If god doesn't follow his own rules, why should we?

[Princess Luna On The Moon]

*Let's assume the Christian god is real*

This is mostly about the Old Testament where many rules (the 10 Commandments for instance) are listed. If god so rarely follows his own rules and often switches character traits, why should we follow anything he says? Wouldn't his lack of consistency make him rather pathetic as a supreme leader?

Also, why should we follow something even if we find it immoral? Why is harming other humans in the name of god justified? Or, why is god allowed to get away with killing, harming, or ignoring us, yet whenever something good happens, he gets all the credit?

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 88 by paarsurrey1]

Thank you for the question paarsurray1!

Briefly, the death of Christ is not as important to Christians as His resurrection

NT Bible has been doctored by Paul and or the Pauline Christianity. It has got nothing to do with Jesus.
Sorry, it is Paul who elevated Jesus and put god-head to Jesus by :

~ a fictional and a cursed death of Jesus on the Cross
~Jesus fictionally becoming alive from the dead
~Jesus fictionally ascending to heaven and that he sat on the right hand of God.

Paul himself made it known that Jesus' death on the Cross is the backbone of his fictional new religion known as Christianity or Pauline-Christianity. If Jesus did not die on the Cross then Pauline-Christianity is in vain.

Right, please?
Regards

[Kevin Cross]

[Replying to post 90 by paarsurrey1]

What is your Proof? Sight it please!

What about the other apostles?

What about the other thousands of Christians in the ancient world?

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 88 by paarsurrey1]

Thank you for the question paarsurray1!

Briefly, the death of Christ is not as important to Christians as His resurrection

NT Bible has been doctored by Paul and or the Pauline Christianity. It has got nothing to do with Jesus.
Sorry, it is Paul who elevated Jesus and put god-head to Jesus by :

~ a fictional and a cursed death of Jesus on the Cross
~Jesus fictionally becoming alive from the dead
~Jesus fictionally ascending to heaven and that he sat on the right hand of God.

Paul himself made it known that Jesus' death on the Cross is the backbone of his fictional new religion known as Christianity or Pauline-Christianity. If Jesus did not die on the Cross then Pauline-Christianity is in vain.

Right, please?
Regards

To add more:

1 Corinthians

12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God* that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
http://biblehub.com/niv/1_corinthians/15.htm

Jesus did not die on the Cross, he survived, so as per Paul's own argument Pauline-Christianity's "faith is futile". Right, please?

Regards

________
*Jehovah

This also entails that the Jehovah-Witnesses' people who believe in Paul and the Pauline-Christianity, are false witnesses as long as, and if they have no concrete evidence of Jesus, not dying on the Cross.

[imhereforyou]

*Let's assume the Christian god is real*

This is mostly about the Old Testament where many rules (the 10 Commandments for instance) are listed. If god so rarely follows his own rules and often switches character traits, why should we follow anything he says? Wouldn't his lack of consistency make him rather pathetic as a supreme leader?

Also, why should we follow something even if we find it immoral? Why is harming other humans in the name of god justified? Or, why is god allowed to get away with killing, harming, or ignoring us, yet whenever something good happens, he gets all the credit?

I follow the rules I'm made to follow first, then those I want to follow.
The rules of God (aka 10 commandments) are a good place to start for me, but they're not my be all end all.
But I've always questioned someone that tells me to do (or not do) one thing then does it themselves. Seems hypocritical and I'd prefer not to link myself to someone so hypocritical - it's unbecoming.

[bluethread]

But I've always questioned someone that tells me to do (or not do) one thing then does it themselves. Seems hypocritical and I'd prefer not to link myself to someone so hypocritical - it's unbecoming.

However, we are not talking about another human being. How do you feel about people who have different rules for their pets than they have for themselves?

[imhereforyou]

But I've always questioned someone that tells me to do (or not do) one thing then does it themselves. Seems hypocritical and I'd prefer not to link myself to someone so hypocritical - it's unbecoming.

