Human sacrifice

[Zzyzx]

.
Christians often condemn human sacrifice and use it as justification for slaughtering competing religious groups and societies.

However, Christians glorify the sacrifice (called "martyrdom") of their namesake and other religious notables. Supposedly the "martyrdom" was often done willingly "to serve god."

How is that different from "pagan" sacrifices to their "gods?"

[Divine Insight]

The Old Testament Law is that we are to "Put the evil away from among us". And in the OT this is done by putting people to death by stoning.

I think there is no reason to think that judgment is the law. Law is the thing that says what is wrong and what is right. Judge is the one who decides the judgment in fair trial.

But the greatest law is to obey God. And in the OT God commands that you must judge and kill those who are evil and sin against you without pity. So that becomes the "law" if you are to obey this God.

It's impossible to obey the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of the OT simultaneously. You can only do one or the other, but not both.

So you must either refuse to obey God, or you must refuse to obey Jesus. But you can't obey both.

[Zzyzx]

.

How can "God takes care of things" be distinguished from happenstance or chance?

Maybe there is no way to distinguish them.

I agree. "Goddidit" can't be distinguished from happenstance and chance.

For example I can pray that God takes care of me and helps me to give you good answer. And now that I think I got it, how could you know it is from God?

Who decides if you have given a good answer to any question? Do you decide that?

In my opinion, READERS decide the merits of what is presented in these threads. This thread, for instance, has 1700+ views.

I think it is matter of belief.

I agree. Finding that "God helped me" is purely a matter of belief.

Personally I believe that God takes care of me in these debates, because I am probably not as intelligent as atheists are.

Atheists are quite varied in regards intelligence (as are Believers, Christians, Muslims or any other group). "I do not believe your god stories" does not require high intelligence.

And yet I think I always manage to get answer that beats the question.

Have you consulted opinions other than your own in this regard?

Sometimes people may think they have "beaten the question" when what they say is gibberish to many or most readers.

If a positive or desired outcome occurs, is that God's work? If a negative or undesirable outcome occurs, is that God's work also?

If I don’t get positive outcome, I think it is because I have not received it for some reason.

Agreed. If you don't get a positive outcome you don't get a positive outcome.

I think God don’t do anything evil. He may allow evil to happen, but I think the evil is not from him.

If an organization allows evil to happen (say pedophilia within its hierarchy) and does not take measures to prevent it from happening or continuing, would you regard the organization as responsible / liable / accountable?

And evil really is in my opinion like darkness, lack of light or emptiness, nothing. When good is not in place, evil remains, because it is the emptiness that is left, when good (God) is missing.

Organized crime is, therefore, just the absence of light?

How can anyone know which "god", if any, is involved? Do they just "feel" it is their favorite one? Do they often blame "Satan" if things go wrong?

Maybe it is matter of belief as everything seems to be.

Would you regard gravity as a belief? Rotation of the Earth as belief? Energy from Sun to Earth as belief? Volcanoes and earthquakes as belief?

Or might those be regarded as something more than mere belief?

How can any "god" be shown / known to be involved in those or any other earthly affairs?

[Zzyzx]

.

It's impossible to obey the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of the OT simultaneously. You can only do one or the other, but not both.

So you must either refuse to obey God, or you must refuse to obey Jesus. But you can't obey both.

Excellent point.

Jesus is credited with preaching VERY different things from the God of the Jews -- that are directly contradictory and CANNOT both be followed.

It is difficult (impossible?) to know if that was the actual position of Jesus (whoever he may have been) or if positions attributed to him by bible writers are mere (or more) a reflection of their own religious preferences (particularly Paul/Saul's writings / preachings).

The term "cognitive dissonance" relates to the holding of two contradictory positions simultaneously without a means to reconcile them.

[Elijah John]

.

It's impossible to obey the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of the OT simultaneously. You can only do one or the other, but not both.

So you must either refuse to obey God, or you must refuse to obey Jesus. But you can't obey both.

Excellent point.

Jesus is credited with preaching VERY different things from the God of the Jews -- that are directly contradictory and CANNOT both be followed.

