Contributors

Sunday, September 01, 2013


126 comments:

GuardDuck said...

Do you honestly think Jesus' idea of charity is to have the government decide who gets how much taken from whomever?

Markadelphia said...

Another example of PHG.

Not My Name said...

A) [Jesus] said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.“
— Luke 22:36

B) There is only God's side and everyone else's side.

You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.
— James 4:4

Are all Republicans on God's side? Certainly not. But some of us are Republicans because we are on God's side. Republican positions are far closer to God's positions than Democrat's positions.

“If you love me, you will keep my commandments.”
— John 14:15

if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked
— 2 Peter 2:6–7

just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
— Jude 1:7

On the other hand, Democrats explicitely rejected God at their convention. And you personally have openly thrown away parts of the Bible as the only means of reconciling your claim to be a Christian with your leftist Democrat ideology.

Not My Name said...

BTW…

Markadelphia said...

Still think you know what God thinks, do yer? How terribly vain, NMN. Considering the size of the universe and our very small amount of time in it, humans can't even come close to understanding the full scope of want God intends.

Even in the limited view of the Bible, you still don't get it. Blessed are the peacemakers, remember? Turn the other cheek? Not shoot first and ask questions later. Somehow I don't think Jesus would have carried an AR 15, do you?

And I have to say that you clearly don't grasp when Christ used hyperbole. But please, continue with your nonsense...

Markadelphia said...

Ooops, forgot....your links....straw man and misleading vividness....again....snore...

Not My Name said...

Ooops, forgot....your links....

Standard Response #5

In fact, you didn't even look at those links, did you? Your non-response "response" suggests the answer is "no".

Still think you know what God thinks, do yer?

I can read.

humans can't even come close to understanding the full scope of want God intends.

Of course not. But He did put the important things in writing.

Blessed are the peacemakers, remember?

If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.
— Romans 12:18

You do realize that there are people in the world who refuse to live peacefully, do you not?

Turn the other cheek?

But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
— Matthew 5:39b

Do you know the difference between someone giving you a backhanded slap on the cheek and someone attempting to kill you? I certainly do.

Not shoot first and ask questions later.

Does God approve of self-defense?

Markadelphia said...

I looked at your links and my response stands. If you care to rebut, please feel free.

And apparently you can't read because Jesus was very clearly a pacifist and preached that all of us will be judged by what we do for the least among us. Actually, God does that throughout the Bible. That holds true for how we act individually or collectively. Just because you have PHG doesn't excuse an organization from acting to help out the poor and the sick.

Juxtapose what Christ said about helping people and how blessed our children are with your asinine response to Sandy Hook. I doubt anything will come of it but I have to at least try.

6Kings said...

Your response is ignorance of Christianity M. There is nothing about forced charity ever being ok, not even with the best intentions, and we have been over this multiple times. Maybe you should go back to posting about your favorite music and movies as that is about all you seem to know anything about.

GuardDuck said...

Another example of PHG.

Do you or do you not consider money from the government to be 'charity'?

Not My Name said...

all of us will be judged by what we do for the least among us.

Again, I'm still waiting for you to give me that chapter and verse about "charity" being the government's (usually referred to in scripture as "rulers" or "authorities") responsibility. I have never denied that it is my personal responsibility to take care of those in need. In fact, the parable of the Good Samaritan describes exactly what such personal attention involves. Or are you claiming that it was misrecorded, and the Samaritan actually ran to the nearest Roman garrison to get help for the robber?

Let me point out more passages that apply:

Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
— Matthew 22:17–21

So taxes belong to the realm of government.

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
— James 1:27

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
— James 2:14–17

Religion and faith are God's realm.

Why are you attempting to combine the two areas Jesus said were separate?

my response stands

Waving off straightforward, unedited video of Democrats themselves determining their own party platform with nothing more than misapplied fallacies without even a pretense of explanation is not a "response", it's saying "don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up."

Not My Name said...

Repeat: Does God approve of self-defense?

Not My Name said...

There is nothing about forced charity ever being ok, not even with the best intentions, and we have been over this multiple times.

Exactly right. In fact, the Bible says precisely the opposite.

Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
— 2 Corinthians 9:7

Markadelphia said...

Well, 6kings, by your own logic, that makes you against the Constittuion as Congress has the power to tax. And what happens if we don't serve the least of these, in God's eyes?

GD, I'm still waiting for you to not answer a question with a question. There was one posed in this photo. It's a yes or no question. Fairly straight forward.

NMN, God doesn't judge individuals alone but groups and organizations as well, correct? Entities made up of people? This would be where doing His works and greater than these comes in to play. This would also be where thinking comes in to play. Organizations can have a far greater effect on healing the sick and helping the poor than individuals can.

And the other document you claim to support DOES say that paying taxes are helpful, legal, and moral. I know that you "don't wanna" but that's just too fucking bad. Grow up.

I do find it amusing that you guys get so bent out of shape when I call you on the Repiblican Jesus BS. Obviously a part of you realizes that there is truth to what I say and that doesn't fit in the bubble:)

Markadelphia said...

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience."

Romans 13: 1-7

And wasn't our Constittuion founded on Christian principles?

Markadelphia said...

Romans 13:7

"Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed."

Not My Name said...

Mark, that whizzing sound you heard was what I wrote flying right over your head.

All the verses you quoted support the point I made: that taxes are a legitimate part of the government's realm. Did you catch that? LE-GIT-I-MATE That means that I agree with you that taxes are necessary and appropriate for government to collect to pay for the government's functions.

Still waiting on you to produce chapter and verse on where CHARITY is one of the government's functions.

And REPEAT (yet again): Does God approve of self-defense?

Oh wait, I know why Mark is refusing answering this one. Because to do so, he would have to admit that he is wrong, and he can never, ever, EVER countenance such a possibility.

Markadelphia said...

Since you haven't answered my question as to whether or not Christ was a pacifist, I'm not going to answer your question about self defense, although I don't really have to as the Bible is pretty clear on the matter. Would Jesus carry an AR 15? Yes or No.

Regarding charity and taxes, the problem here is that you think payroll taxes are charity so the flaw is with you, not me. The Romans verse is clear regarding civilian authority which means that what you view as "charity" is the law that should be followed.

One verse I left out...

"This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing."

That means the Democrats are God's servants, right? They give their full time to governing. It seems to me that if you shit all over them (as you do daily) you are disobeying God.

And check out the verse after Romans 13, 1-7.

"8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,”[a] and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[b] 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

All summed in the one law...hmm...

Not My Name said...

Since you haven't answered my question as to whether or not Christ was a pacifist,

You did not ask if Jesus was a pacifist, you asserted it. Therefore, I have no question to answer before you can answer my question. Stop being so stinkin' dishonest!

Furthermore, you're flat wrong (as usual).

pacifist

1. a person who believes in pacifism or is opposed to war or to violence of any kind.

They will make war on the Lamb [Jesus], and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful.
— Revelation 17:14

“Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth.”
— Jesus, Revelation 2:16

And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army. And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. And the rest were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse [Jesus], and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.
— Revelation 19:19–21

Also, a pacifist is opposed even to violence in self defense. Thus my question of you: Does God approve of self-defense?

Would Jesus carry an AR 15?

Jesus needs an AR-15 exactly as much as He needs a boat. Are you claiming the rest of us have the exact same abilities as Jesus?

Not My Name said...

the problem here is that you think payroll taxes are charity so the flaw is with you, not me.

Just wait a cotton pickin' minute!!! You're accusing me of holding your position?!? Boy, oh boy, those Voices In Your Head™ must be getting really stinkin' LOUD.

Do try to keep up with YOUR OWN assertions, and I quote:

Yet you don't want your tax dollars to go towards healing the sick & feeding the poor.

