How so?"I don't want to," is a much better answer than, "I don't want to because..."
The old testament god levels entire cities, floods the entire world and gives me permission to stone my neighbour to death should he grow two different crops in one field.Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable
But seriously, i'm all ears if you think/know differently. I'm genuinelly interested in this.
How so?"I don't want to," is a much better answer than, "I don't want to because..."
Jesus is the OT God. How you say, in one single sentence I might add, that you'd disassociate yourself from the same God you see as a "damn good bloke" is wishy-washy, illogical, and downright contradictory.Originally Posted by Sidez
The NT itself validates the OT. The prophesies of the OT are all fulfilled in the NT, lending truth to the OT. The OT is quoted time and again, by Jesus Himself, in the NT. Jesus even sends Satan running by quoting the OT.
It makes no logical sence to believe the NT exclusively when in it's very text the OT is venerated and validated.
What's so damn wrong with the OT God you keep talking about? Have either of you really read enough of the OT to form your own opinions or are simply regurgitating what you've been told by someone else...someone else, I'm will to wager, who hasn't read it themselves?
"Fire and brimstone?" How quaint. Read it, man. Read it. You'll walk away with a much more complete understanding of Who this "Jesus" really is. He isn't some love-hippie. He isn't a "good moral teacher." He is God most high. God is forever, and God is one. God is Jesus Christ. When you speak of Jesus, you speak of the God of the OT and of the NT at the very same time. Don't believe me? You think they aren't the same, and are in fact stems of two totally different relegions? Read your OT and you'll see that Jesus was prophesied about, and that He is God. The book of Daniel would be an ideal place to start.
Well, if that "because" is followed by some type of adopted thought process that wasn't actually considered by the adoptee and assimilated because it "sounded good," or if it's followed by a string of reasons that clearly flow from misinformation, incomplete information, or simple malice, then a simple "I don't want to" is much better.Originally Posted by rezo
If, however, the "because" is followed by valid, well thought out, personally tried and tested reasoning, then there is no problem.
Saint is a pupotrator of the first "because." Which is exactly why I said what I did.
Yeah, I used to think the same thing. But you can find the messed up traits of god in jesus as well. It sucks a bit when you do.whilst the new testament follows Jesus, a damn good bloke.
gotcha.Saint is a pupotrator of the frst "because." Which is exactly why I said what I did.
He killed babies.
"Messed up?" Why? Because He doesn't serve man with appathy to the degree that He lets them do as they will, be it murder, rumor mongering, or being sluggards?
Because He doesn't seek to serve, but seeks man to serve Him?
He is justified in His behavior, you know. Even if you don't like it.
You got a verse, sweet-heart? Or is this also something you thought sounded good?Originally Posted by Saint of Killers
He made those babies. They were His to kill.
Quick question: Why?Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable
Why is Jesus the only fellow who can "save" us from going to hell? Why did God have to kill Jesus off in order to let us into heaven? For that matter, who says I'm going to "hell" in the first place?
Now, don't get me wrong - I am Christian myself, and from personal experience I have no doubt that God exists. But, that's the sort of thing that always gets me when I see people trying to preach. Growing up, I never heard any reason for it aside from "God said so so it must be true", which really wouldn't fly if you're someone who isn't familiar with all the religious buzzwords in the first place. Try thinking about it from a non-Christian point of view for a minute, and you'll realize how ridiculous it all sounds.
That doesn't change the fact that as he's presented, the Old Testament god is a vengeful, spiteful murderer. Where did the New Testament god go around indiscriminantly slaughtering children?
Have you even read the fucking Bible? Exodus 12:29Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable
And I'm sure there were no babies in Sodom and Gommorrah, or hell the entire world when he flooded it.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!CV said...
He made those babies. They were His to kill
You've fucking lost it, man. You can keep that god.
Wow. I thought you might actually find a way to prove SoK wrong, and was looking forward to it, but you just went insane.Because He doesn't seek to serve, but seeks man to serve Him?
He is justified in His behavior, you know. Even if you don't like it.
Which testament was the Book of Job in? I didn't much like what he did to that man. Like Adams said, when you've got yourself the type of god that gets off on leaving hats on the sidewalk with bricks underneath, what would you expect?
And, yes, I have always and will always neglect to capitalize all pronouns that replace god's name.
HA! HA! I AM USING THE INTERNET!!1
My Backloggery
See? This is pretty messed up. There are many examples of "messed up" behavior. Plagues, purging, execution of smart-mouth kids(how many people on this board would be alive if that sort of judgement were passed universally?), all sorts of messed up behavior. This is not a good god.He made those babies. They were His to kill.
Larry of many things could be justified in keeping his bread from Fred the starving, but its a messed up thing to do.
Bookmarks