It is difficult (impossible?) to know if that was the actual position of Jesus (whoever he may have been) or if positions attributed to him by bible writers are mere (or more) a reflection of their own religious preferences (particularly Paul/Saul's writings / preachings).

The term "cognitive dissonance" relates to the holding of two contradictory positions simultaneously without a means to reconcile them.

You both cite "irreconcilable differences" between Jesus and YHVH, but please give examples to support your assertions. I'm betting for every supposed difference you cite, there are two or thee areas of agreement between Jesus and the god of Israel, as portrayed in the Hebrew Bible. YHVH was (is) Jesus' God.

Jesus was not his own God, Brahma was not Jesus' God, Ahuru Mazda was not Jesus' God, the Tao was not Jesus' God, Odin was not Jesus God, Zeus was not Jesus' God, Jupiter was not Jesus' God, Osiris was not Jesus' God, Baal was not Jesus' God, Mammon was not Jesus' God, ....YHVH was the God and Father of Jesus.

[Divine Insight]

Jesus was not his own God, Brahma was not Jesus' God, Ahuru Mazda was not Jesus' God, the Tao was not Jesus' God, Odin was not Jesus God, Zeus was not Jesus' God, Jupiter was not Jesus' God, Osiris was not Jesus' God, Baal was not Jesus' God, Mammon was not Jesus' God, ....YHVH was the God and Father of Jesus.

That is totally irrelevant. How Jesus thought of "YHVH" may not be the same as the Old Testament literally demands verbatim. In fact, many Jews proclaim that they do not view the Old Testament as the literal verbatim "Word of God".

Therefore to even claim that the God of Jesus was YHVH and not Brahma is pointless.

Who is to say that YHVH and Brahma aren't simply two different culture's attempt to describe the same underlying spiritual concept of a "God"?

What the Christians so arrogantly demand (and when I say "Christians" I'm basically speaking of the authors of the New Testament and not any modern day followers who have no clue what they are even talking about), but what they demand is that YHVH, or Yahweh, or Jehovah, or whatever you chose to call him, perhaps "The God of Abraham", is described by the Old Testament basically verbatim! They were not wishy-washy about this the way modern Christians are.

Even Matthew went as far as proclaiming in Jesus' name that Jesus said that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law until heaven and earth pass.

Not one jot nor one tittle. Hey brother, that is a demand that the Bible be accepted verbatim for every jot and tittle it contains. No cherry picking permitted.

And if we accept this kind of nonsense, then Jesus was in gross conflict with the jots and tittle of the Old Testament. There's no getting around it.

This was something I pointed out way back when I first started to question the Bible. If Jesus was going to change the laws why not just say so?

Surely a God who expects honesty from others should have no problem being open and honest himself. If Jesus had said that he came to change the laws that would have made a whole lot more sense and would have at least been HONEST.

But let's face it, these Gospel rumors demand just the opposite. They demand that Jesus said that he did not come to change the laws and that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law until heaven and earth pass. But then he himself went on to preach a clear and distinct change in the commands that God has given unto men.

So something awry here. And Jesus is square in the middle of this.

It doesn't hold water.

If Jesus wanted to change the laws why not just say so?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 104 by Divine Insight]

You have repeated the blanket statement, and unsubstantiated claim that Jesus was in opposition to the "Old Testament God" ever since I started posting here, and never to my recollection provided examples where and supposedly how this is true.

Or if you (or anyone else did)did it was only a few examples, here and there. And you made blanket statements based on a few exceptions that DO NOT prove the rule, or your assertion. And ignored contrary evidence.

And you have made the unsupported assertion that Jesus was more of a Buddhist than he was a Jew, have you not?

And I asked you for evidence on another thread to show HOW and WHY but I am still waiting........

I have also asked you and Z to show HOW Buddha's teachings are supposedly superior to Jesus, example cf to example, and again...I am still waiting.

The point I was making by listing all the Gods who are NOT Jesus God, is that YHVH IS Jesus God, the God of Israel, and like it or not, the God of the Old Testament.

Once again, Jesus was well versed in the Psalms, Proverbs and the Prophets...the "Old" Testament was HIS Bible. He drew heavily upon it's teachings for his own.