Here's a clue, Mark; sticking to the truth is far easier than making up your own. There's far less to keep track of, which makes it easier to avoid getting confused.

Not My Name said...

That means the Democrats are God's servants, right?

There you go, pointing to the anthrax again.

The issue of your post is this: who's side is God on? The answer directly from the Bible: He is on His side. Everyone else is either on His side, or they are not.

Are "servants" who actively disobey and reject God on God's side? The answer is obvious to everyone who is honest. (Which clearly excludes you.)

Not My Name said...

One last point, not only did you assert that Jesus was a pacifist instead of asking me if He is, you did so after I had already asked the self-defense question.

Not My Name said...

All summed in the one law...hmm...

And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
— Matthew 22:37–40

In other words, the Old Testament is a "how to" manual on loving your neighbor and God. Then, by definition, if you act contrary to the teachings of the Old Testament (or even New Testament), you are not loving your neighbor or God.

Markadelphia said...

Does God approve of self-defense?

NMN, you are always telling me that words have meanings and you have a grasp of comprehension. So this...

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

which I mentioned above, answers your question quite succinctly. Do you not understand what Christ is saying here? He later goes on in Matthew 26 to say "Put your sword back in its place...for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."

Further, God told David in the OT...

You have shed much blood and have fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my Name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight.

Now, David was simply defending his people, right? Yet God did not want him to build a house for His name because how many he had killed.

Recall as well that Isiah spoke of a time when swords would be beat into plowshares.

Certainly, I fall short of this ideal and would defend myself or my family in the event of some sort of attack...with violence, if necessary. But that's where the Grace of Jesus comes in to play to save me.

I'd also add in that the quotes you put up are meant to be hyperbole. A lamb (a weak animal) does not war with violence but with peace. "Sword of my mouth" is the language of love...of peace...of Jesus...that's pretty obvious.

GuardDuck said...

Ah,

So if Jesus were a pacifist then it would be bad for me to own an AR-15.

But if my taxes go to the government and are given to the poor then that is charitable.....


Does that mean that the government should also not own guns?

GuardDuck said...

And as for the question in the picture?

Straw man....... Again.

Not My Name said...

A lamb (a weak animal) does not war with violence but with peace. "Sword of my mouth" is the language of love...of peace...of Jesus...that's pretty obvious.

Once again I am totally awestruck at your ability to maintain total self-delusion. This bit is a perfect example of how you impose your own desires upon the Bible rather than reading what it actually says. (Something which is true of your entire comment.)

Read it again:

And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army. And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. And the rest were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse [Jesus], and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.
— Revelation 19:19–21

It boggles my mind how hard you spin to avoid that one little word, "slain". Put simply, Jesus KILLS everyone in those armies. Let me say that again. Jesus—the one you claim is a pacifist—KILLS—not hugs, not heals, not has words with, but ENDS THEIR LIFE—everyone in those armies. That is not pacifist. Period.

In fact, look back a few verses to the description of "him who was sitting on the horse":

Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God.
— Revelation 19:11–13

Remember, this was written by the Apostle John, and Word (logos) was the title he used for Jesus in John 1:1.

As for David, if absolute pacifism is the rule, why then did God himself call David "a man after my heart, who will do all my will" (Acts 13:22) if making war is always sin? Why was David promised that the Messiah would be his descendent if his being a warrior was absolutely wrong? And why would the man of peace who did build the temple—Solomon—not have the Messiah as a descendent if peace/pacifism was God's top priority? It's because God is not a pacifist.

Here is the best examination of the Biblical view of self-defense I could find. It's both thorough and accurate. Note that it sticks only to self-defense, not war.

The Biblical View of Self-Defense

To summarize:

• Killing is never, ever to be taken lightly. It's absolutely last resort.

• Humanity is obligated to protect innocent life.

• Murder is always wrong. It deserves the death penalty.

• Accidental homicide (true accident, not negligence) requires the killer to go to one of 6 Cities of Refuge for a period of time under penalty of death if they do not do so.

• Actual self-defense carries no punishment.

If God himself demands no punishment for self-defense when even accidental killing has consequences, then there can be no doubt that God has no problem with genuine self-defense.

Here is a good look at the Biblical take on war, including David.

Not My Name said...

BTW, where's that chapter and verse again that says it's the government's role (using "tax dollars") to take care of the poor?

Markadelphia said...

Once again I am totally awestruck at your ability to maintain total self-delusion.

Revelation is a book of prophecy so those things have not yet happened. It's a prediction, not fact nor is it a foundation on how we should live our lives. The Bible isn't correct about everything, NMN. For whatever reason, you seem to have a real problem with that.

It's because God is not a pacifist.

I've given you quotes that say otherwise, including the words of Christ. No comment from you on Matthew 5 and turning the other cheek. Not surprising as there is no way I could see you walking two miles in a forced way by your enemy. You'd shoot them first.

As to the rest of your questions, it seems your quandary is not with me but with the Bible. You ask many questions that speak to clear contradictions contained therein. Honestly, they are not for me to answer. You have to come to terms with them yourself. I have.

And you are inserting people again (the authors of your links) between me and the Bible. Nope. Not happening.

where's that chapter and verse again that says it's the government's role (using "tax dollars") to take care of the poor?

Already answered above. When cornered, it's back to the game playing...snore...

6Kings said...

And you are inserting people again (the authors of your links) between me and the Bible. Nope. Not happening.

And the ignorant fool plays on....

Not My Name said...

book of prophecy

Prophecy. Biblically, you can say "future fact".

The Bible isn't correct about everything, NMN.

What was it I said? Oh, right:

you personally have openly thrown away parts of the Bible as the only means of reconciling your claim to be a Christian with your leftist Democrat ideology.

You call God a liar, then claim He's on your side. Genius. Pure genius. NOT!

I've given you quotes that say otherwise,

Carefully stripped of context and even picking out specific words to force them to say what you want them to say. And also ignoring other verses that directly contradict you. Like I said:

you personally have openly thrown away parts of the Bible as the only means of reconciling your claim to be a Christian with your leftist Democrat ideology.

Once again, in answer to that bumper sticker: God is on the side of those who choose to be on his side. How can you seriously claim to be on His side when you deny His Power, His Word, and call him "wrong" and make Him out to be a liar?

Already answered above.

You are so funny. I went back and searched through what you wrote. You did quote a couple of passages about paying taxes, but nowhere in those passages did it say anything about government/rulers/authorities taking care of the poor, let alone it being their area of responsibility.

That's why I asked again. Your responses involved only HALF of the criteria. It's government AND the needy, not ONLY government.

Markadelphia said...

And the ignorant fool plays on....

Interesting that one of the libertarians thinks it's OK to let someone else tell him what's right and wrong in this case. What a fucking poser...

Markadelphia said...

Carefully stripped of context and even picking out specific words to force them to say what you want them to say. And also ignoring other verses that directly contradict you

Actually, that's what you are doing but we all know that heading off at the pass is your main tactic...

Still waiting on the Matthew 5 interpretation given your repeated assertions...

The good thing about this thread is that you have given me inspiration for a post this coming Sunday. It centers around this question: why do Christian conservatives believe in such a small and limited God?

not.my.name said...

Actually, that's what you are doing…

Once again, asserted against evidence to the contrary without even pretending to explain where this was supposedly done. I invite anyone to scroll back up and examine this assertion.

It's amazing how you trumphantly throw down these lame schoolyard swipes like they're a royal flush in poker, not realizing it's nothing more than a fig leaf, and one badly eaten by caterpillars at that.

Still waiting on the Matthew 5 interpretation…

Really? Try scrolling back up, Mark. I'm not at all surprised that you cannot remember a more in-depth explanation given almost three years ago. (BTW, there's an even more in-depth look at this passage that's part of the series I previously linked to. His explanation is pretty close to what I would write if I thought you were worth the time to write it.)

