By the way -- if you claim to be a Christian...

[Subduction Zone]

Actually you did no such thing. Please be honest. You did not understand what Timothy was saying. You were pretending that I was saying something I never said saying that Timothy was not saying that you have to read everything in the bible literally. You were then corrected when I told you that was not the reason I posted 2 Timothy 3:16. It was posted to show that the bible teaches scripture is the inspired Word of God which is what the scriptures say word for word disagreeing with what you are saying word for word and proving what you say is not truthful. As proven earlier, you are not able to support your accusation that context changes the meaning of the scriptures shared with you earlier. I did not think you could. That is why I challenged you to prove your claims. All you posted werre empty words you are unable to prove again. Your lose again sadly because you simple choose to stay in unbelief and not believe what the scriptures say.

You may not have understood the refutation, That does not mean that it did not happen.

As posted earlier the scriptures (not me) say verbatim that "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Romans 14:23) and that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Romans 10:17) and that the scriptures are Gods inspired Word (2 Timothy 3:15-16). That is what scripture (not me) says verbatim disagreeing with you. I believe the scriptures which is why I do not believe you. As it is written let Gods Word be true and and every man a liar (Romans 3:4)

You continue to take a series of scriptures out of context. They only say that disbelief is a sin. By the way, that alone tells you that those quotes at least are not the "word of God". Also "scriptures" is never defined. It cannot be the Gospels. They were written well after Paul wrote that. For your argument to work you need to demonstrate the the entire Bible is "scripture". Why assume that Romans is scripture. Now you would have Paul claiming his work is scripture because he says so. I can do the same thing. I can state that anything that I write is scripture as well. Though Paul never made the error that you imply that the made.

What was posted to you earlier is indeed true. You choose the world over God and believe God is a liar and the worldly wise tell you the truth. You became atheist because you choose not to believe God and His Word.

Nope, now lets see if you can reason logically. I chose God. You chose a book. If God was real then he made the world. If anything is the "word of God" it is the evidence that God's own work created. And the world tells us quite clearly that there was no Flood of Noah. That there was no Adam and Eve. That the Tower of Babel is just another myth.

You on the other hand claim that God is a liar because God's own work, that is again assuming that God exits, tells us that Genesis cannot be interpreted literally. For Genesis to be true God would have had to have planted endless false evidence. That is form of lying. If God cannot lie then the Flood never happened. It is just that simple You say that the Flood was real. That is claiming that God lied by planting false evidence.

Unlike you I choose to believe what the bible says. As posted earlier 2 Timothy was only posted as a reference from me to show that the bible teaches that the scriptures are the inspired Words of God along with Romans 14:23 that states "whatsoever is not of faith that we get from the scriptures is sin (compare to Romans 10:17).

Well that is a big part of your problem. If one is honest there is no choice in belief. An honest person follows the evidence. And once again the evidence clearly says that Genesis is wrong.

Let me say it again as you did not get it the first time it seems. You are have simply been proven wrong. 2 Timothy 3:16 states word for word disagreeing with your words, word for word "All scripture is given by inspiration of God"

Oh, I got it. But you never proved me to be wrong in any way. You only stated what you believed, rather than what you know. Once again the evidence clearly tells us that some parts of the Bible cannot be read literally. But the verses in Timothy still work if one realizes that though not literally true the stories still are a tool of education. You are only focusing on one part of those verses and ignoring the part that tells you that they do not have to be literally true. If the Bible was meant to be read literally then why does it not say so? Perhaps because the writers knew of how it refuted itself if one made that error.

Nope, you missed this one too it seems. You asked the question; "How do you know that the Bible is the "word of God?" to which I responded, "Because I know God and His Word." Then I asked you the same question that you asked me asking "How do you know the bible is not the Word of God?" To which you simply avoided answering the same question. I can understand why. You simply have no response to this question. The bible has not made any failures. The only failure is on your side not understanding what the scriptures teach because you do not believe Gods Word and do not understand what the bible says. That would be your fault not Gods.

LOL, no that is not me missing anything. Once again you are simply claiming to know. That is just mere belief; Knowledge is demonstrable. If you can be honest I can show you how we know that the Flood never happened. That is knowledge. You just claiming to "know" i and then failing to demonstrate it only shows that you merely believe what you claim.

How would you show that the entire Bible is the word of God? No circular reasoning. No unjustified claim of "I know". That does not do you any good. You are claiming that your interpretation is correct but you cannot deal with any of the problems with your interpretation. That does not bode well for you knowing anything.