This is different than saying Paul did the same thing, that is not what I am saying at all...but Jesus teachings, especially those which are exemplified in the Parables and the Sermon on the Mount, mostly have their prescedent in the "Old" Testament.

So to pit Jesus mostly AGAINST the Old Testament, or the Old Testament God, seems a false dichotomy to me.

And I am not saying that Jesus did not innovate, not at all. Like any good Rabbi, he amplified and elaborated on the teachings of the Torah, and sometimes uncovered deeper meanings.

So, you or Z, please show us HOW that one cannot supposedly follow the bulk of Jesus teachings AND those of the Hebrew Bible as you claim, especially say, the Ten Commandments, which are of central importance.

Jesus amplifications are an example of "building a fence around the Torah" to put it in Jewish terms, and avoiding the "near occasions of sin", and "delivering from us temptation", to put it in Christian terms.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 104 by Divine Insight]

You have repeated the blanket statement, and unsubstantiated claim that Jesus was in opposition to the "Old Testament God" ever since I started posting here, and never to my recollection provided examples where and supposedly how this is true.

Or if you (or anyone else did)did it was only a few examples, here and there. And you made blanket statements based on a few exceptions that DO NOT prove the rule, or your assertion. And ignored contrary evidence.

I only need ONE counter example to prove the point.

Supposedly Jesus preached "Not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law until heaven and earth pass".

Therefore I only need to show that Jesus was in direct violation of ONE jot and tittle.

In the Old Testament the jots and tittles clearly state:

Matthew 5
[38] Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
[39] But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

These words are attributed to Jesus by Matthew.

Jesus is clearly stating, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:"

So where did we hear this said? Well it is in the "jots and tittles" of the Old Testament laws. That's where it originates from specifically.

Deuteronomy 19"
[19] Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.
[20] And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.
[21] And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

But the jots and tittles of the Old Testament law makes it clear that we are to put those who have thought to do evil unto us away and those who remain shall hear and fear and shall henceforth commit no more evil.

And it also clearly states that "thine eye shall not pity" and then it goes on to demand an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, etc.

But Jesus clearly rebuked this directly! He referenced directly. Specially by saying that we have heard this said but he is going to change it up and instead of supporting the Old Laws that are in the jots and tittles of the Old Testament he proclaims that we are not to do anything to these evil people but to turn the other cheek. Thus Jesus is saying that we are to ignore what they have done, even offer them more, and allow them to continue to live among us, and no one will any longer fear doing wrong because they will see that when they do wrong everyone will just turn the other cheek and do nothing back to them in return.

So Jesus blew this clean out of the water.

He couldn't have refuted these jots and tittles anymore than already he if he had tried. He preached precisely the opposite of what the jots and tittles of the Old Testament had commanded that we must do.

And he even referenced them directly by saying "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:", and then he went on to teach precisely the opposite behavior.

So it's impossible to obey both Jesus and the Old Testament Law simultaneously.

It's also a lie that Jesus did not change the laws that are in the jots and tittles of the Old Testament.

Now you can cry, "But that's only one example!"

So what? One example is all that is required. Either Jesus was lying, or the jots and tittles of the Old Testament are lies. Take your choice.

In fact, Jesus whole message of not judging others and not casting the first stone is totally in opposition to the Old Testament that had people judging each other and stoning people to death for every little petty thing. Even collecting firewood on the Sabbath, or to stone to death your unruly children.

I don't reject Christianity for no good reason. This is only one very small problem with the religion. In fact, I reject the Old Testament God before we even get to Jesus. It's absolutely absurd.

In fact, most Christians would drop the religion like a hot potato if Jesus is taken out of the mix. They don't even like the God of the Old Testament. It's Jesus they worship.

I don't blame them for that, but that doesn't save the religion as a whole.

I have proven that the Bible contains gross errors. Either Jesus lied about the jots and tittles, or Matthew lied about the jots and tittles, or the Old Testament is itself a lie.

Something is grossly wrong.

[HammerofGrace]

[Replying to post 92 by higgy1911]

It is not a gift of free will to allow us to reject him and then impose Hell as a consequence of that "free will".