So far in this thread, you have:

• demanded an answer to a question you never asked,

• demanded that I answer the unasked question because it was asked first when it was actually an assertion made after I asked my question,

• claimed you gave an answer when the best you could say is that it was related to half the challenge and had no relevance to the other half,

• and now you claim you're still waiting for an answer that I've already given (yes, in abbreviated form, but still an answer).

I guess it's not at all surprising that you have trouble keeping track of simple real-world facts when you cannot even keep track of a single thread where scrolling back to check previous comments is child's play.

Not My Name said...

What a fucking poser...

That is true irony coming from a guy who claims an article making a case for how all the relevant Bible passages fit together is "inserting people … between [him] and the Bible," but using government power to forcefully take money for "charity" is not "inserting people … between [anyone] and the Bible."

Beam, eye, some disassembly required.

Markadelphia said...

The bottom line here is that your interpretation is wrong, NMN. In fact, this seems to be a common problem with you and the Bible (also the Constitution). What you are trying to do is somehow manage to shove your fucked up ideology into both documents and it doesn't really work. You are example #1 of why the Right is losing support every single day and will eventually blow away in the wind. It's only a matter of time, now, unless, of course, you decide to change and admit error. So, likely not:)

Further, you accuse me of doing exactly what you are doing as cover for the shoving of a square peg into a round hole and then pretend that I'm the asshole. That's where the adolescent win the argument bullshit comes into play.

God is a pacifist and Jesus, his only son, preached a message of peace. He was the first non violent resister. He could have saved himself but he died for us. For all of your mouth foaming about self defense, you fail to note that Christ didn't defend himself at all for what was quite possibly the greatest purpose of all...the souls of humanity.Could you do the same thing? Even in a smaller cause? I'm not sure I could given my desire to defend myself and my family.

Oh, and one other thing, you believe that those who believe in Christ will be saved, correct? That means that if you are killed without raising your hand in self defense, you will go to your eternal reward and your assailant will go to hell. Isn't the next life supposed to be better than this one? If you were certain of this and if the cause was just, you should give your life in peaceful resistance just as Christ did.

Markadelphia said...

but using government power to forcefully take money for "charity" is not "inserting people

Well, Biblical precedent is on my side on this one. Let's look at it again.

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.


So, NMN, are you rebelling against God when you rebel against taxes?

Not My Name said...

That is true irony coming from a guy who claims an article making a case for how all the relevant Bible passages fit together is "inserting people … between [him] and the Bible,"

Come to think of it, it's even more ironic that Mark also makes a case for his view of the Bible. But rather than taking every relevant passage and attempting to create a cohesive whole, he attempts to invalidate verses that contradict him. That process only works if he is superior to/has more authority than the Bible itself; thus literally attempting to impose himself between the Bible and everyone else.

Not My Name said...

are you rebelling against God when you rebel against taxes?

Can't you read, dummy? Scroll up and actually Read What I Wrote!!!

Now, tell me which words in that passage you just quoted have ANYTHING To Do With The Poor or Needy IN ANY FASHION!!

Not My Name said...

He could have saved himself but he died for us.

Because THAT. IS. WHY. HE. WAS. HERE!!!

You're right back to proving my original point:

you personally have openly thrown away parts of the Bible as the only means of reconciling your claim to be a Christian with your leftist Democrat ideology.

Like GD said: Mark’s Ordinary Response, Overt Nonsensical Ignorant Cognitation.

Not My Name said...

That means that if you are killed without raising your hand in self defense, you will go to your eternal reward and your assailant will go to hell. Isn't the next life supposed to be better than this one? If you were certain of this and if the cause was just, you should give your life in peaceful resistance just as Christ did.

as it is my eager expectation and hope that I will not be at all ashamed, but that with full courage now as always Christ will be honored in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account.
— Philippians 1:20–24

Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

— Psalms 82:4

If you faint in the day of adversity,
your strength is small.
Rescue those who are being taken away to death;
hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter.

— Proverbs 24:10–11

But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, so that the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any one of them, that person is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand.
— Ezekiel 33:6

And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.
“Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image.

— Genesis 9:5–6

And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.
— Luke 22:35–36

Not My Name said...

What you are trying to do is somehow manage to shove your … ideology into both documents…

Nice language. Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

Yeah, we're trying to hide the actual meaning of those documents, which is why we quote them word for word (with references!) so often.

Just… Wow… :::rolls eyes:::

Mark’s Ordinary Response, Overt Nonsensical Ignorant Cognitation.

GuardDuck said...

What you are trying to do is somehow manage to shove your … ideology into both document


That's rich coming from a guy who insists the Bible is wrong, but wrong only in ways that fit his ideology.

Markadelphia said...

Now, tell me which words in that passage you just quoted have ANYTHING To Do With The Poor or Needy IN ANY FASHION!!

Wow...really? God's servants doing good? A matter of conscience? I guess you really are that far 'round the bend. But even if you don't accept what is so painfully obvious, the Bible doesn't have to be so limiting. Your continued insistence is like a straight jacket because the Bible doesn't tell us if we should have speed limits or clean water laws. Like having government programs to help the poor, these laws don't need to have biblical precedent. How could they? The people that wrote the Bible had no idea what a car would be let alone social security. This would be where the "thinking" part comes in. Do his works and greater than these, NMN...I say the US government has done that many times over in the last 237 years in a variety of ways, including helping the poor.

So, given your views on social programs, I say that you are in violation of God's will, based on the passage from Romans 13 above, as you are most clearly not submitting to the authorities and are rebelling. What happens to you, then?

BTW, didn't you vote me off of Kevin's site? I know Unix, who shares this name with you from time to time, did. I guess you must miss me over there:)

That's rich coming from a guy who insists the Bible is wrong

Does the Bible get anything wrong, GD? It's a simple yes or no question.

Not My Name said...

God's servants doing good?

Ah, there it is. Right there is where you read your preferred meaning into the text; the word "good". (Or should I use your words? "shove your f****d up ideology into both documents")

Funny thing, somehow you miss the definition of what that good is right within that passage. Let's look at it again, shall we?

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
— Romans 13:1–7

So according to the passage YOU chose, the Good done by government is to punsh those who do wrong. Furthermore, you've argued with us enough to know that libertarians and conservatives consistently say that there are appropriate roles for government, and this is one of them.

So what's the opposite? This:

In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.
— Judges 17:6

Anarchy is not acceptable.

Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.
— 1 Peter 2:13–14

Hmmm, praise those who do good, not do the good for them.

Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work,
— Titus 3:1

Who is "them" in this passage? The context is that Titus is teaching believers, not government. So once again, the believers (not government) are the ones who are to be doing the good works, which the authorities are then to praise.

Bottom line, the primary role of government is justice, through punishing evil and upholding right:

“I, wisdom, dwell with prudence,
and I find knowledge and discretion.
The fear of the LORD is hatred of evil.
Pride and arrogance and the way of evil
and perverted speech I hate.
I have counsel and sound wisdom;
I have insight; I have strength.
By me kings reign,
and rulers decree what is just;
by me princes rule,
and nobles, all who govern justly.”

— Proverbs 8:12–16

Not My Name said...

You also seem to be arguing that because we are to submit, that makes anything the government chooses to do "good" by definition. Not so:

Can wicked rulers be allied with you,
those who frame injustice by statute?
They band together against the life of the righteous
and condemn the innocent to death.

He will bring back on them their iniquity
and wipe them out for their wickedness;
the LORD our God will wipe them out.

— Psalms 94:20–21,23

Did you notice that this passage explicitly condemns unjust laws? Just because a government can pass a law does not mean that it is automatically "good". This passage says the same:

Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees,
and the writers who keep writing oppression,
to turn aside the needy from justice
and to rob the poor of my people of their right,
that widows may be their spoil,
and that they may make the fatherless their prey!