Wrong it is you that needs to study History. The bible was made up of many different books from the old testament and the new testament that preexisted before the compilation of the bible. You neither know history, God or His Word. This forum is not really a place for you.

Take Care.

I have studied it more than you have. I know that it is made of different books. I also know when many of them were written. You only have a mere belief as to when they were written. To support your beliefs you need to be able to go outside of the Bible.

Many different sects begin because people like you chose a particular interpretation of the Bible that was different from what others believed. None of them seem to be able to justify their beliefs properly which is why all that they have is mere belief and we have thousands upon thousands of sects of Christianity.

 

[3rdAngel]

You may not have understood the refutation, That does not mean that it did not happen.

Please be honest. You did not understand what Timothy was saying. You were pretending that I was saying something I never said saying that Timothy was not saying that you have to read everything in the bible literally. You were then corrected when I told you that was not the reason I posted 2 Timothy 3:16. It was posted to show that the bible teaches scripture is the inspired Word of God which is what the scriptures say word for word disagreeing with what you are saying word for word and proving what you say is not truthful.

You continue to take a series of scriptures out of context. They only say that disbelief is a sin. By the way, that alone tells you that those quotes at least are not the "word of God". Also "scriptures" is never defined. It cannot be the Gospels. They were written well after Paul wrote that. For your argument to work you need to demonstrate the the entire Bible is "scripture". Why assume that Romans is scripture. Now you would have Paul claiming his work is scripture because he says so. I can do the same thing. I can state that anything that I write is scripture as well. Though Paul never made the error that you imply that the made.

As proven earlier, you are not able to support your accusation that context changes the meaning of the scriptures shared with you earlier. I did not think you could. That is why I challenged you to prove your claims. All you posted was empty words you are unable to prove again. Your lose again sadly because you simple choose to stay in unbelief and not believe what the scriptures say.

Nope, now lets see if you can reason logically. I chose God. You chose a book. If God was real then he made the world. If anything is the "word of God" it is the evidence that God's own work created. And the world tells us quite clearly that there was no Flood of Noah. That there was no Adam and Eve. That the Tower of Babel is just another myth.

Yep. What was posted to you earlier is indeed true. You choose the world over God and believe God is a liar and the worldly wise tell you the truth. You became atheist because you choose not to believe God and His Word in order to live in unbelief and sin according to Romans 14:23. No one chooses God by not believing and obeying what Gods Word says. That is the very definition of sin and unbelief according to the scriptures.

You on the other hand claim that God is a liar because God's own work, that is again assuming that God exits, tells us that Genesis cannot be interpreted literally. For Genesis to be true God would have had to have planted endless false evidence. That is form of lying. If God cannot lie then the Flood never happened. It is just that simple You say that the Flood was real. That is claiming that God lied by planting false evidence.

Please forgive me but I do not believe your lies because according to the scriptures it is written in Romans 3:4 "Let God be true and every man a liar; as it is written, That you might be justified in your sayings, and might overcome when you are judged." You choose not to believe the scriptures and make God a liar. The evidence to this fact is that you are an atheist who does not believe and follow God and His Word. You lose again.

Well that is a big part of your problem. If one is honest there is no choice in belief. An honest person follows the evidence. And once again the evidence clearly says that Genesis is wrong.

There is no problem my side. I choose to believe and follow what Gods Word says. Unlike you I choose to believe what the bible says. As posted earlier 2 Timothy was only posted as a reference from me to show that the bible teaches that the scriptures are the inspired Words of God along with Romans 14:23 that states "whatsoever is not of faith that we get from the scriptures is sin (compare to Romans 10:17).

Oh, I got it. But you never proved me to be wrong in any way. You only stated what you believed, rather than what you know. Once again the evidence clearly tells us that some parts of the Bible cannot be read literally. But the verses in Timothy still work if one realizes that though not literally true the stories still are a tool of education. You are only focusing on one part of those verses and ignoring the part that tells you that they do not have to be literally true. If the Bible was meant to be read literally then why does it not say so? Perhaps because the writers knew of how it refuted itself if one made that error.

No you do not get it. Let me say it again as you did not get it the first or the second time it seems. You are have simply been proven wrong. 2 Timothy 3:16 states word for word disagreeing with your words, word for word "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" There you go making arguments no one is arguing about.

