Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Defining a True One


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#61 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,481 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 09:30 AM

There is no scientific proof of love. Do you guys redicule people who claim to be in love?

Or if you happen to be in love, do you feel uninformed or not intellegent for believing you are in love?

Love also can create sorrow or violence. Do we condemn all love and those who believe in it for every murder committed in its name?

 

 

False equivalency.  Love and God are not similar concepts.  

 

Love and faith, however, are.

 

But proof of faith is not proof of God.  Likewise, proof of love is not proof of the existence of whatever said person loves.

 

If you love a fuging serial killer and stand by him while he murders people, hell, sometimes help it along - are you absolved because it was love?  Faith and love can both be blinders.



#62 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,331 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 10:23 AM

A man much wiser than myself once told me that love is not what you feel, but what you do. Teeray is correct in my opinion with respect to the provability of love. Where there is altruism, there is love. Ideas cannot be proven. Music cannot be proven. Art cannot be proven. Concepts of color cannot be proven. Infinity cannot be proven.

What can be "proven" are perceptual correlations. The rest of it relies on faith of paradigms supported by whichever perceptions one wishes to nurture.



#63 googoodan

googoodan

    Memberest

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,522 posts
  • LocationBayside

Posted 29 October 2013 - 11:29 AM

I'm sorry if you can't follow what I'm saying. I make sure that what I am saying is getting across clearly.

Hebrews 8 is in direct conflict with what Jesus said about not a jot nor tittle of the law shall be changed. You've done nothing here.

I didn't take Matthew 10 out of context at all. No amount of reading the first half of Matthew (which I have) helps you make your case about Jesus not expressly stating that he came to bring division between people. Again, he even states, "if you love your son or daughter more than me, you are not worthy of me". That sounds like an abusive spouse to me. Provide me the context of how it ISN'T saying what it clearly says.


lol, no need to get an attitude and accuse me of not being able to keep up. it's like, I don't know, there is a sword being brought into an otherwise civil conversation.

Hebrews 8 doesn't change anything - Jesus said he came to fulfill the law. one jot ot tittle will not change *until it is fulfilled*
Romans 10 also supports this.

If you believe God is the alpha and the omega, why would you put your mother, father, sister, husband, etc first? He also says to love your neighbor as yourself. I don't see how what Jesus says is like an abusive spouse - he didn't say love no one else.

#64 Cat

Cat

    Terminally bored

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,216 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 12:05 PM

This

OP have you heard of the no true scotsman fallacy?

 

 

 

 



#65 CarolinaCoolin

CarolinaCoolin

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,143 posts
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 29 October 2013 - 02:51 PM

You explain it then. I was taught about the Trinity when I was in elementary school.

.

You're right. You learned about it when you were little so you must be vastly more knowledgable the some one whose studied it their whole life. I can't believe I was so arrogant to doubt you. I'm sorry

A picture you pulled of the Internet and trying to cite the pope even though that's someone you don't give any real credence to because you are a nonbeliever totally set me straight.

Just stop talking

#66 lightsout

lightsout

    Doin' stuff...thaaaangs

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,623 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 06:44 PM

Matthias, what I believe concerning Christianity: nothing. I believe nothing about it nor do I hold specific beliefs about it. Christianity, to me, is accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior. That's basically it. Anybody who says they have done that is a Christian, in my eyes. Different Christians hold similar beliefs with some differences here or there that set apart the thousands of denominations of each Christian denomination.



#67 lightsout

lightsout

    Doin' stuff...thaaaangs

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,623 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 06:50 PM

lol, no need to get an attitude and accuse me of not being able to keep up. it's like, I don't know, there is a sword being brought into an otherwise civil conversation.

Hebrews 8 doesn't change anything - Jesus said he came to fulfill the law. one jot ot tittle will not change *until it is fulfilled*
Romans 10 also supports this.

If you believe God is the alpha and the omega, why would you put your mother, father, sister, husband, etc first? He also says to love your neighbor as yourself. I don't see how what Jesus says is like an abusive spouse - he didn't say love no one else.

 

I'm sorry you find me somewhat hostile. I can't really change YOUR perception of the tone of my text.

You are wrong. "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

^ That says, to me, that it is good until heaven and earth disappear. "Everything" at the end of the verse seems to reflect the end of EVERYTHING, including the earth. At least, that is a damn good assumption considering the first half of that verse.

I believe that the President and my elected officials all hold more power than my family. They can literally have us thrown in jail for nothing if they so wished. They could have us killed. I love my family more than them. Difference between them and your god? They aren't telling me that I'm not worthy of them because I love my family more than them.

If I tell my girlfriend "You better love me more than literally ANYBODY else on this earth, or else you're not worth my time", that is verbal/emotional abuse. Ask any psychologist. That is how Jesus sounds there.



#68 Matthias

Matthias

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,311 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 09:37 PM

Matthias, what I believe concerning Christianity: nothing. I believe nothing about it nor do I hold specific beliefs about it. Christianity, to me, is accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior. That's basically it. Anybody who says they have done that is a Christian, in my eyes. Different Christians hold similar beliefs with some differences here or there that set apart the thousands of denominations of each Christian denomination.