— Isaiah 10:1–2

Like a roaring lion or a charging bear
is a wicked ruler over a poor people.
A ruler who lacks understanding is a cruel oppressor,
but he who hates unjust gain will prolong his days.

— Proverbs 28:15–16

Hear, you heads of Jacob
and rulers of the house of Israel!
Is it not for you to know justice?—
you who hate the good and love the evil,
who tear the skin from off my people
and their flesh from off their bones,
who eat the flesh of my people,
and flay their skin from off them,
and break their bones in pieces
and chop them up like meat in a pot,
like flesh in a cauldron.

Then they will cry to the LORD,
but he will not answer them;
he will hide his face from them at that time,
because they have made their deeds evil.

Thus says the LORD concerning the prophets
who lead my people astray,
who cry “Peace”
when they have something to eat,
but declare war against him
who puts nothing into their mouths.
Therefore it shall be night to you, without vision,
and darkness to you, without divination.
The sun shall go down on the prophets,
and the day shall be black over them;
the seers shall be disgraced,
and the diviners put to shame;
they shall all cover their lips,
for there is no answer from God.

— Micah 3:1–7

Not My Name said...

There is a Biblical intersection between government/authorities/rulers. Here it is:

“Woe to him who builds his house by unrighteousness,
and his upper rooms by injustice,
who makes his neighbor serve him for nothing
and does not give him his wages,
who says, ‘I will build myself a great house
with spacious upper rooms,’
who cuts out windows for it,
paneling it with cedar
and painting it with vermilion.
Do you think you are a king
because you compete in cedar?
Did not your father eat and drink
and do justice and righteousness?
Then it was well with him.
He judged the cause of the poor and needy;
then it was well.
Is not this to know me?
declares the LORD.
But you have eyes and heart
only for your dishonest gain,
for shedding innocent blood,
and for practicing oppression and violence.”

— Jeremiah 22:13–17

What's the difference between a good king and a bad king in this passage? It's in bold.

There's more:

Give the king your justice, O God,
and your righteousness to the royal son!
May he judge your people with righteousness,
and your poor with justice!
Let the mountains bear prosperity for the people,
and the hills, in righteousness!
May he defend the cause of the poor of the people,
give deliverance to the children of the needy,
and crush the oppressor!

— Psalms 72:1–4

Again, a good king treats the poor with justice and makes sure the powerful cannot oppress the weak.

The Psalm goes on to highlight the example God sets for rulers:

For he delivers the needy when he calls,
the poor and him who has no helper.
He has pity on the weak and the needy,
and saves the lives of the needy.
From oppression and violence he redeems their life,
and precious is their blood in his sight.

— Psalms 72:12–14

Saving lives. Justice. Nothing about feeding, clothing, etc.

If you see in a province the oppression of the poor and the violation of justice and righteousness, do not be amazed at the matter, for the high official is watched by a higher, and there are yet higher ones over them.
— Ecclesiastes 5:8

Same thing: "high official[s]" are required to prevent oppression and uphold justice and righteousness.

Furthermore, that justice is to be even handed, neither favoring nor oppressing the poor.

“You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.”
— Leviticus 19:15

You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice, nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit. … You shall not pervert the justice due to your poor in his lawsuit.
— Exodus 23:2–3, 6

“You shall appoint judges and officers in all your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. You shall not pervert justice. You shall not show partiality, and you shall not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous. Justice, and only justice, you shall follow, that you may live and inherit the land that the LORD your God is giving you.”
— Deuteronomy 16:18–20

“How long will you judge unjustly
and show partiality to the wicked? Selah
Give justice to the weak and the fatherless;
maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.
Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”

— Psalms 82:2–4

Not My Name said...

As you can see, the Bible talks a LOT about the role of government, including its interactions with poor. But always in terms of justice and protection from the wicked.

It also talks a LOT about caring for the needs of the poor, but only in terms of personal responsibility, religion, and faith.

Given that both topics are so common, why the heck did God miss the opportunity to combine the two if that's what He "meant", but somehow "forgot" to say?!?

In fact, Jesus had at least two prime opportunities to implement government "charity" when He walked this earth. But He didn't do so! Do you think He was too stupid to see His chance?

Here's the first:

And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.’” And he said, “All these I have kept from my youth.” When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” But when he heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich.
— Luke 18:18–23

Here was Jesus' chance to implement that ideology YOU keep trying to impose on Scripture. This was man of influence! Jesus could have told him to use that influence to give more tax money to the poor! Instead, He told him to reach into his own pocket to take care of the poor. Jesus' ACTION was the opposite(!) of your claim.

Here's another shot Jesus had to implement YOUR ideology. Zacchaeus was a chief tax collector. In other words, he set tax policy in his area. According to Roman law, he was required to pay a certain amount to Rome, and he was free to set the taxes higher and keep the difference. When he became a follower of Jesus, he made this decision:

And Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, “Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor. And if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold.”
— Luke 19:8

And Jesus praised him for this. Notice that first of all, he reached into his own pocket to give to the poor. ("my goods", and "only" half to boot.) But then he offered to give overcharged taxes back to the people he had taken them from, and then some. This was a perfect opportunity to have him raise taxes on the rich and give the money to the poor. Zacchaeus had the legal authority and the backing of Rome and it's army To. Do. Exactly. That! But Jesus didn't do that. The only reason He did not is because His plan is not YOUR ideology.

Let's go back to that passage you cited:

Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
— Romans 13:7

According to the Bible, taxes are owed to the government. But the love and honor of providing for the poor and needy is owed directly those in need, and is part of God's economy, not the government's. Therefore it is not owed to the government. And I resent you trying to forcefully insert yourself and the government into an area that is MY responsibility directly to God.

Markadelphia said...

Good Lord, has this what you have been doing for the past few days? How much time did you spend on this? Dude, really, you need to get another hobby or some actual human beings to hang out with otherwise you are headed for some real problems.

There was absolutely no way for the people who wrote the Bible to conceive of something like social security or Medicare. Governments were very different back in those days and none were based on Christian principles like ours, right? In my view (and based on what Jesus said) he would not care what mechanism was used to feed the poor and heal the sick. This is where we can't get past your PHG. The federal government is not a malevolent entity stealing from one set of people to give to another. That's a complete load of garbage and propaganda.

The other thing you fail to note is that private charities simply can't accomplish what the government can accomplish. You are completely blinded by your rigid ideological and emotions to see that without food stamps, people will starve and die. And many of these people aren't lazy. They are already working!! You are terribly naive to think that the private organizations or wealthy individuals will pick up the slack. They won't....especially all the ones that aren't Christians.

GuardDuck said...

In my view

Yes it is YOUR view.

(and based on what Jesus said)

Except NMN just showed you otherwise.

Markadelphia said...

Considering you haven't answered my question yet, GD, you don't have leg to stand on. Is the Bible wrong about some things..yes or no?

BTW, the imperial declaration that one of you guys "proved me wrong" doesn't really lend itself to the idea that you are not just about winning the argument. Or that you don't all think the same. Or that there are voices in my head. In short, you are not doing yourself any favors.

I'm still waiting for NMN to show me what the Bible says we are supposed to do about jet airplanes.

GuardDuck said...

Yes and no. No it's not. That's dishonest. That's a strawman.


I'd explain further, but I'm afraid I'd be ridiculed for 'not having a life' if I post too much information for you to digest at once.

Markadelphia said...

Pretty much everything is more important than commenting on this blog, GD. The fact that he spent that much time trying to do something as futile as illustrating that there is biblical precedent for jet airliners is pretty sad.

Ah, well, at least you admit that the Bible does get some things wrong. I guess that's a start.

GuardDuck said...

I didn't, actually.


The fact that you spent so much time trying to do something....