If He says we are free to love him but if we don't then we go to hell , that's not a gift of free will that's a protection racket, typical of the sort practiced by ruffians throughout human history.

What is your concept of Hell? Although, admittedly, many Christian denominations portray the "traditional" Hell of eternal torment in fire and brimstone this is at the very least not very likely the case at all. Romans 6:23 says "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." There is no mention of eternal torment. The Bible speaks of two deaths, the first being our earthly death at which point the souls of believers go to Heaven to be with the Lord, 2 Corinthians 5:8 says "Yes, we are fully confident, and we would rather be away from these earthly bodies, for then we will be at home with the Lord", Paul was speaking to fellow believers. The Gospel of Luke tells us that when Jesus died he went into sheol (the resting place of the dead) a place of rest for believers and of torment for the unbeliever, and raised the believers into Heaven where all believers go after earthly death since. Unbelievers remain in this place of torment - and the torment could very well be the anguish of knowing that they were wrong in their belief and they will face judgement and not the literal fire that is spoken of - until Judgement Day. ALL will go before the Lord and be judged, Revelations 20:14 says "Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death." Unbelievers will be thrown into the Lake of fire but to what end? Annhilation. There is no mention of this Lake of fire being in eternity nor is it at all logical for it to be so. They will simply be no more, gone. Even in judgement God shows his love by giving the unbeliever EXACTLY what they always wanted - eternal separation from Him. If that were proved to be true (granted it cannot be in debate), would that seem fair to you?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 106 by Divine Insight]
All you have done here is to prove that the statement about jots and tittles of the Law by Jesus or Matthew is untrue because of Jesus revisions to the Law, fair enough.

I think it was Matthew, personally, but cannot prove it either way.

But all you have really done is provided evidence against Bible LITERALISM and Inerrancy here, by providing an example of gross contradiction, but not proven that Jesus teachings were in fact, against Old Testament teachings. That is too much of a blanket conclusion to make.

The bulk of Jesus teachings were very much in harmony with the Hebrew Bible, in Spirit if not in letter.

But that does not seem to matter to you, because you have set up a Literalist Paper Tiger of innerrancy and Straw Man of Fundamentalism and burned them to the ground. But once again, you ignore the fact that this is not the only way, nor is it even the MAIN way to approach Christianity.

And I say this as someone who often agrees with your take on the incarnation and means of atonement, though not usually in your style of critique.

But in your setting up this false dichotomy of Jesus supposedly being against Old Testament Law, of the Old Testament God, we are in complete disagreement.

[Divine Insight]

Even in judgement God shows his love by giving the unbeliever EXACTLY what they always wanted - eternal separation from Him. If that were proved to be true (granted it cannot be in debate), would that seem fair to you?

But that could never be proved to be true because it's clearly not true.

You just spoke of "Judgement". Why would this God need to judge someone who doesn't believe in him?

I reject Hebrew mythology because it is immoral and makes God out to be stupid.

So I reject it because I don't believe that God is stupid. Do you think that a truly all-wise God should then judge me to have rejected him?

Obviously not. On the contrary if a genuinely righteous God exists he would most likely apologize to me for the stupidity and immorality of the ancient Hebrews,.

No truly intelligent God could blame anyone for rejecting him on the grounds that he's immoral. On the contrary, he would need to apologize for allowing that confusion to even exist.

Any God who is dependent upon the ancient Hebrews to define him is necessarily already an idiot.

If you reject God because you believe that God is an idiot should God accept that this is sound assessment on your behalf? If not, then shouldn't this God be responsible for correcting this error?

Christianity appears to me to be nothing more than a religion that spews hatred toward anyone who doesn't buy into it. I don't believe that any truly righteous, intelligent God would ever support such ignorance and bigotry. Therefore I reject Christianity as a religion.

I don't reject any truly righteous God and any God who claims that I am rejecting him is confessing that he must necessarily be an immoral idiot. Because that's the only kind of God that I reject.

So if your God thinks I reject him then he's necessarily an immoral idiot, because that what I'm rejecting.