LOL, no that is not me missing anything. Once again you are simply claiming to know. That is just mere belief; Knowledge is demonstrable. If you can be honest I can show you how we know that the Flood never happened. That is knowledge. You just claiming to "know" i and then failing to demonstrate it only shows that you merely believe what you claim. How would you show that the entire Bible is the word of God? No circular reasoning. No unjustified claim of "I know". That does not do you any good. You are claiming that your interpretation is correct but you cannot deal with any of the problems with your interpretation. That does not bode well for you knowing anything.

Well that is not true at all. If you want to be honest we can have a friendly discussion. There is a lot of misinformation out there that you can peddle to try to justify your unbelief. That does not make those things true. For everything you claim to have I cam show you evidence of a counter claim against what you pretend is truth. We will never agree because you come from a place of unbelief in God and His Word. There is nothing hidden dear friend that shall not be revealed come judgement day. Sadly it will be too late for the many that had the chance to believe God and His Word but chose not to. The only circular reasoning is your side because no matter what anyone says, you have already made up your mind to live in your unbelief.

3rdAngel said: Wrong it is you that needs to study History. The bible was made up of many different books from the old testament and the new testament that preexisted before the compilation of the bible. You neither know history, God or His Word. This forum is not really a place for you.

Your response here...

I have studied it more than you have. I know that it is made of different books. I also know when many of them were written. You only have a mere belief as to when they were written. To support your beliefs you need to be able to go outside of the Bible. Many different sects begin because people like you chose a particular interpretation of the Bible that was different from what others believed. None of them seem to be able to justify their beliefs properly which is why all that they have is mere belief and we have thousands upon thousands of sects of Christianity.

How can you make a random statement and claim you have studied more about the books of the bible than I have when you do not even know me or what I know? Your comments only tell me you do not know what you are talking about or you would not be trying to argue that the books of the bible did not exist before they were compiled into the bible as we have it today. That is a silly argument to try and argue that the books of the bible did not exist before they were complied into the bible. Your comments simply say to me that you do not know what you are talking about. So we will agree to disagree on this one. Sorry dear friend but I do not believe you.

Take Care

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please be honest. You did not understand what Timothy was saying. You were pretending that I was saying something I never said saying that Timothy was not saying that you have to read everything in the bible literally. You were then corrected when I told you that was not the reason I posted 2 Timothy 3:16. It was posted to show that the bible teaches scripture is the inspired Word of God which is what the scriptures say word for word disagreeing with what you are saying word for word and proving what you say is not truthful.

As proven earlier, you are not able to support your accusation that context changes the meaning of the scriptures shared with you earlier. I did not think you could. That is why I challenged you to prove your claims. All you posted was empty words you are unable to prove again. Your lose again sadly because you simple choose to stay in unbelief and not believe what the scriptures say.

Yep. What was posted to you earlier is indeed true. You choose the world over God and believe God is a liar and the worldly wise tell you the truth. You became atheist because you choose not to believe God and His Word in order to live in unbelief and sin according to Romans 14:23. No one chooses God by not believing and obeying what Gods Word says. That is the very definition of sin and unbelief according to the scriptures.

Please forgive me but I do not believe your lies because according to the scriptures it is written in Romans 3:4 "Let God be true and every man a liar; as it is written, That you might be justified in your sayings, and might overcome when you are judged." You choose not to believe the scriptures and make God a liar. The evidence to this fact is that you are an atheist who does not believe and follow God and His Word. You lose again.

There is no problem my side. I choose to believe and follow what Gods Word says. Unlike you I choose to believe what the bible says. As posted earlier 2 Timothy was only posted as a reference from me to show that the bible teaches that the scriptures are the inspired Words of God along with Romans 14:23 that states "whatsoever is not of faith that we get from the scriptures is sin (compare to Romans 10:17).

No you do not get it. Let me say it again as you did not get it the first or the second time it seems. You are have simply been proven wrong. 2 Timothy 3:16 states word for word disagreeing with your words, word for word "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" There you go making arguments no one is arguing about.

Well that is not true at all. If you want to be honest we can have a friendly discussion. There is a lot of misinformation out there that you can peddle to try to justify your unbelief. That does not make those things true. For everything you claim to have I cam show you evidence of a counter claim against what you pretend is truth. We will never agree because you come from a place of unbelief in God and His Word. There is nothing hidden dear friend that shall not be revealed come judgement day. Sadly it will be too late for the many that had the chance to believe God and His Word but chose not to. The only circular reasoning is your side because no matter what anyone says, you have already made up your mind to live in your unbelief.