Is that illustrative that you are trying to win an argument or that you need to get a life? Both?


You really should look in a mirror once a while. Every argument you make is 'trying to win', every post you make is 'less important' than 'pretty much everything'? Do you want to stop slinging slights or do you want to have a discussion?

Markadelphia said...

So, is that a yes or a no?

Not My Name said...

So, is that a yes or a no?

Your avoidance of GD's question to try to win just answered it with a "yes."

Not My Name said...

Once again, Mark has exposed the mental gyrations that pass for thinking in his mind.

How much time did you spend on this?

So? What does how much time I may or may not have spent on this have to do with the argument? Nothing, other than an excuse—and a really pathetic one at that—for you to run away from what Scripture actually says. Did you actually read it? Your response suggests you took one look at it and decided to skip it all and just wave it away like it doesn't exist.

And of course, like all your mind reading attempts, you got it wrong. Someone just guessing would get it right more often than you do. (Pssst, modern computers have this feature called "Copy and Paste". You should look into it sometime.)

There was absolutely no way for the people who wrote the Bible…

And there we go, right back to proving my original claim:

And you personally have openly thrown away parts of the Bible as the only means of reconciling your claim to be a Christian with your leftist Democrat ideology.

So you expect us to believe that the Holy Spirit could dwell in the Apostles, give them the power to do miracles such as healing the lame and blind at a word, teleportation, and even raising the dead, but this exact same Holy Spirit is unable to tell them what He wants written? Or are you saying God's claims to know the future with 100% accuracy are a lie, or delusion?

See, this is why that bumper sticker fails. You keep claiming God is on your side, while you call Him a liar, deluded, wrong, and/or pathetically weak.

Not My Name said...

Speaking of Copy and Paste

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. … knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
— 2 Peter 1:17, 20–21

Also, regard the patience of our Lord as an opportunity for salvation, just as our dear brother Paul has written to you according to the wisdom given to him. He speaks about these things in all his letters in which there are some matters that are hard to understand. The untaught and unstable twist them to their own destruction, as they also do with the rest of the Scriptures.
— 2 Peter 3:15–16

For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
— Jesus, Matthew 5:18–19
9:55 AM

Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
— 1 Corinthians 2:12–13

First, they were entrusted with the spoken words of God. What then? If some did not believe, will their unbelief cancel God’s faithfulness?
Absolutely not! God must be true, even if everyone is a liar, as it is written:

That You may be justified in Your words
and triumph when You judge.

— Romans 3:2b–4

but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith
— Romans 16:26

If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.
— 1 Corinthians 14:37–38

Finally, then, brothers, we ask and urge you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God, just as you are doing, that you do so more and more. For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; … For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.
— 1 Thessalonians 4:1–3, 7–8

If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.
— 1 Timothy 6:3–5

having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith.
— 2 Timothy 3:5–8

Not My Name said...

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
— 2 Timothy 3:16–17

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.
— 2 Timothy 4:3–4

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
— Hebrews 1:1–2

And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!”
— Jesus, Luke 24:25

“For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”
— Jesus, John 5:46–47

Have you noticed how many passages say that Scripture is the direct result of the work of the Holy Spirit? Consider this:

Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
— Matthew 12:31–32

Markadelphia said...

for you to run away from what Scripture actually says

I'm not running away from anything. I simply think that your interpretation of it is nuts...as in, seriously fucked up. Take this passage, for example.

Can wicked rulers be allied with you,
those who frame injustice by statute?
They band together against the life of the righteous
and condemn the innocent to death.


The fact that you ascribe wickedness to social programs is completely fucked up. If anything, that's actually a more apt description of what happens when conservatives run the government. Once again, heading off at the pass..

You keep claiming God is on your side

God is on everyone's side, NMN. All you have to do is believe in Jesus. The bumper sticker simply states that Jesus is not a Republican because their policies aren't very Christian. The fact that you had to go all Tolstoy in this thread means there is a great deal of truth to it and it makes you insecure.

One other thing...the word of God is about quality not quantity. Putting up a whole bunch of scriptures doesn't make you "win" by sheer numbers. I really have to ask...how old are you?

Not My Name said...

The fact that you ascribe wickedness to social programs is completely fucked up.

That's not the point I was making when I quoted that passage. (BTW, such misstating—lying—about another's position is the definition of the Strawman fallacy.) Go read it again.

Not My Name said...

The fact that you ascribe wickedness to social programs is completely fucked up.

YOUR claim is that the Bible commands us to create government social programs. Is this an accurate statement?

Not My Name said...

God is on everyone's side, NMN.

No matter what they do? Whether they repent or not?

How about Muslims? Hindus? Atheists? Satanists? Democrats? Republicans?

Not My Name said...

Putting up a whole bunch of scriptures doesn't make you "win" by sheer numbers.

True. When God says something once that should be enough (especially when He's crystal clear). But it's clearly not enough for you.

Markadelphia said...

Is this an accurate statement?

The Bible doesn't command the government to create social programs but it also doesn't prohibit them and directs people to obey civilian authorities as they are giving their lives to service. Further, helping the sick and the poor is what Christ intended us to do. What does it matter if its the government? You don't have to answer this one because I'm very bored with the PHG.

If you accept that some taxes are fine, then you accept that it's ok for "people to take from one group and give to another." Our tax dollars are taken from us and given to defense contractors, road construction companies, banks, and all other sorts of people and businesses. That's called being part part of a society. It's not evil and it's how grown up people live their lives.

Whether they repent or not?

If they accept Jesus as their savior, they will be saved whether they repent or not. That's why he died for us. All our sins, past and present. I know you are obsessed with sinning and need the threat of hellfire to prevent you from sinning but the Bible is clear that you don't need it. You believe. That's all you need.

How about Muslims? Hindus? Atheists? Satanists?

Not for me to judge. Only God does that. I have plenty of other things to concern myself with in my life. As a side note, I think Satanists are laughable posers who just like to piss people like you off. I'd ignore them if I were you. They aren't anything to be afraid of anyway because the devil and Hell don't exist...at least not in the child like way you think they do...

But it's clearly not enough for you.

The passages you don't like are enough for me.

Really, this is quite futile. I don't need the 8 year old version of God that you have created. For whatever reason, you do and I'm glad it works for you.



GuardDuck said...

It's yes AND no. As I said.

If a person were agnostic or an atheist could they say the bible was never wrong and still remain a nonbeliever? By definition, if the bible was never wrong, one would have to believe everything in it.

But what about the other side of the coin? What about a believer, could a Christian say that the bible is wrong?

Does God exist? Can you prove it? Where is the only location that states that God exists? The bible.

Is Jesus the son of God? Can you prove it? Where is the only location that states that Jesus is the son of God? The bible.

If the only thing that claims the existence of God and Jesus as his son is the bible, and it can not be proved, you must take that existence on faith alone. Faith in the truth extant in the words of the bible. If you call into question the veracity of the bible, are you not calling into question the very existence of God and Jesus?


So, yes and no. It all depends on faith.

Not My Name said...

If they accept Jesus as their savior, they will be saved whether they repent or not.

Again, that is not what the Bible teaches.

Then he [Jesus] opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
— Luke 24:45–47

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
— Acts 2:37–38

But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled. Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out,
— Acts 3:18–19

Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.
— Romans 2:4–5

For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death.
— 2 Corinthians 7:10

“I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.”
— Jesus, Luke 5:32

Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.
— Luke 15:7

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
— 2 Peter 3:9

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
— Romans 6:1–2

For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.
— Hebrews 10:26–27

How can someone claim to be a follower of Christ if they are not actually, well you know, following Him?

Not My Name said...

The passages you don't like are enough for me.

Again, that's you, not me. I like all the scripture verses. What I dislike is your twisting of them. I don't throw them out if there's a difficulty like you do.