However, we are not talking about another human being. How do you feel about people who have different rules for their pets than they have for themselves?

No not another human being, but something that's supposed to be better and greater. I'd expect much more from someone or something greater than myself. I suppose if you'd like to lower your standards that's your choice but that's not for me.
If you're trying to compare humanity as pets and God as a pet owner...that's seems disrespectful to me.
But in another way, pets are better than most people so maybe that analogy is indeed apt.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 90 by paarsurrey1]

What is your Proof? Sight it please!

What about the other apostles?

What about the other thousands of Christians in the ancient world?

What about the other thousands of Christians in the ancient world?

They are just mistaken. Aren't Pauline-Christian fallible? They could make a mistake and mistakes could be rectified. Right, please?

Regards

[Kevin Cross]

[Replying to post 92 by paarsurrey1]

1 Corinthians

2But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

First, everyone has a right to believe what they want. If you are insinuating that some Christians do not believe in Christ’s death and resurrection, they are not “real� Christians. Let me take you back to the City of Corinth between the years 49-52AD. Corinth was one of the most corrupt cities in all of the ancient world at that time. Christians became corrupt as well with false teaching, immorality, and “indulging in a wild and unrestrained life� (1 Corinthians Introduction JSB-NKJV, 2013). Paul was concerned about this one church most of all because it just would not live up to the original teachings of Jesus. Hence, when Paul says that “some� Christians doubted Jesus died and was raised again, he was correct. He was speaking to the loneliest of the low Christians at that time. You seem to have chosen one sentence to misconstrue the whole rest of that passage for in a faulty inductive process.

Second, according to the JSB-NKJV (2013) in the introduction, it says Paul wrote the word “concerned� six times as he was giving different types of advice on certain issues (1 Cor. 7:1; 25, 8:1; 12:1; 16:1 and 12). The apostle Paul, before he died in a Roman prison, he was beaten, stoned, shipwrecked, imprisoned, being accosted by thieves, starvation, and homelessness (JSB-NKJV, 2013 Denova, 2013; Meyers Everts, 1995). So why would anyone risk that type of abuse to perpetuate a lie when he could have been a “rock star� doing what he did best before his conversion -- persecuting Christians? The only possible reason is he believed what he witnessed was true, including Jesus dying on a Cross and being raised from the dead. It is, therefore, most definite that God does follow His own rules and we are to conform ourselves to those rules.

Third, other than accepting Christ as your Savior, one cannot be a Christian unless he or she accepts the fact that He died for your sins and was resurrected to be his or her personal Lord and Savior. The whole point Christ died was to become the Savior of those who accept Him as such. Those who are non-Christians wouldn’t be expected apriori to believe in any such thing so they should not be counted in the debate.

Fourth, I have already been over this (eyes rolling) and your main thrust of your argument is correct. If none of these events occurred, Christianity is a waste of time and the grandest delusion this world ever witnessed and yes, we would be lost forever. Having said that, there are unique facts in Christianity not found anywhere else.

~ a fictional and a cursed death of Jesus on the Cross
~Jesus fictionally becoming alive from the dead
~Jesus fictionally ascending to heaven and that he sat on the right hand of God.

Fifth, you have not proven by any preponderance of the evidence that these events are (or were) fictional Why just pick on Paul when you could attack 11 other apostles to comment on?

Sixth, where are your sources that these events are fictional?

These arguments are flimsy at best when subjected to scrutiny. The Bible stands up for itself while the logic of the Muslim world keeps wanting to twist it in a state that it is not meant to be in. You're bothered by Paul perhaps because Paul was a Jew (which is a strike against him) but he was already persecuting Christians. He then had a conversion to believe in a young farming carpenter who dared called Himself Messiah, which was blasphemy to the Jews, Muslims, and Roman leaders. Paul arguably was the closest companion to Jesus. The problem is Christianity is about Jesus Christ – not Paul. So your attack is misguided and ultimately will fail. You can argue against Christ all you want, but it is factual and evidence shinning like Glory will squash any such attempts.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 92 by paarsurrey1]