Your response here...

How can you make a random statement and claim you have studied more about the books of the bible than I have when you do not even know me or what I know? Your comments only tell me you do not know what you are talking about or you would not be trying to argue that the books of the bible did not exist before they were compiled into the bible as we have it today. That is a silly argument to try and argue that the books of the bible did not exist before they were complied into the bible. Your comments simply say to me that you do not know what you are talking about. So we will agree to disagree on this one. Sorry dear friend but I do not believe you.

Take Care

This is getting too long to respond to. But to sum it up you appear to only deny. You have not refuted anything and there are some huge problems that you have not faced.

First off what is "scripture"? You cannot say " the Bible" since when Paul was writing his letter that you keep citing but do not understand did not have a time machine. If you rely on.Paul's definition then the New Testament is not scripture. If you want to include the New Testament you need to justify it.

Second you are still calling God a liar. One question for you, did God make the Earth? If so then the Earth too would definitely be "God's word".


Lastly, your quoting of Romans 3 4 is such extreme quote mining I can't see how you dare call yourself a Christian. It does not say anything about the Bible being true when read in context. Shame on you. I can abuse the Bible just as badly. " There is no God". Source, at least twelve different verses in the Bible. Do you believe me? You should by your poor standards. That verse was actually about circumcision:

"

God’s Faithfulness​

3 What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.

3 What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? 4 Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written:

“So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge.”[a]
5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!"

That was quite the stretch on your part. Quote mining is a form of lying. And quote mining the Bible as you did has to be blasphemous. It is very odd that I as an atheist respect the Bible more than you do.

 

[3rdAngel]

This is getting too long to respond to. But to sum it up you appear to only deny. You have not refuted anything and there are some huge problems that you have not faced.

Wrong. Denying all the scriptures shared with you that are in disagreement with you without showing why you are in disagreement is what you are doing. Everything you have posted has been addressed with a detailed scripture response that you seem unwilling to discuss with me and seem more in tune with simply denying everything that has been shared with you from the scriptures which are the very definition of what truth is.

First off what is "scripture"? You cannot say " the Bible" since when Paul was writing his letter that you keep citing but do not understand did not have a time machine. If you rely on.Paul's definition then the New Testament is not scripture. If you want to include the New Testament you need to justify it.

Well none of that is true. Unless your trying to deny that the words and teachings of Jesus who is God and the teachings of the Apostles who share Gods Word is not scripture. That claim therefore would simply go against the very interpretation of scripture which is the inspired Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16). So if the new testament scriptures are about the teachings of Jesus who is Gods Word we know what you claim here has no truth in it. and of course is a lie. The Greek word for "scripture" means the written Word of God that is in context to 2 Timothy 3:16 being inspired by God. So according to these very definitions all the bible is scripture and the inspired words of God that include both the old testament inspired Words of God and the new testament inspired words of God which you choose not to believe.

Second you are still calling God a liar. One question for you, did God make the Earth? If so then the Earth too would definitely be "God's word".

You keep making untruthful accusations unsupported by any evidence. It is you calling God a liar because you do not believe and obey Gods Word. Your question makes no sense. Come back and talk when you are willing to enter into a discussion and address the post content and the scriptures that prove what you say is not truthful.

Lastly, your quoting of Romans 3 4 is such extreme quote mining I can't see how you dare call yourself a Christian. It does not say anything about the Bible being true when read in context. Shame on you. I can abuse the Bible just as badly. " There is no God". Source, at least twelve different verses in the Bible. Do you believe me? You should by your poor standards. That verse was actually about circumcision:

Your words have no meaning to me because they are not based on what is true or any scripture but are just your words denying Gods Word. The scripture in Romans 3:4 simply says "Let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, that you might be justified in your sayings, and might overcome when you are judged." I do not judge you but the Words of God we choose not to believe according to Jesus will become our judge come judgement day (John 12:47-48). It is only scripture (Gods Words) that have been shared with you that you choose not to believe because they are in disagreement with your words that are not Gods Word. So please forgive me if I choose not to believe your words calling God a liar.

God’s Faithfulness 3 What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God. 3 What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? 4 Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written: “So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.” 5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!"

That was quite the stretch on your part. Quote mining is a form of lying. And quote mining the Bible as you did has to be blasphemous. It is very odd that I as an atheist respect the Bible more than you do.