 

 

Yep, that's cool.  I agree with that.  I would also say perhaps the purpose of a christian is also one that's universal.  Let me talk on something you mentioned earlier, and I'll focused on that one thing.  You mentioned Jesus saying He didn't come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.  My question for you is do you think He's saying His followers, christians today, should try and keep the Law and the Ten Commandments?



#69 lightsout

lightsout

    Doin' stuff...thaaaangs

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,623 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 09:59 PM

Yep, that's cool.  I agree with that.  I would also say perhaps the purpose of a christian is also one that's universal.  Let me talk on something you mentioned earlier, and I'll focused on that one thing.  You mentioned Jesus saying He didn't come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.  My question for you is do you think He's saying His followers, christians today, should try and keep the Law and the Ten Commandments?

 

It would appear that way based on what he said, sure.



#70 Matthias

Matthias

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,311 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 10:23 PM

It would appear that way based on what he said, sure.

 

 

Let's take a look at it.  Matthew 5: 17-18 reads....

 

 

17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

 

18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

 

 

So Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law, and in verse 18 He says it won't pass away until all is accomplished.  I believe that reads as it wouldn't pass away until He fulfilled it.  As we christians point out, that He lived the perfect life on our behalf. 

 

Now you mentioned to another poster about the statement of "until heaven and earth pass away", nothing would pass from the Law.  So basically as long as the earth exists, we are to follow the Law.  I would agree with that, but if we were to read it that way, that last part in verse 18 wouldn't make sense.  It should read "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law" and end right there if the full meaning was as long as the earth exists the Law would remain.  However, it has that last part of "until all is accomplished".  What is that referring to?  The answer is Jesus' comments in verse 17, that He came to fulfill it.  Once that was "accomplished", the Law would pass away.



#71 lightsout

lightsout

    Doin' stuff...thaaaangs

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,623 posts

Posted 30 October 2013 - 01:47 AM

Let's take a look at it.  Matthew 5: 17-18 reads....

 

 

17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

 

18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

 

 

So Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law, and in verse 18 He says it won't pass away until all is accomplished.  I believe that reads as it wouldn't pass away until He fulfilled it.  As we christians point out, that He lived the perfect life on our behalf. 

 

Now you mentioned to another poster about the statement of "until heaven and earth pass away", nothing would pass from the Law.  So basically as long as the earth exists, we are to follow the Law.  I would agree with that, but if we were to read it that way, that last part in verse 18 wouldn't make sense.  It should read "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law" and end right there if the full meaning was as long as the earth exists the Law would remain.  However, it has that last part of "until all is accomplished".  What is that referring to?  The answer is Jesus' comments in verse 17, that He came to fulfill it.  Once that was "accomplished", the Law would pass away.

 

So what you're saying is that your god says things that he doesn't mean? Or at the very least, he doesn't make clear what he means. Which is sort of self-defeating, since the people in the time the bible was written were notorious for not being very smart, as a population (thanks to the rulers of their day, who kept education for the elite. The average person was busy working in order to stay alive). Again, either way you choose to look at that, you're going to either have to completely disregard one portion of it. My argument would be that the "until all is accomplished" is INCLUDING his supposed self-proclaimed second coming, which makes sense in the greater context of the bible.



#72 Matthias

Matthias

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,311 posts

Posted 30 October 2013 - 09:28 AM

So what you're saying is that your god says things that he doesn't mean? Or at the very least, he doesn't make clear what he means. Which is sort of self-defeating, since the people in the time the bible was written were notorious for not being very smart, as a population (thanks to the rulers of their day, who kept education for the elite. The average person was busy working in order to stay alive). Again, either way you choose to look at that, you're going to either have to completely disregard one portion of it. My argument would be that the "until all is accomplished" is INCLUDING his supposed self-proclaimed second coming, which makes sense in the greater context of the bible.

 

 

For it to pass away at all is telling concerning the job Jesus came to do.  Actually, we are both right.  Jesus talked about fulfilling all of the Law and the Prophets, and there are many prophecies concerning the Messiah that are yet to be fulffilled.  However concerning the Law and all the commands there, Jesus lived it out and was completely obedient.  With that, He became the perfect sacrifice on behalf of mankind.  He took all the judgment onto Himself and died, as the judgment for breaking the Law is ultimately death.  So in essence, Jesus died our death, and anyone who trusts on Him, has died with Him on the cross. (This is what baptism is truly about.)  This means anyone found in Jesus, has already died to the Law (all the commands).  For us, the Law has passed away, but it does remain for those who aren't in Christ.  So we are both right, in that the Law does remain right now, but not to those who have already died to it in Jesus.  Even when Jesus comes back as you mentioned, nothing is going to change for Christians when He returns.  Our sins are forgiven right now, and forever.  There's no need to go back to the Law, because Jesus completed the commands and lived the obedient life on our behalf.  So the life we live now, going back to my OP and the "foundation of a christian statement", comes from Jesus' obedience and nature.  Does that make sense?