1 Corinthians

2But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

First, everyone has a right to believe what they want. If you are insinuating that some Christians do not believe in Christ’s death and resurrection, they are not “real� Christians. Let me take you back to the City of Corinth between the years 49-52AD. Corinth was one of the most corrupt cities in all of the ancient world at that time. Christians became corrupt as well with false teaching, immorality, and “indulging in a wild and unrestrained life� (1 Corinthians Introduction JSB-NKJV, 2013). Paul was concerned about this one church most of all because it just would not live up to the original teachings of Jesus. Hence, when Paul says that “some� Christians doubted Jesus died and was raised again, he was correct. He was speaking to the loneliest of the low Christians at that time. You seem to have chosen one sentence to misconstrue the whole rest of that passage for in a faulty inductive process.

Second, according to the JSB-NKJV (2013) in the introduction, it says Paul wrote the word “concerned� six times as he was giving different types of advice on certain issues (1 Cor. 7:1; 25, 8:1; 12:1; 16:1 and 12). The apostle Paul, before he died in a Roman prison, he was beaten, stoned, shipwrecked, imprisoned, being accosted by thieves, starvation, and homelessness (JSB-NKJV, 2013 Denova, 2013; Meyers Everts, 1995). So why would anyone risk that type of abuse to perpetuate a lie when he could have been a “rock star� doing what he did best before his conversion -- persecuting Christians? The only possible reason is he believed what he witnessed was true, including Jesus dying on a Cross and being raised from the dead. It is, therefore, most definite that God does follow His own rules and we are to conform ourselves to those rules.

Third, other than accepting Christ as your Savior, one cannot be a Christian unless he or she accepts the fact that He died for your sins and was resurrected to be his or her personal Lord and Savior. The whole point Christ died was to become the Savior of those who accept Him as such. Those who are non-Christians wouldn’t be expected apriori to believe in any such thing so they should not be counted in the debate.

Fourth, I have already been over this (eyes rolling) and your main thrust of your argument is correct. If none of these events occurred, Christianity is a waste of time and the grandest delusion this world ever witnessed and yes, we would be lost forever. Having said that, there are unique facts in Christianity not found anywhere else.

~ a fictional and a cursed death of Jesus on the Cross
~Jesus fictionally becoming alive from the dead
~Jesus fictionally ascending to heaven and that he sat on the right hand of God.

Fifth, you have not proven by any preponderance of the evidence that these events are (or were) fictional Why just pick on Paul when you could attack 11 other apostles to comment on?

Sixth, where are your sources that these events are fictional?

These arguments are flimsy at best when subjected to scrutiny. The Bible stands up for itself while the logic of the Muslim world keeps wanting to twist it in a state that it is not meant to be in. You're bothered by Paul perhaps because Paul was a Jew (which is a strike against him) but he was already persecuting Christians. He then had a conversion to believe in a young farming carpenter who dared called Himself Messiah, which was blasphemy to the Jews, Muslims, and Roman leaders. Paul arguably was the closest companion to Jesus. The problem is Christianity is about Jesus Christ – not Paul. So your attack is misguided and ultimately will fail. You can argue against Christ all you want, but it is factual and evidence shinning like Glory will squash any such attempts.

Paul arguably was the closest companion to Jesus.

Paul was not a companion of Jesus, he was not a Jesus' disciple,he spent no time in Jesus' company. Did he, please?

Regards

[twobitsworth]

OK, I read here how "DO not kill" only refers to murder.

There is the story of Jepthath in the OT, who offered God a deal wherein he would kill and offer as a burnt offering his daughter if God gave him a military victory.

God agreed and gave him the victory, and Jep did to his daughter as he vowed--murdered her, an innocent girl who was first to the door to welcome her dad home.

If God punished jepthath for the murder, he would be acting in accord with his own Principle, but he does not. In fact, Jepthath is listed in the Hall of Faith.