You posted scripture above that does not support anything you are talking about. So what you are posting here if I am being honest with you makes no sense. Sharing scripture is not a form of lying. According to the scriptures it is the very definition of what truth is (see John 17:17). Remember only Gods Words are true and we should believe and follow them and Gods Word disagrees with your words that are denying Gods Words, so please forgive me if I choose not to believe you.

Take Care.

 

[YoursTrue]

You don't know God any other way than reading about him? Isn't that more simply just knowing about God, rather than knowing God? There is a difference between these. Reading about God is not the same thing as knowing God. I think what is important is actually knowing God, not just reading words about him.

To know about God also means to recognize who He is. His name, His authority, and what He likes and does not like. This was, of course, written to the Jews but stands good for us today regarding teaching blind ones, those literally blind and figuratively blind. Hope you enjoy reading it. From Romans chapter 2:
"If, now, you are a Jew in name and rely on law and take pride in God, 18 and you know his will and approve of things that are excellent because you are instructed out of the Law, 19 and you are convinced that you are a guide of the blind, a light for those in darkness, 20 a corrector of the unreasonable ones, a teacher of young children, and having the framework of the knowledge and of the truth in the Law--do you, however, the one teaching someone else, not teach yourself? You, the one preaching, “Do not steal,” do you steal? 22 You, the one saying, “Do not commit adultery,” do you commit adultery? You, the one abhorring idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who take pride in law, do you dishonor God by your transgressing of the Law? 24 For “the name of God is being blasphemed among the nations because of you,” just as it is written."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong. Denying all the scriptures shared with you that are in disagreement with you without showing why you are in disagreement is what you are doing. Everything you have posted has been addressed with a detailed scripture response that you seem unwilling to discuss with me and seem more in tune with simply denying everything that has been shared with you from the scriptures which are the very definition of what truth is.

Well none of that is true. Unless your trying to deny that the words and teachings of Jesus who is God and the teachings of the Apostles who share Gods Word is not scripture. That claim therefore would simply go against the very interpretation of scripture which is the inspired Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16). So if the new testament scriptures are about the teachings of Jesus who is Gods Word we know what you claim here has no truth in it. and of course is a lie. The Greek word for "scripture" means the written Word of God that is in context to 2 Timothy 3:16 being inspired by God. So according to these very definitions all the bible is scripture and the inspired words of God that include both the old testament inspired Words of God and the new testament inspired words of God which you choose not to believe.

You keep making untruthful accusations unsupported by any evidence. It is you calling God a liar because you do not believe and obey Gods Word. Your question makes no sense. Come back and talk when you are willing to enter into a discussion and address the post content and the scriptures that prove what you say is not truthful.

Your words have no meaning to me because they are not based on what is true or any scripture but are just your words denying Gods Word. The scripture in Romans 3:4 simply says "Let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, that you might be justified in your sayings, and might overcome when you are judged." I do not judge you but the Words of God we choose not to believe according to Jesus will become our judge come judgement day (John 12:47-48). It is only scripture (Gods Words) that have been shared with you that you choose not to believe because they are in disagreement with your words that are not Gods Word. So please forgive me if I choose not to believe your words calling God a liar.

You posted scripture above that does not support anything you are talking about. So what you are posting here if I am being honest with you makes no sense. Sharing scripture is not a form of lying. According to the scriptures it is the very definition of what truth is (see John 17:17). Remember only Gods Words are true and we should believe and follow them and Gods Word disagrees with your words that are denying Gods Words, so please forgive me if I choose not to believe you.

Take Care.

LOL! More denial. No actual argument And where did I call God a liar? You did. I explained how and why you did. I never made such a claim. You keep calling him one when you claim that certain parts of the Bible are literally true. And your abuse of Romans 3 4 is a terrible abuse of the Bible. I posted a much longer segment that showed that.

You have lost. You have abused your own Bible. By your poor standards there is no God. Do you want to see "proof"

2 Samuel 7 22 "there is no god".

There you go, I did exactly what you did I quoted the Bible and disproved God. I can do that again and again. Next time you have to guess..


And yes, you did abuse Romans 3

 

[Windwalker]

To know about God also means to recognize who He is. His name, His authority, and what He likes and does not like.

If you are married to someone, did you have to read a book written about them in order to know them and what works and doesn't work with them, or did that come through living with them and engaging with them personally?

Conversely, if you were to only have read their bio on dating.com, could you claim you know them because you read about them online?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I doubt anything I say could make you alter your opinion on religion; you seem so heavily entrenched.