Remember, ALL Scripture comes from God.

That means that if an interpretation of one verse contradicts another part of the Bible—and especially if it contradicts the immediate context—then the interpretation is wrong and it a valid interpretation needs to be found which does not contradict. In other words, the problem is with the reader, and occasionally, with the translator.

Remember, the Bible is from a single author—God, working through His servants—who never misses a detail or makes mistakes.

Not My Name said...

The Bible doesn't command the government to create social programs…

Oh wow! Progress! Then you cannot say that creating such programs is the "Christian thing to do" because there is no teaching in the Bible commanding or even suggesting that such a thing should be done. That's all from you and people like you.

…it also doesn't prohibit them…

How quickly you forget.

Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
— 2 Corinthians 9:7

Taxes are compulsory. That makes them incompatible with charity.

He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
— Luke 20:25

Love, Faith, and Religion are things government cannot have. They are characteristics of individuals. Charity towards the poor is to be the result of these characteristics. They are not owed to the government. The are owed directly to those who need them. Rendering "charity" to the government is rendering to Caeser the things that are God's, and act which is contrary to what Jesus taught.

GuardDuck said...

If anyone is doing a sick and twisted interpretation of the bible it's you Mark. It is utterly amazing how you can completely ignore passage after passage that you don't like and then quote out of context another passage and use it completely contrary to the English language to support what you like.

Markadelphia said...

You still haven't answered the question, GD. Do YOU think the Bible is wrong about some thngs? Yes or no?

The Bible does indeed get some things wrong. We can look to it today with a 21st century eye and see that it's views on women and slavery, for example, are wrong. We can also see that it contradicts itself and is imperfect. That's ok, though, because men wrote it and likely had trouble understanding God. Realizing this can make your faith stronger, not weaker.

NMN, considering that you left out Hebrews 8 and Romans 10, 9-10 (again), it's clear who is ignoring passages of the Bible to suit their needs. Fundamentally, you don't understand the concept of Grace. We are no longer sinners in the hands of an angry God.

I find it amusing that you sit in judgement of me when God commands you to do the opposite. For whatever reason, you take my views as a threat. Usually people that think and are trying to advance the human race (again, as Jesus commanded) get that blowback. Oh well...

GuardDuck said...

Because it doesn't fucking matter what I think. The topic is your pathetic squirreling around to justify your twisting of scripture to support your political agenda.


it's views on women and slavery, for example, are wrong

Oh? Really? Isn't that a morality issue that you are judging? Is your morality superior to God's? And on what basis are you calling it wrong? Some moral code? Like maybe a moral code as outlined in a religious system that is mostly a bunch of moral codes? How can you profess to be a follower of a system of moral codes that you then reject?

We can also see that it contradicts itself and is imperfect. That's ok, though, because men wrote it and likely had trouble understanding God. Realizing this can make your faith stronger, not weaker.

Or perhaps they just made up that whole part about God even existing? See what happens when you impeach your own witness, refute your own source? Just what kind of god do you worship who can't communicate properly with mere mortals?

find it amusing that you sit in judgement of me

I don't think he'd spend so much time trying to show you the truth it that were the case. You however pronounce judgments upon us almost every time you post. Oh well.....

Not My Name said...

GuardDuck clearly understands my point about sawing off the limb you're sitting on, so I won't bother adding anything to his comments.

considering that you left out Hebrews 8 and Romans 10, 9-10 (again),

Does Romans 10:9-10 contradict the other passages I posted? Is there an interpretation that does not contradict those other passages? (Yes) If it did contradict, what makes those two verses override every other verse; including what Jesus himself said?

It sure seems like the answer to that last question is, "Because I want it to."

As for your misuse of Hebrews 8, it's very simple to demonstrate that you are twisting its meaning. All I have to do is quote the context where verse 12 appears:

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws into their minds,
and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor
and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
for they shall all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
For I will be merciful toward their iniquities,
and I will remember their sins no more.”

— Hebrews 8:10–12

Has everything which precedes "remember[ing] their sins no more" come to pass already? (Last time I asked this question you ran away.)

For the record, when it comes to repentance, I had quoted from both Romans (6:1-2) and Hebrews (10:26-27). To believe your "interpretation," we have to believe that the same author(s) that made the strongest statements against sinning freely also said "do whatever the hell you want" very shortly before or after their condemnation of that very idea.

BTW…

“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.”
— John 10:27–28

Please explain how someone who is not following Jesus (and who especially calls Him a liar, stupid, or ignorant) is actually following Jesus?

Finally,

again, as Jesus commanded

Compare:

The Bible doesn't command the government to create social programs

No wonder you have trouble understanding us. You don't even understand your own statements!!

Markadelphia said...

Because it doesn't fucking matter what I think. The topic is your pathetic squirreling around to justify your twisting of scripture to support your political agenda.

Of course it does. If you think the Bible is wrong on some things, your house of bullshit comes crashing down. I've already demonstrated that the Bible supports obeying civilian authorities and helping out the poor and sick. Saying that "I don't know what I'm talking about" and ignoring the verses I put up doesn't prove anything.

Not My Name said...

If you think the Bible is wrong on some things, your house of bullshit comes crashing down.

When something is true, it is both externally consistent (outside evidences support that thing) and internally consistent (the thing agrees with itself). All GD has done is show that your view is self-contradictory, which is just another way of saying that it's not internally consistent. Referring to something external such as GD's views has nothing to do with internal consistency.

I've already demonstrated that the Bible supports obeying civilian authorities and helping out the poor and sick.

But not that the Bible teaches that civilian authorities should (indeed, even may) help out the poor and sick in the sense you mean.

Furthermore, I've demonstrated that Biblically, just because a law is passed does not make that law automatically right. The standard is God's standard of right and wrong, and if a law violates His standard, then it is a wicked law.

Finally, I have demonstrated that taking care of the poor and sick (in the sense you mean) is God's realm, not the "civil authorities'" realm, thus such caretaking is not owed to the government.

And getting back on topic, do you admit that a case has been made for Jesus being on the side of self-defense, war (when necessary), and those who take His Word seriously?

Markadelphia said...

The other thing to consider here, GD, is how disingenuous you are being. Your goal is to be the "anti-Mark" no matter what. You really aren't being critical at all of NMN (and there's plenty to be critical of) because you are doing the bully-win thing. You do a great job of being critical or me. What about NMN, Larry, juris, or 6Kings?

You also assert that all of you guys don't think with the same mind yet nothing you have shown me here says otherwise.

GuardDuck said...

Do I have to disagree with nmn if he says 1+1=2 otherwise I'm "thinking with the same mind"?

Markadelphia said...

Actually, GD, I think you're just being a dick and like to be the adolescent contrarian. Feel free to prove me wrong:)

As I have said previously, it's going to be a hard next few years for you and your ilk. Big changes are on the horizon in religion, politics, culture...all sorts of areas of the world...leaving antiquated thinking behind in the dust...

Markadelphia said...

NMN, I think it would benefit this conversation if you made a list of all the Christians out there who aren't really Christian. Here's a list..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

Which ones misinterpret the Bible?

GuardDuck said...

I think you are being a lying weasel narcissist. Prove me wrong.

Kinda hard to do such a thing ain't it? Asking me to do so pretty much goes along with that weasel thing.

GuardDuck said...

Oh, and you are deflecting, changing the subject and heading off at the pass.

Markadelphia said...

Considering I'd like to know where I fit in with the rest of the "non Christians" who "don't know what they are talking about" in terms of Bible interpretation, I'd say we are still very much on topic.

And you still haven't answered a key question which I have answered. Does the Bible get some things wrong? Yes or no. What do YOU think?

Not My Name said...

I think it would benefit this conversation if you made a list of all the Christians out there who aren't really Christian.

