We are moving beyond the torture that GBush, Jesus, and Mohammad approved of.

So people will choose torture instead of the opposite.

Are you S & M by any chance?

As to us being given the choice of not sinning, that is a false statement because your own scripture says we are all sinners and if any could choose not to sin, we would have examples of non-sinners.

Is you bible wrong when it says we are all sinners?

Regards
DL

 

Jesus was a Jew, preached to the Jews. He used the Tanakh scriptures when talking to his people. Scriptures with which they were familiar. Some of his parables were taken from the Tanakh and referred to 'Israel - God's son'. The rest is what Christianity added. Christianity did what Islam did later - took the Tanakh and translated it to form teachings. Nothing in the Tanakh refers to Jesus, nothing in the Tanakh refers to Mohammed.

 

You have no sympathy for those who choose the right moral path then.

[video=youtube;jKNup9gEBdg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKNup9gEBdg&feature=em-subs_digest-vrecs[/video]

Care to debate for your immoral position?

----------

Human sacrifice is evil and God demanding one and accepting one is evil.

Those trying to profit from that evil are evil. Do just a bit of thinking and you will agree.

Imagine you have two children. One of your children does something wrong – say it curses, or throws a temper tantrum, or something like that. In fact, say it does this on a regular basis, and you continually forgive your child, but it never seems to change.

Now suppose one day you’ve had enough, you need to do something different. You still wish to forgive your child, but nothing has worked. Do you go to your second child, your good child, and punish it to atone for the sins of the first?

In fact, if you ever saw a parent on the street punish one of their children for the actions of their other child, how would you react? Would you support their decision, or would you be offended? Because God punished Jesus -- his good child -- for the sins of his other children.

Interestingly, some historical royal families would beat their slaves when their own children did wrong – you should not, after all, ever beat a prince. The question is: what kind of lesson does that teach the child who actually did the harm? Does it teach them to be a better person, to stop doing harm, or does it teach them both that they won't themselves be punished, and also that punishing other people is normal? I know that's not a lesson I would want to teach my children, and I suspect it's not a lesson most Christians would want to teach theirs. So why does God?

For me, that’s at least one significant reason I find Jesus’ atonement of our sin to be morally repugnant – of course, that’s assuming Jesus ever existed; that original sin actually exists; that God actually exists; etc.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?
If not, please show how it is morally and legally good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty, bearing in mind that all legal systems think that punishing the guilty is what is justice.

Regards
DL

 

Your bible would call that an outright lie.

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

Further.

http://biblehub.com/luke/22-42.htm

Regards
DL

 

#72

Priests have to follow what they have been taught for 2,000 years. Many today are leaving the priesthood because they no longer accept things that are obviously untrue. Why should we believe you.
There's no evidence that Jesus was anything more than a Jewish priest. If, as some question, he really existed.

The reliability of the Bible is gradually being shown to be doubtful. Looking at it through the eyes of one of the time we get a different view of the Bible.

#73

The Tanakh appeared long before the NT and has nothing to do with the NT - except in Christian eyes. The only relationship between the 2 is all in Christian eyes. Even Revelation was originally Jewish, until John interpolated Christian doctrine.

 

I call BS on that. God revealed Himself to the Jews first, then finally to the Gentiles. Paul, the Hebrew, said that. It's the reason aborigines, the ignorant, and the untutored can be saved without converting to Judaism.

- - - Updated - - -

Spong?????

Pardon me for laughing.

 

Many laugh, as they run from the moral arguments against substitutionary atonement and the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty.

Your is a nervous laughter of finding yourself on the wrong side. A laughter of shame.

If you wish to debate instead of laugh and learn a bit, I am here for you.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Yes or no?

Or just more nervous laughter as you run and hide.

Regards
DL

 

#81

Of course you'd say that. There's no reference to Jesus in the Tanakh. There is the Christian interpretation that does not bear fruit if you study the Tanakh. What Paul does is takes much of the Tanakh and applies it to Christian teaching. That was after his 'conversion'. But then Mohammed did that after his conversations with Gabriel. And several modern people have done so after their 'revelations'.
All religions have evolved from earlier religions from the beginning of mans awareness of the world around him, and his inability to understand nature and the mishaps from which he suffered.

God is the need for those who can't accept life for what it is. A natural experience.

 

I have studied the Tanakh, read the Psalms, Isaiah, and the minor prophets. You'd have to be blind to not see it.