So you saw my comments and chose not to respond to them because I seem heavily entrenched? I don't know what that means or why you consider it a reason not to rebut them if disagree. My claims are that there are no valuable, original contributions to moral theory from Jesus, and that the Sermon on the Mount was instructions one would give someone he wished to exploit and keep them passive about it.

These ideas are either correct or not, and I think it's worth the effort to discuss them. If they are wrong, you should be able to show where and how. You can falsify the first with an example of some moral precept that an unbeliever like a humanist would find a keeper. With the second, you can explain why those are the kind of values you would teach your children rather than things like courage, autonomy, and self-confidence.

And if you are wrong and I am right about these things, isn't that worth knowing? The church is recommending that people think and act like that. I think it's bad advice. Cursed are the meek, for they suffer from poverty of spirit (ego death), and lack the courage to do the right thing. Turning the other cheek is bad advice. Loving enemies is bad advice. They're all instructions to stand down and accept your lot, for your reward will come after death. Rebut that understanding of what those words mean. Show why it's wrong if it is.

Or not, and blame me for not seeming receptive enough. I think that you consider all of this holy and good without actually looking at what it says, and resent criticism of it, which you understand as a mean-spirited attack on cherished values and likely a form of trolling. I say so because we all get that a lot. "What are you doing on a religious site arguing against God? Why are you attacking my faith?" To me, it's philosophy - in this case, moral theory.

I’ll just wish you a happy Easter

Same to you.

 

[Windwalker]

What's your favorite moral precept original to Jesus, his most important contribution to moral theory in your estimation? Love one another is all well and good, but not original with Jesus.

Since you invited her challenge to you and she didn't take you up on it, and since it's Easter and I feel up to it, I'll respond instead.

Why does teaching love need to be original with Jesus in order for it to still be the greatest moral truth? To me, his stating the same thing only reinforces its Truth.

But what is his greatest contribution to moral theory? Hard to say, as I haven't thought about that in those terms as far as unique contributions goes. Off the top of my head, I'd say that his was to challenge religion in its claims to being the gatekeepers to the Divine. His greatest contribution would be to break down the barriers between man and God that religion and religiosity erect.

He taught the spirit of the law, over the letter of the law. He taught grace, over rigidity and condemnation. He taught internal truth and sincerity, in contrast with an externalized self-righteousness. He taught the power of humility, over the power of control of others, and so forth. His was about inner awakening, over outer conformity. So in the context of religion, he was to basically turn it inside out.

And that is what the society was ready for, and why as a moral philosophy it resonated with the masses and grew and evolved into become a world religion, in its many and varied forms it takes that reflects those cultures.

How about considering marrying a divorcee or finding somebody sexually attractive adultery?

How about that? Do you understand the context of what he meant? He did not mean finding someone sexually attractive is adultery, for goodness sake! Of course people find each other sexually attractive. That's why they choose each other as mates and get married, at least ideally that is. What he was specifically talking about was lusting after someone.

The context in which he said this has to do with those religious prigs who say they are sinless because they don't have sex with other men's wives, yet overlook that they are secretly fantizing about it in their hearts, desiring to commit it, but not doing it. In other words, indulging in fantizing about doing something that is morally wrong, is in fact the very basis for doing the wrong in the first place! It starts in the attitudes of the heart.

This is pretty clear from the context. Indulging in fantasies about having sex with your friend's spouse, in the seeds for the act itself. Indulging beating someone to death because you hate them, is in fact committing evil in your own heart. Put in other terms, it feeds that negative energy. It feeds that germ that grows and grows into actions.

Take what Gandhi said in light of what Jesus said. It's saying the exact same thing, in a different way

Your beliefs become your thoughts, your thoughts become your words, your words become your actions, your actions become your habits, your habits become your values, your values become your destiny​

​

Bingo. That is exactly what is meant by that.

How about, "For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it." Be a eunuch might be original, but is it really a valuable contribution to moral theory?

Again, nothing sinister to read into this here. Taking vows of celibacy is a common practice in any spiritual, or even athletic disciplines. The reason for it is because sexual activities are a major source of energy redirection. If you want to build up your spiritual or athletic energies, often times people abstain from sex for that very reason. Relationships can be a distraction and draining. That is all that is meant here. It's an optional practice.

I'm guessing Matthew 5. Those are words you tell somebody whom you intend to exploit but whom want to passively absorb it rather than rise up. Be meek, Be longsuffering. Love enemies. Turn the other cheek.

