in large, Christians dont follow the outdated and archaic laws and customs of the Old Testament, but the new and updated versions established by Christ in the New Testament.

sorry if my post looks and sounds a little confusing, but it's 2am, and I just got back from Las Vegas today, so im really tired.

and I have a phrase in German in my sig because I like the German language and people. And they used to be great war mongers, but for some reason, as of late, they're acting like a bunch of silly pansies
[just kidding] But anyway, I see the German language as more of a forceful language [as compared to some of the romantic languages like Spanish, French, or Italian] To me, German [and Russian] sounds a lot more menacing than most of the other languages in the world.
Lame reasoning, but hey, what are ya gunna do?

So in other words, you decide what you want to follow, how nice for you, i however wonder why you always ran away from our previious discussion about hormone infliction while in the womb and how hormone treatment only made gays more likely to have sex with someone of their own sex (rephrased upon request)

Well, i am Jewish, and i am German you have to excuse me if i see nothing funny in anything in that comment, and i see nothing that makes me want to laugh in the next pieces of that either.

I see a scared little child trying to be tough, that is all i see.

Actually, when it comes to you, it is all i ever see, when you don't run away from the discussion.

ummm, no, Christians dont decide what we are going to follow, we are called Christians for a reason. We follow the teachings of Christ [chronicled in the New Testament, NOT the Old]

Nothing in my post was supposed to make you laugh, nor was any of it meant to be funny.

hahahahahahahaha, i've never run away from the conversation, but you will have to excuse my having a real life and runing back to my computer every ten minutes to check and see if someone has responded to one of my posts.

All I see is a belligerent insecure person in you, who delights in the creatin of animosity and division. You might be a happier person [and one who laughs more] if you adhered to a good system of morals and ethics, or at least TRIED to be virtuous in some manner. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: cquark

it was mentioned that when Christ came, the set of laws and standards that Christians are supposed to follow, however, there were some that Christ didnt do away with, such as the 10 Commandments, or homosexuality being a sin. The 10 Commandments themselves dont pretain to homosexuality [unless we're talking about McGreavey (adultry)] The only reason I mentioned the 10 Commandments and homosexuality in the same post is because they were established in the Old Testament, and by in large, Christians dont follow the outdated and archaic laws and customs of the Old Testament, but the new and updated versions established by Christ in the New Testament.

Can you show us where in the NT that Jesus goes over the 613 commandments (mitvoh) listed in the Torah and picks which ones that Christians are to follow?

Why are you jumping between religions? The Christians and the Jews believe in the sme God, but other than that, their religions are almost totally different. Aside from the Christian Bible sharing the Torah, their religious writings, customs, beliefs, and laws arent the same.

According to the Torah, the 613 commandments are for Jews, while the Gentiles are only supposed to follow the 7 laws given to Noah.

i didnt know that.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: cquark

it was mentioned that when Christ came, the set of laws and standards that Christians are supposed to follow, however, there were some that Christ didnt do away with, such as the 10 Commandments, or homosexuality being a sin. The 10 Commandments themselves dont pretain to homosexuality [unless we're talking about McGreavey (adultry)] The only reason I mentioned the 10 Commandments and homosexuality in the same post is because they were established in the Old Testament, and by in large, Christians dont follow the outdated and archaic laws and customs of the Old Testament, but the new and updated versions established by Christ in the New Testament.

Can you show us where in the NT that Jesus goes over the 613 commandments (mitvoh) listed in the Torah and picks which ones that Christians are to follow?

Why are you jumping between religions? The Christians and the Jews believe in the sme God, but other than that, their religions are almost totally different. Aside from the Christian Bible sharing the Torah, their religious writings, customs, beliefs, and laws arent the same.

I'm trying to find the basis for Christians singling out 10 of the 613 commandments given to the Jews. While Jesus talks about the 613 commandments of Jewish law regularly, the only time I recall him singling out any rules is in the Gospel of Matthew, where he summarizes the whole of Jewish law in 2 rules: to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself. I just did a quick search for the word "ten" in all four gospels online and I couldn't find it associated with the word "commandments" in any of them.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: cquark

it was mentioned that when Christ came, the set of laws and standards that Christians are supposed to follow, however, there were some that Christ didnt do away with, such as the 10 Commandments, or homosexuality being a sin. The 10 Commandments themselves dont pretain to homosexuality [unless we're talking about McGreavey (adultry)] The only reason I mentioned the 10 Commandments and homosexuality in the same post is because they were established in the Old Testament, and by in large, Christians dont follow the outdated and archaic laws and customs of the Old Testament, but the new and updated versions established by Christ in the New Testament.

Can you show us where in the NT that Jesus goes over the 613 commandments (mitvoh) listed in the Torah and picks which ones that Christians are to follow?

Why are you jumping between religions? The Christians and the Jews believe in the sme God, but other than that, their religions are almost totally different. Aside from the Christian Bible sharing the Torah, their religious writings, customs, beliefs, and laws arent the same.