 

 

 

Of course, again you could say it's just my interpretation.  Yet let me give you some things written in Matthew that kind of confirms that christians aren't supposed to perform the Law.  Look at the situation concerning the transfiguration of Jesus.  On the mountain Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus, and begin talking with Him.  Moses represented the Law (as he was the one who gave it, and the laws are usually synonymous with Moses' name) and Elijah represented the prophets.  Peter offered to build three tabernacles (perhaps alters, I don't know).  One for Him, Moses and Elijah.  Then a cloud covers them and the Father tells Peter that Jesus is His beloved Son and to hear Him.  This tells us that Jesus superceded both the Law and the Prophets.  Putting together that Jesus said the Law would pass away and that He came to fulfill it, this shows us that our righteousness would come from Him and not the Ten Commandments and other laws. 

 

 

That's not enough for you?  There's another message in this account that's hidden here.  On the mount of transfiguration, Jesus took with Him only three disciples. (Peter, James, and John)  This is a lost art in today's society, but back then people knew their names had meaning.  In this case, these three names have a very significant meaning.  Peter's name (Cephas in aramiac) as most might know, means "stone".  James is an off shoot of the name "Jacob" which means "Supplanter or to supplant".  John's name means "God is gracious".  So when you put them together, it reads like "The stone has been supplanted by God's grace".  We know the Ten Commndments were written on tablets of stone, so we could say the stone in this hidden message represents the Laws of the OT.  It's easy to see why this hidden message should be read in this way, when you look at what God the Father said to Peter, about hearing Jesus.  So that's my take on the whole deal. 



#73 lightsout

lightsout

    Doin' stuff...thaaaangs

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,623 posts

Posted 30 October 2013 - 02:08 PM

For it to pass away at all is telling concerning the job Jesus came to do.  Actually, we are both right.  Jesus talked about fulfilling all of the Law and the Prophets, and there are many prophecies concerning the Messiah that are yet to be fulffilled.  However concerning the Law and all the commands there, Jesus lived it out and was completely obedient.  With that, He became the perfect sacrifice on behalf of mankind.  He took all the judgment onto Himself and died, as the judgment for breaking the Law is ultimately death.  So in essence, Jesus died our death, and anyone who trusts on Him, has died with Him on the cross. (This is what baptism is truly about.)  This means anyone found in Jesus, has already died to the Law (all the commands).  For us, the Law has passed away, but it does remain for those who aren't in Christ.  So we are both right, in that the Law does remain right now, but not to those who have already died to it in Jesus.  Even when Jesus comes back as you mentioned, nothing is going to change for Christians when He returns.  Our sins are forgiven right now, and forever.  There's no need to go back to the Law, because Jesus completed the commands and lived the obedient life on our behalf.  So the life we live now, going back to my OP and the "foundation of a christian statement", comes from Jesus' obedience and nature.  Does that make sense?

 

 

 

Of course, again you could say it's just my interpretation.  Yet let me give you some things written in Matthew that kind of confirms that christians aren't supposed to perform the Law.  Look at the situation concerning the transfiguration of Jesus.  On the mountain Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus, and begin talking with Him.  Moses represented the Law (as he was the one who gave it, and the laws are usually synonymous with Moses' name) and Elijah represented the prophets.  Peter offered to build three tabernacles (perhaps alters, I don't know).  One for Him, Moses and Elijah.  Then a cloud covers them and the Father tells Peter that Jesus is His beloved Son and to hear Him.  This tells us that Jesus superceded both the Law and the Prophets.  Putting together that Jesus said the Law would pass away and that He came to fulfill it, this shows us that our righteousness would come from Him and not the Ten Commandments and other laws. 

 

 

That's not enough for you?  There's another message in this account that's hidden here.  On the mount of transfiguration, Jesus took with Him only three disciples. (Peter, James, and John)  This is a lost art in today's society, but back then people knew their names had meaning.  In this case, these three names have a very significant meaning.  Peter's name (Cephas in aramiac) as most might know, means "stone".  James is an off shoot of the name "Jacob" which means "Supplanter or to supplant".  John's name means "God is gracious".  So when you put them together, it reads like "The stone has been supplanted by God's grace".  We know the Ten Commndments were written on tablets of stone, so we could say the stone in this hidden message represents the Laws of the OT.  It's easy to see why this hidden message should be read in this way, when you look at what God the Father said to Peter, about hearing Jesus.  So that's my take on the whole deal. 

 

I could point out the failed prophecies (Tyre was prophesied by god himself to be torn down...it's still standing today. Also, the prophecy that Israel will live in peace with their neighbors...lol)

None of what you said matters to the non-theist. Prove god before you prove that god did or said anything (logical steps, here). Sure, I probably shouldn't have entertained the "for the sake of argument, I'll play along" angle from the get-go, but oh well.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.