Your reading of these are through the cynic's lens. Nothing could be further from the truth of the meaning of these things. As I said before, what you feed in yourself, becomes your lived reality and ultimately your destiny, or who or what you become as a person. "Love your enemies" is a very sage advice, and one I take to heart in my own personal spiritual practice.

Why? Because harboring resentments, ruminating over wrongs, feeding anger, stoking those flames of blame and fantasies of revenge for wrongs done, only damages ourselves! We are attacking ourselves. It drains us of positive energies and attitudes, and poisons us. It is a killer. It leads to all manner of self-destructive attitudes.

The exact same principle applies to why we should forgive others. Why we should not curse others. Why we should instead love others. It all has to do with which dog you feed. A quote attributed to Sitting Bull says this succinctly:

Inside of me there are two dogs. One is mean and evil and the other is good and they fight each other all the time. When asked which one wins I answer, the one I feed the most.​

These are Wisdom teachings in Matthew. In reality, when you practice these things, when you build positive energies in yourself, then the reality is you will not be passive. You will have gained true agency, and stand up for yourself, but non-aggressively, but assertively. You will love yourself, and as a result of that self love, you will treat even your enemies with respect. And if there is any hope of peace with them, that will be the door to that - not through force.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you are married to someone, did you have to read a book written about them in order to know them and what works and doesn't work with them, or did that come through living with them and engaging with them personally?

Conversely, if you were to only have read their bio on dating.com, could you claim you know them because you read about them online?

In a way, that's right. Many people read about God in the Bible but they don't know Him.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why does teaching love need to be original with Jesus in order for it to still be the greatest moral truth?

Thanks for your interest.

It doesn't. But if we're going to hold out Jesus as a great moral source, hopefully we mean more than that he curated together a bunch of tried-and-true values from his past. My main point here is to challenge the inference that this was a demigod speaking, or somebody channeling the author of morality. This religion offers this life as exemplary, and I disagree. It was quite ordinary, just like the life the Baha'i offer as evidence of the same divine knowledge. Walking about preaching piety and loving one another is a very ordinary life.

But what is his greatest contribution to moral theory? Hard to say, as I haven't thought about that in those terms as far as unique contributions goes. Off the top of my head, I'd say that his was to challenge religion in its claims to being the gatekeepers to the Divine. His greatest contribution would be to break down the barriers between man and God that religion and religiosity erect.

How is that a moral value? What's moral about a god belief? And how successful was he at that? Look at the American evangelicals, the televangelists, the "prosperity" megachurches, and the Catholic church.

He taught the spirit of the law, over the letter of the law. He taught grace, over rigidity and condemnation. He taught internal truth and sincerity, in contrast with an externalized self-righteousness. He taught the power of humility, over the power of control of others, and so forth. His was about inner awakening, over outer conformity. So in the context of religion, he was to basically turn it inside out.

Not a very strong recommendation for being anything but ordinary. Why should I read his words again? I already have ideas about such things and would care if Jesus agreed with them or not. Why should I unless I consider him a more excellent source than my own faculties?

He did not mean finding someone sexually attractive is adultery, for goodness sake!

Disagree.

What he was specifically talking about was lusting after someone.

Same thing, only differing by degree. You look at a woman and find yourself attracted to her sexually. That's lust, a specific kind of hunger. It's an instinct. Under the right circumstance, it can lead to asking for a date. Under other circumstances, we keep quiet. Lust can be controlled such that we needn't leer or otherwise behave inappropriately, but even if we flirt with her, even if we imagine her in bed, even if she or we are married, how is that adultery? It's a manifestation of lust, but not adultery. And how is that good moral advice, or the opposite immoral? I assume that you consider looking at pornography immoral as well, which is all about lusting, but I don't.

An outsider sees the believer tendentiously pushing all of his interpretations to reflect optimally on the religion, but the words say what they say and are understood differently by different people.

Taking vows of celibacy is a common practice in any spiritual, or even athletic disciplines.

How is that relevant to recommending becoming a eunuch, a value Jesus apparently taught?

"Love your enemies" is a very sage advice

I strongly disagree.

Why? Because harboring resentments, ruminating over wrongs, feeding anger, stoking those flames of blame and fantasies of revenge for wrongs done, only damages ourselves!

That's not love. I do all of that, but do not love the person just because I don't seek revenge. Love is sacrificial. It's manifestation is protection of the object of love and sharing scarce resources including time. My enemies get neither.