I'm trying to find the basis for Christians singling out 10 of the 613 commandments given to the Jews. While Jesus talks about the 613 commandments of Jewish law regularly, the only time I recall him singling out any rules is in the Gospel of Matthew, where he summarizes the whole of Jewish law in 2 rules: to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself. I just did a quick search for the word "ten" in all four gospels online and I couldn't find it associated with the word "commandments" in any of them.

well, the 10 commandments are short and easy to remember.
damn, leviticus is long as hell!
just search for commandments, though. most translations dont really refer to them as The Ten Commandments. often it will be "my commandments" "my covonent" etc etc.

edit: im not sure that its in there, of course. im just adding a suggestion.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: PatboyX

Originally posted by: cquark
I'm trying to find the basis for Christians singling out 10 of the 613 commandments given to the Jews. While Jesus talks about the 613 commandments of Jewish law regularly, the only time I recall him singling out any rules is in the Gospel of Matthew, where he summarizes the whole of Jewish law in 2 rules: to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself. I just did a quick search for the word "ten" in all four gospels online and I couldn't find it associated with the word "commandments" in any of them.

well, the 10 commandments are short and easy to remember.
damn, leviticus is long as hell!

Well, I can't disagree with you there. (-;

just search for commandments, though. most translations dont really refer to them as The Ten Commandments. often it will be "my commandments" "my covonent" etc etc.

edit: im not sure that its in there, of course. im just adding a suggestion.

You're right that Jesus does mention commandments, but IIRC, the Greek word he's using corresponds to the Hebrew mitzvoh, which refers to all 613 commandments. There's a separate Hebrew word which I don't recall at the moment, which is used by Moses and which more closely corresponds to statement than commandment, and that word is always used when referring to the 10 statements Moses brought from Sinai.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: PatboyX

Originally posted by: cquark
I'm trying to find the basis for Christians singling out 10 of the 613 commandments given to the Jews. While Jesus talks about the 613 commandments of Jewish law regularly, the only time I recall him singling out any rules is in the Gospel of Matthew, where he summarizes the whole of Jewish law in 2 rules: to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself. I just did a quick search for the word "ten" in all four gospels online and I couldn't find it associated with the word "commandments" in any of them.

well, the 10 commandments are short and easy to remember.
damn, leviticus is long as hell!

Well, I can't disagree with you there. (-;

just search for commandments, though. most translations dont really refer to them as The Ten Commandments. often it will be "my commandments" "my covonent" etc etc.

edit: im not sure that its in there, of course. im just adding a suggestion.

You're right that Jesus does mention commandments, but IIRC, the Greek word he's using corresponds to the Hebrew mitzvoh, which refers to all 613 commandments. There's a separate Hebrew word which I don't recall at the moment, which is used by Moses and which more closely corresponds to statement than commandment, and that word is always used when referring to the 10 statements Moses brought from Sinai.

damn dude, are you a theology major or something? if so, id like to meet you in person so i can pick at your brain for a while!

 

[spamsk8r]

This conversation has been very interesting and thought provoking. I think we can all take some perspective from what we've learned thus far (religious or not). I think what it boils down to is treating one another with respect and love above that which we have even for ourselves, instead of pronouncing judgments on one another. Unless I'm mistaken, none of us is God, and as such we have to place to judge, only to discern and give counsel. My $.02

God Bless,
Geoff

 

[Gen Stonewall]

I've skipped a bunch of these posts (too many to read), but I noticed that some people were looking for some NT condemnation of homosexuality. Romans 1 (notably verse 26) very bluntly condemns it with little room for "interpretation".

 

[LordMagnusKain]

I've skipped a bunch of these posts (too many to read), but I noticed that some people were looking for some NT condemnation of homosexuality. Romans 1 (notably verse 26) very bluntly condemns it with little room for "interpretation".

When you have a pet sin you want to justify it?s easy to ?interpret? plane-as-day statements any way your warped mind desires.

basically the argument is that when Paul calls homosexual activity 'evil' that doesn't necessarily mean it's a "sin".

give me a break.

 

[rainypickles]

searched the thread for "shrimp" and didnt find anything.

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/


Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: rainypickles
searched the thread for "shrimp" and didnt find anything.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

"&gt;[url]http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/
[/url]
</a>

Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

yup. part of being kosher, no?
no shellfish...
health reasons, is usually what i hear about why thats in there for the time.
homosexually can be easily argued the same way...for propogation of the species.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: rainypickles
searched the thread for "shrimp" and didnt find anything.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/
">"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/
"><b"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/
<b">http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/
</a>
</a>
</a>
"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://;http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/
">"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://;http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/
"><b"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://;http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/
<b">;http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/
</a>
</a>
</a>
</a>

Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Jesus expressly lifted the food limitations. Matthew 15:11

"What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "

or do you need a vision from God Itself?

Acts 11
7Then I heard a voice telling me, 'Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.'
8"I replied, 'Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my mouth.'
9"The voice spoke from heaven a second time, 'Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.'