 

'Spong'. Speaks a lot of common sense. What we know today makes much of the Bible 'outdated'. I may not agree with everything he says but I certainly agree people are not prepared to accept the 'miracles' recorded, the verbatim reports of people who were not even there. That applies to ex-priests, of which there are thousands who could not honestly preacher things they knew were untrue.
Before turning agnostic I was, over the years, involved with interchurch affairs. From the Priests, Pastors and church leaders I have known there are many who do not treat the Bible as sacrosanct.

 

He sounds like a fool trying to sell books. If you say something outrageous enough people who want to hear it will buy it.

 

The NT tortures the text in order to arrive at its messianic "prophecies." Matthew, for example, cites Isaiah 7 as being about Jesus . . . which is ludicrous to anyone who has actually read through Isaiah 7. You'd have to be blind to "see" a prophecy of Jesus there. Elsewhere in Isaiah, an actual "anointed" is mentioned, but he is identified by the author as being King Cyrus.

 

And don't talk about the arrogance of disagreeing with a priest when you insult a bishop.

 

So have I. There is no reference to Jesus in the Tanakh. Most of the Christian interpretations refer to Israel as Jahweh's son. In fact throughout the Tanakh this is so. The others are references taken out of context.
Study the life of David and the so-called references to Jesus in the Psalms are simply references to Davids experiences. The Minor Prophets - read in context - do not refer to Jesus. Matthews reference to 'calling my son out of Egypt' is a clear reference to the supposed Exodus. His attempt to have Jesus born in Bethlehem Ephrata is another example. Jesus was almost certainly born at home in Nazareth - or nearby in Bethlehem in Galilee. NOTHING of the time makes Joseph travel to Bethlehem Ephrata. No census, no taxation would necessitate that.
And no, I'm not blind. I just studied with an open mind, knowledge of the history and culture of the time. In doing that I line myself with the views of many modern Bible scholars.
The Tanakh is Jewish. The only Messiah mentioned is that human warrior who will lead the Jews into the Messianic age.

 

Your optimism of the human race, while refreshing, is ill placed. When someone wants something bad enough, they will do ANYTHING to get it, including lying, murder or torture.

You are right, but that costs extra and you have to have a safe word.

 

There's nothing outrageous about what he says. Anyone with any sense can see that. The Bible is proving very fallible as time goes on. What it declares as 'truth' may have been 'truth' as far as they knew at the time.. Today we know they were often wrong. The Bible contains 'facts' that cannot possibly be true if you know your history.

 

Hardly. His claims are internally inconsistent and illogical, anyone with any sense can see that. He appeals mostly to the uneducated.

I had the great misfortune to serve with a Spong disciple in my lifetime. The guy was a mess.

 

Give me the actual scriptures you are talking about instead of your opinion, you haven't said anything.

 

That's between me and him. You just worry about knowing what YOU'RE talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

This is all your opinion, which is what I always get from you. Who are these "modern Bible scholars" you speak of? Spong? People like you read authors like Spong without ever mentioning that there are a whole raft of scholars on the other side of the argument you conveniently ignore.

 

Isaiah 7. The whole chapter. The birth of the child was to be a sign to Ahaz that his enemies would be defeated before the child was old enough to know good from evil. Hence, this chapter can't be about Jesus.

 

That's a worse job of exegesis than you are accusing Christianity of doing. Was Cyrus born of a virgin? "Annointed" is not the same thing as "God with us".

 

Of course there are other authors, but Spong was the one under discussion. And he is absolutely right. Who believes in walking on water, in feeding 5000 men with 5 loaves and 2 fish etc. these days. Who believes in the Biblical creation story. the flood story etc. Those who prolong those myths insult the intelligence of mankind.

My opinion is based on facts that are available to anyone. Roman Laws of the time exclude any necessity for Joseph to go the Bethlehem for any purpose. IF the Bible were right it would have meant that the small town of Bethlehem and all the area around would have been absolutely swamped with hundreds of thousands of Jews. Mary and Joseph would have lucky to get within miles of Bethlehem.

If you had studied as you say, you would know the facts about 'Israel, my Son'. There is absolutely nothing in the Tanakh that refers to a Messiah named Jesus. In fact the Messiah was to be a human - not a god - who would lead his people into the Messianic age (Jewish). The very idea of a vicarious sacrifice would have been anathema to the Jews. When Martha said to Jesus 'Thou art the Christ (Messiah) she was not thinking of the Christian Messiah - this subject had not yet been accepted even by the disciples - but the Jewish Messiah. Likewise the woman at the well.