This is a fine example of what I just referred to - changing the meanings of the words to reconcile them with modern sensibilities. What you described is a healthy and reasonable thing to do, but it is not love. You've had to redefine the word to mean not hate.

 

[Windwalker]

In a way, that's right. Many people read about God in the Bible but they don't know Him.

Conversely, many people never read the Bible, and yet know God.

 

[YoursTrue]

Conversely, many people never read the Bible, and yet know God.

How can that be? Do they have the Bible perhaps read to them? Or are you saying they have visions, etc. or visitations from spirits and claim to know God that way?

 

[YoursTrue]

"how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?.....​

​

But I say, Did they not hear? Yea, verily, Their sound went out into all the earth,​

And their words unto the ends of the world.​

As you can see here, Paul was clearly teaching that they understood without the need for preachers or Bibles. What if they are illiterate and can't read? Too bad for them? Off to hell with you because you can't read the Bible! You can't believe that, do you?

There are those adults who were illiterate and who learned to read because they wanted to read and understand the Bible. But I'm sure you know that. Again -- since you said 'off to hell' with certain ones, what do you mean by that? Not sure, but do you claim to be a Christian who reads the Bible? I'm pretty sure you're not illiterate.

 

[YoursTrue]

Lawlessness is the consequence of the seed (message) planted by the "enemy"/"devil" (Mt 13:24-25), which would be the false gospel of grace, the same message given by the "serpent" in Genesis 3:4, whereas you "surely shall not die if you" don't keep the Commandments, Law, given to you by God, and simply nail God's Law (Commandments) to a cross.

We know that things like fornication were considered wrong in the Bible. Are they ok now in your opinion?

It went out as a result of the fulfilling of the Law and the prophets (Mt 5:17) per Hosea 3, whereas the Gentile church, the "adulteress" was bought for the equivalence of 30 shekels of silver, for "many days", until "Israel returns". As for you quoting the last part of the gospel of Matthew, that section was not in line with the oldest version. As for the "nations"/Gentiles who survive the "day of the LORD" the "day of distress" (Jer 16:19), they will confess "our fathers have inherited nothing but falsehood". Which is to say, you are up a creek without a paddle.

I am not sure as to what you are saying, really. Can you please elaborate about your reference to the "last part of the gospel of Matthew" not being in line with the oldest version?

 

[Windwalker]

How can that be? Do they have the Bible perhaps read to them? Or are you saying they have visions, etc. or visitations from spirits and claim to know God that way?

Are visions and supernatural visitations the only ways you know God relationally? Do you not experience God within you, and around you, without the radio blaring some preacher, or reading a book, or falling into a trance and having a vision?

 

[Windwalker]

There are those adults who were illiterate and who learned to read because they wanted to read and understand the Bible. But I'm sure you know that.

But that verse you quoting in quoting me, shows that they came to know and understand God without a Bible and without preachers.

I'm not saying reading scripture is a bad thing, of course. But I'm saying that being a Christian, or knowing God is not dependent upon it. You made it sound like it is.

Again -- since you said 'off to hell' with certain ones, what do you mean by that?

Even if you don't believe in literal hell, which I myself don't, it means being cast off, "Off with you! Be gone!", sort of dismissal.

Not sure, but do you claim to be a Christian who reads the Bible? I'm pretty sure you're not illiterate.

The fact I am typing is proof I'm not illiterate. My only point was to dispute what you said that in order to be a Christian you have to read the Bible. I don't agree with that.

 

[YoursTrue]

Are visions and supernatural visitations the only ways you know God relationally? Do you not experience God within you, and around you, without the radio blaring some preacher, or reading a book, or falling into a trance and having a vision?

Is the God you talk about as being with you saying that homosexuality is ok? Just as one point. When you were born, did you know about God? Hardly. We weren't even able to feed ourselves or know which food to eat, we didn't have teeth or know how to cook or gather food. So we had to be taught.

 

[YoursTrue]

Conversely, many people never read the Bible, and yet know God.

Do they know what the Bible says?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do they know what the Bible says?

Does it matter that much? To be a Christian it is more important to follow the teachings of Jesus than anything else. Believing in the myths of the Bible are not necessary. And that of course includes the contradicting Nativity myths of the Bible. By the way, myths like that are one of the reasons that Christians should study the history of the Bible. The can help you to quit focusing on parts of the Bible that do not matter or are just plain wrong. Such as the claims that God does not like homosexuals. That would not make any sense if you were a Christian since God made them that way.