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Stonewall
I've skipped a bunch of these posts (too many to read), but I noticed that some people were looking for some NT condemnation of homosexuality. Romans 1 (notably verse 26) very bluntly condemns it with little room for "interpretation".

Nope, that one is pretty blunt.

 

[wallsfd949]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
That there are no rewards or punishments in some afterlife. All you have is what you do here.

wow. You'll find out real quick right after you die.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: wallsfd949
<blockquote>quote:
<hr><i>Originally posted by: <b>jackschmittusa</b></i>
That there are no rewards or punishments in some afterlife. All you have is what you do here.<hr></blockquote>

wow. You'll find out real quick right after you die.

Let?s make a bet:
You live your life like all that matters is your flesh
I?ll live my life like I?ve got an eternal reward for living a spiritually sound life

When we both die we?ll have people say who enjoyed their life more:
people say you did, then you win

Then we have God judge us for our inequities and ask why we deserve to be in his sight
You give out all your good points
I?ll say that I submit to the Lord Jesus

You go to hell, you win!

There is no such judgment, you win!
It sounds like being an atheist is an all-win situation to me.

Wait? unless feeding the spirit actually brings you a better life than feeding the flesh.

Then, final judgment or not, I win.

but i lose as well, because one more person has lived less of a life and come to a final choice that wasn't the optimal one 🙁

yep; actually, it looks like Atheism is an all loose situation, weird how it looks so appealing at first.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
<blockquote>quote:
<hr><i>Originally posted by: <b>wallsfd949</b></i>
<blockquote>quote:
<hr><i>Originally posted by: <b>jackschmittusa</b></i>
That there are no rewards or punishments in some afterlife. All you have is what you do here.<hr></blockquote>

wow. You'll find out real quick right after you die.<hr></blockquote>

Let?s make a bet:
You live your life like all that matters is your flesh
I?ll live my life like I?ve got an eternal reward for living a spiritually sound life

When we both die we?ll have people say who enjoyed their life more:
people say you did, then you win

Then we have God judge us for our inequities and ask why we deserve to be in his sight
You give out all your good points
I?ll say that I submit to the Lord Jesus

You go to hell, you win!

There is no such judgment, you win!
It sounds like being an atheist is an all-win situation to me.

Wait? unless feeding the spirit actually brings you a better life than feeding the flesh.

Then, final judgment or not, I win.

but i lose as well, because one more person has lived less of a life and come to a final choice that wasn't the optimal one <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif" border="0">

yep; actually, it looks like Atheism is an all loose situation, weird how it looks so appealing at first.

This argument is roughly the same as the famous Pascal's Wager and suffers from the same flaws. There are infinite number of possible deities and satisfying all of them at once is impossible, due to conflicting requirements that we see between even currently existing religions. Having faith in the wrong religion still results in one not having faith in the right one. Even within Christianity, there are three major paths to salvation: by knowledge, by faith, and by works, and thousands of disputing sects who disagree on precisely what requirements are necessary in each of those paths.

In summary, probability offers no solution to the problem of whether to have or not have faith.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
<blockquote>quote:
<hr>I've skipped a bunch of these posts (too many to read), but I noticed that some people were looking for some NT condemnation of homosexuality. Romans 1 (notably verse 26) very bluntly condemns it with little room for "interpretation".
<hr></blockquote>
When you have a pet sin you want to justify it?s easy to ?interpret? plane-as-day statements any way your warped mind desires.

basically the argument is that when Paul calls homosexual activity 'evil' that doesn't necessarily mean it's a "sin".

give me a break.

There are a couple of essential problems with following Paul's directions. The first is whether Paul is authoratative at all, which many early Christians did not believe, though eventually the Catholics won and ensured his primacy over the 12 apostles led by Peter and James in Jerusalem.

The second problem is which letters of Paul do you accept as authoratitive. The Catholics accepted a certain set of them, but excluded others like 3rd Corithinians, which is still found in the Ethiopian Bible since the Romans had no authority over ancient Ethiopia. However, the analysis of modern scholars reveals that many epistles other than 3rd Corinthians appear to be forgeries and certain parts of some epistles, like the admonishments against women in 2nd Corinthians are likely later insertions.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

There are infinite number of possible deities and satisfying all of them at once is impossible,

no, not at all a flaw, as long as you follow after one your taking a chance, better than no chance at all.

And a spiritual life, if it does bring people a better earthly life than one focused on the flesh, still leaves the faithful in a better place.

So with or without God existing, with or without a final judgment, living a life that is humble to a greater power is more often than not going to lead to a more fulfilled life.

The second problem is which letters of Paul do you accept as authoratitive.

that?s not a problem at all, if you don?t accept the inerrancy of the bible then your simply not part of this conversation because what you think about the bible is completely irrelevant to a religious discussion.

Now I?ll be happy to explain why any ?contradictions? you find in the bible aren?t, *definition of the word ?world? seems to answer most*