Neither was Jesus necessarily. If you believe Jesus was forecast then he was born 'of a maiden' which could mean several things.

 

Wrong chapter, bud. Two separate issues: Isaiah 7 not being about Jesus and Isaiah calling Cyrus God's anointed (and also saying the anointed "[has] not known me". The Cyrus stuff is in Isaiah 45. As for Isaiah 7 (speaking of poor exegesis), that chapter never even mentions the Messiah. So tell me, at what point between Jesus's birth and when he was old enough to know good from evil did Ahaz witness the defeat of his enemies? Because that is what Isaiah 7 is about, which is why desperate theologians scramble and start teaching for "double fulfillment" any time they are asked to read Isaiah 7 in its entirety. Even shelving for a moment whether the word means "virgin", Isaiah doesn't say "a virgin" he says "THAT virgin". Isaiah is talking about someone I'm the room with them (direct article, not indirect; read the Hebrew). Immanuel is a theophonic name, common stuff at the time, no more special than Daniel or Samuel). The verse does not say that the virgin will remain a vigin, just that she is a virgin at the time. Basically: "You see that virgin there? By the time she has a baby and that baby is old enough, this stuff will come true." You should really be asking yourself why, in the next chapter, Isaiah sleeps with a woman and we hear the same sort of stuff about her baby to be. Including an exclamation of "Oh, Immanuel."

 

Despite strong objections from conservative Christian apologists, the prevailing rabbinic interpretation of Isaiah 53 ascribes the “servant” to the nation of Israel who silently endured unimaginable suffering at the hands of its gentile oppressors. The speakers, in this most-debated chapter, are the stunned kings of nations who will bear witness to the messianic age and the final vindication of the Jewish people following their long and bitter exile. “Who would have believed our report?,” the astonished and contrite world leaders wonder aloud in dazed bewilderment (53:1).1

The stimulus for the world’s baffled response contained in this famed cluster of chapters at the end of the Book of Isaiah is the unexpected salvation of Israel. The redemption of God’s people is the central theme in the preceding verse (52:12) where the “you” signifies the Jewish people who are sheltered and delivered by God. Moreover, the “afflicted barren woman” in the following chapter is protected and saved by God, and is also universally recognized as the nation of Israel2 (54:1).

The well-worn claim frequently advanced by Christian apologists who argue that the noted Jewish commentator, Rashi (1040 CE – 1105 CE), was the first to identify the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 with the nation of Israel is inaccurate and misleading. In fact, Origen, a prominent and influential church father, conceded in the year 248 CE – eight centuries before Rashi was born – that the consensus among the Jews in his time was that Isaiah 53 “bore reference to the whole [Jewish] people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations.”3

The broad consensus among Jewish, and even some Christian commentators, that the “servant” in Isaiah 52-53 refers to the nation of Israel is understandable. Isaiah 53, which is the fourth of four renowned Servant Songs, is umbilically connected to its preceding chapters. The “servant” in each of the three previous Servant Songs is plainly and repeatedly identified as the nation of Israel.

 

You call yourself a "Modern Secular Humanist." This is of course wordplay for "atheist," like Joseph Stalin, who tortured, starved, and murdered some 50,000,000 Soviet citizens; like Chairman Mao, who tortured, starved, and murdered 70,000,000; like Adolph Hitler, who hated Christians and in particular, Jews. Hitler is widely claimed by atheists to have been "a Christian" but that is simply more wordplay by the godless left.

So Hitler was, like you, a Modern Secular Humanist.... inordinately fond of murdering humans.

“…the only way of getting rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.” –Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 61

“It’s Christianity that’s the liar. It’s in perpetual conflict with itself.” –Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 61

“In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.” –Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 6

“Kerrl, with the noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don’t believe the thing’s possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.” –Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 145

“As far as we are concerned, we’ve succeeded in chasing the Jews from our midst and excluding Christianity from our political life.” –Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 394

“There is something very unhealthy about Christianity.” –Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 418

“The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity. Christianity is a prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilisation by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society. Thus one understands that the healthy elements of the Roman world were proof against this doctrine.” –Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 75-76

“When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunised against the disease.” –Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 145