No it wouldn't. I'm talking to you, not all of Christendom. Or at least I'm trying to, which is why I ask you questions—to try to get you to interact. Questions such as:

Please explain how someone who is not following Jesus (and who especially calls Him a liar, stupid, or ignorant) is actually following Jesus?

And getting back on topic, do you admit that a case has been made for Jesus being on the side of self-defense, war (when necessary), and those who take His Word seriously?

Not My Name said...

Does the Bible get some things wrong? Yes or no. What do YOU think?

So you're still trying to bring in something external to answer your internal self-contradictions? Someone reading this thread as their first encounter with you would think that all you care about is winning, not truth.

Oh the irony of a teacher who cannot learn…

Markadelphia said...

No it wouldn't. I'm talking to you, not all of Christendom.

Well, of course, because your and your ilk are numbers people so if you judged most of the rest of Christendom they way you are judging me (and you would, based on what you have written here), you'd come off like a zealot and we can't have that now, can we?

In my view, nearly all on the list are Christians regardless of their various interpretations of the Bible. I'd probably leave off the Mormons as they are just simply a cult.

Not My Name said...

because your and your ilk are numbers people…

Huh? That doesn't even make sense.

In my view, nearly all on the list are Christians regardless of their various interpretations of the Bible.

It is possible to be wrong about a lot of things while still being actually saved. Note that it's individuals who are saved, not entire denominations.

For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
— Matthew 5:18–19

For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
— 1 Corinthians 3:11–15

Making it in by the skin of your teeth is still making it in.

However, just because someone calls themselves a "Christian" and even acts like it, does not mean they actually are.

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’”
— Matthew 7:21–23

Would those "mighty works" be the "greater works than these"?

“Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?”
— Luke 6:46

Which brings us right back to Repentance. I've already listed numerous verses which explain that repentance is necessary for salvation. I.e., without it you're not saved.

Here's a good explanation of Romans 10:9-10 from the "The Apologetics Study Bible":

Merely mouthing “Jesus is Lord” and proclaiming that Jesus rose from the dead cannot secure salvation. Presumably the devil (see Jms 2:19) and many people (Mt 7:21–23) could meet these requirements and not be true followers of Christ. A heartfelt confession of Jesus’ lordship designates a lifelong commitment that issues from the center of a person’s being, the heart. What matters is not saying Jesus is Lord but making Him Lord at the core of one’s existence. This is what Paul really meant by calling on the name of the Lord to be saved (10:13).

And of course, we're right back to…

Please explain how someone who is not following Jesus (and who especially calls Him a liar, stupid, or ignorant) is actually following Jesus?

(Yes, I did notice that you keep trying to distract from this request using Standard Response #4)

Markadelphia said...

Please explain how someone who is not following Jesus (and who especially calls Him a liar, stupid, or ignorant) is actually following Jesus?

(Yes, I did notice that you keep trying to distract from this request using Standard Response #4)


You're straw manning again in order to win...snore...

Many of the ideas I have posted in this thread come from the various denominations from the list I linked. I'm not sure which denomination you are (sound either Baptist or evangelical) but many of these are in direct contradiction to what you write. For you, that makes them either less Christian or not at all, correct? For me, it doesn't really matter because they simply believe.

Not My Name said...

You're straw manning again

As usual, asserted without even the pretense of evidence or explanation. Still trying to win the argument without actually responding to anything?

Mark’s Ordinary Response, Overt Nonsensical Ignorant Cognitation.

Not My Name said...

Many of the ideas I have posted in this thread come from the various denominations from the list I linked.

So what?

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
— 1 John 4:1

If an idea is valid, then it will agree with the Bible. GOD is the standard, and His Word (the Bible) is the standard He has given us to test those spirits. That's why I keep sticking to the Bible as the standard. Yet you keep running from that standard and the testing that results. Can you even consider what that implies?

Remember…

if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord
— Romans 10:9

That means that Jesus is in charge. What He says goes. Period. When you directly contradict Him with statements like, "they will be saved whether they repent or not," that is clearly not submitting to Jesus as LORD.

Markadelphia said...

then it will agree with the Bible.

That's not the problem. It's agreeing with your interpretation of the Bible and that's where the problem begins. I reject you as an authority on the Bible because you have demonstrated a pathological lunacy in terms of scriptural literalism. Take this, for example...

When you directly contradict Him with statements like, "they will be saved whether they repent or not," that is clearly not submitting to Jesus as LORD.

By confessing faith in Jesus, you are absolved of all sinning because He died for our sins and we are now in a period of Grace. God has forgiven our sins because of Christ's sacrifice. He took the brunt of all of our sins and our belief in Him is all we need. Clearly, you don't understand the concept of Grace because you are still caterwauling about sinning and confessing. This is likely true because your faith alone isn't enough and without the threat of hellfire, you can't control yourself. If that's what you need, that's fine. I don't need that because I have my faith. That's what God, Jesus and the Bible all say in all the verses of I have quoted here and you have ignored (Hebrews 8, again!)

This is a fundamental difference between the faiths that I listed which is why I wanted to bring them into the discussion. I still don't know what denomination you are but it sounds very evangelical. That's what they believe. That's not what the Presbyterians believe (that's my denomination, btw) or the Unitarians or Methodists.

Not My Name said...

It's agreeing with your interpretation of the Bible

How is it POSSIBLE to "interpret" “I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance,” (Jesus, Luke 5:32) or “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,” (Jesus, Matthew 4:17) as "they will be saved whether they repent or not"?!?!? It's the EXACT SAME WORD!!!!

pathological lunacy

Based on the direct contradiction above, this is pure, unadulterated projection.

you have ignored (Hebrews 8, again!)

Again, pure projection. Scroll up.

Over, and over, and over, and over again, your claims about the Bible boil down to Standard Response #5, "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin'[eyes]?" You deny clear language that anyone can read and understand for themselves and assert that you/your interpretation are always correct, even when your "interpretation" is a patently obvious "A = Not(A)" claim.

Just as you ignored me actually addressing Hebrews 8, you repeatedly make blatant factual errors that are easily avoidable right within this thread. (See here for a list of some of them.) Why should anyone trust a word you say when they can read this thread and see with their own eyes that you have obvious problems with the truth?

Not My Name said...

scriptural literalism

What is up with your obsession over Belgian Waffles*?

(* Also known as running away from: "Authors of words have a meaning they intend to communicate, and that meaning is the only valid "interpretation" of any writing. Do you agree or disagree?")

Markadelphia said...

The core of your argument is greatly flawed, NMN, because you have one key impediment: you refuse to admit the possibility of error in your interpretation. Words mean what they mean and you know you are right. As a flawed human given to sin, one would think you would see that you could be wrong. But that's not how your ideology works, is it?:)

I, on the other hand, could be wrong in my interpretation as a flawed human. Of course, me being wrong doesn't make you correct.

not.my.name said...

Still dodging. Coward!

Authors of words have a meaning they intend to communicate, and that meaning is the only valid "interpretation" of any writing. Do you agree or disagree?

BTW, I should note that there have been many times when I have asked you for your rules or explanation of interpretation. (Most recently here) You have NEVER given any such explanation. The only "rule" I've been able to figure out is "whatever it takes to make Mark right. Period."

You are Humpty Dumpty.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

Markadelphia said...

The only "rule" I've been able to figure out is "whatever it takes to make Mark right. Period."

Odd, considering I just admitted that I could be wrong. Could you?

Not My Name said...

considering I just admitted that I could be wrong. Could you?

A) You never actually admit you're wrong about anything bigger than a typo.

B) You never give reasons why your interpretation is right, thus I have no reason to think I'm wrong. (See "you have NEVER given any such explanation" above.)

BTW…

Words mean what they mean

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Authors of words have a meaning they intend to communicate, and that meaning is the only valid "interpretation" of any writing. Do you agree or disagree?

C) Without a principle of "author's intent," there is no such thing as a "right or wrong" interpretation, making your question irrelevant.

Not My Name said...

Odd, considering I just admitted that I could be wrong.

That's not a rule of interpretation either.

GuardDuck said...

Point out to me what anything I've said here would be invalidated if I were an atheist.

Markadelphia said...

It's really simple, GD. Is the Bible wrong on some things? My answer is yes.

GuardDuck said...

I know what your answer is, there's 100 replies talking about it. But you have asserted that my replies would fail if I said yes. You have asserted without support though. Hence my question, what exact comments would fail and how if I were an athiest?

Markadelphia said...

Why don't you answer "yes" and we can find out?

Not My Name said...

Is the Bible wrong on some things? My answer is yes.

This. This is why I wrote this:

Please explain how someone who is not following Jesus (and who especially calls Him a liar, stupid, or ignorant) is actually following Jesus?

Compare:

knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
— 2 Peter 1:20–21

Again:

Authors of words have a meaning they intend to communicate, and that meaning is the only valid "interpretation" of any writing. Do you agree or disagree?

GuardDuck said...

Because you insipid moron, it doesn't fucking matter. Since you can't explain how it matters, then it looks like we are in agreement - it doesn't matter.

Markadelphia said...

Following the Bible and following Jesus can be two different things, NMN. There's this whole book that comes before Jesus called the Old Testament. It is filled with a bunch of bullshit. Thankfully, Jesus came along and kept the sensible parts and threw out the crap, adding in the most important lesson of all...love thy neighbor.

That part of the Bible is wrong about the makeup of our solar system, slavery, women, shaving, shellfish and even homosexuality. I'd argue that with the latter Paul (see: not Jesus) was also wrong but his protestations were likely due to the fact that he was gay.

Further, you think the Bible is wrong as well and you probably don't even know it. Take this verse (Exodus 21:22-25), for example.

And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no [further] injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any [further] injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

A fetus isn't life? A simple fine? WTF?

Anyway, I'm sure you'll go through some sort of gymnastic routine that "proves me wrong" but your central problem will still be there. You shouldn't interpret the Bible so literally. Use you head and think.

Markadelphia said...

Because you insipid moron

What a cop out...you spend all this time saying NMN is correct in his interpretation and you can't even admit that you are an atheist. At least juris isn't ashamed.

All you care about is "MARKWRONG, MARKLOSE"

Not My Name said...

makeup of our solar system, slavery, women, shaving, shellfish and even homosexuality.

Such a perfect example of this verse:

always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.
— 2 Timothy 3:7

This has been addressed before, many, many times. Yet you still haven't learned. (Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, among many, many others.)

That you continue to blather on without even acknowledging that answers to your lies have been given—nevermind actually considering or addressing those responses—says all that needs to be said about your willful blindness.

miscarriage … fined … life for life

Given that these words plus your interpretation create an apparent contradiction right within the same paragraph, it should be obvious that there's something going on here that you're missing. But as usual, you don't know, and don't want to know what it is so you can continue pretending you're smarter than God.

Not My Name said...

the Old Testament … is filled with a bunch of bullshit.

Compare:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”
— Jesus, Matthew 5:17–18

So you call God/Jesus/Holy Spirit a "b------ artist" then claim He's on your side and "obviously" not on anyone else's? You're as reflective as a vampire in a mirror.

Case closed.

Not My Name said...

BTW,

Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.
— Exodus 21:16

Markadelphia said...

(Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, among many, many others.)

Dude, seriously...get some help. How long did it take you to link all that? Man, you must really be insecure about your religious beliefs.

Not My Name said...

How long did it take you to link all that?

Again, so what if it did? How does that change anything about the fact that you keep running away from facts and logic (and just did again).

(You really should learn about these things called computers.)

Markadelphia said...

Let's look at something very basic...

Matthew 5:38-42

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Jesus is talking about Exodus 21: 24 which states,

eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

Clearly, he is saying here that the old law is out and the new law (His law of peace and Grace) is in. This would be an example of how the OT is BS and how JC is OK. Do you agree?

Not My Name said...

It has been explained to you in detail before. Why should I expect you to continue anything other than your willful ignorance?

Markadelphia said...

That was a very poor answer to my question and then, like today, you're dodging because you simply can't admit error. Jesus was stating quite plainly that the law was bullshit and should change to a more peaceful approach...His way.

Further, you really don't get what it means to "fulfill" the law. The law that was given to Moses was the Old Covenant and put in place with an eye to the future-the coming of Jesus. Once Christ arrived, its purpose was concluded. This is explained in Hebrews 8 (aka as the verse which shall be ignored forever and ever, amen). The old law became obsolete because Christ arrived as predicted and was superseded by the New Covenant with Jesus, a higher law and the law of the Gospel. Grace.

As Christ said, "if you love me, keep my commandments" but all the ceremonial law of the OT (shellfish, hair grooming etc) is gone. As Paul noted in Colossians 2,

16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. 19 They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

20 Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: 21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22 These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.


Again, OT laws thrown out.

GuardDuck said...

That was a very poor answer to my question and then, like today, you're dodging because you simply can't admit error.


Holy crap Mark - that's exactly what you have been doing.

The hypothetical of 'what would happen to your theory if I were an atheist' DOES NOT FUCKING MEAN I AM AN ATHEIST. Are you really so dense you don't know what a hypothetical is?

Markadelphia said...

Holy crap Mark - that's exactly what you have been doing.

Well, either your purposefully being a dick or you can't read.

Enough with the redirect, GD. Do YOU personally think the Bible gets some things wrong? Yes or No?

Kinda stuck, aren't we? Answer yes and you basically invalidate your defense of NMN. Answer no and you aren't being honest with yourself. What a conundrum! Time for another weasel!

Not My Name said...

Do you even read what you post? Here's an important detail:

These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings.

Man made rules vs. God's righteousness, which, BTW, included Jews attempting to insist that Christians keep Old Testament laws which were given ONLY to the nation of Israel (shellfish, etc.).

So is there still a "Don't do" list? Absolutely!

If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth.

Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these the wrath of God is coming. In these you too once walked, when you were living in them. But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth.

— Colossians 3:1–2, 5–8

Yes, there is also a "Do" list. I'm sure you're already aware of it. (And twisting it to include the "Do Not" list.)

God has standards of Right and Wrong that NEVER change.

…coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.
— James 1:17

“For I the LORD do not change;”
— Malachi 3:6

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
— Hebrews 13:8

Which word in this sentence do you have trouble understanding?

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
— 2 Timothy 3:16–17

Not My Name said...

Do YOU personally think the Bible gets some things wrong? Yes or No?

You really are some kind of stupid. When will you get it through your thick skull that something external has nothing to do with your internal contradictions?!?

Not My Name said...

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
— Matthew 5:17–18

So your claim is that every single thing in the Old Testament has been accomplished and heaven and earth have already passed away?

Markadelphia said...

Christ is talking about the moral law here, the 10 Commandments, not the ceremonial law or the judicial law which can be changed and was changed due to the coming of Christ. That's why He said "keep my commandments." He's talking about the moral law staying the same and is doing away with the rest of the silliness of which there is much in the OT.

The Old Covenant is gone. The New Covenant is now in place. The Bible is very clear about this. Why are you disputing it?

GuardDuck said...

What conundrum Mark? Have you confused yourself already? Remember, I've been challenging you to explain how my answer to that would in any way invalidate what I have said above. You've been unable to. You invalidate yourself.

Markadelphia said...

I haven't seen this much dodging since 3rd grade dodgeball.

Does the Bible get some things wrong? Yes or No? What do YOU think?

GuardDuck said...

As Hillary said, what does it matter? You said my answer would destroy my comments. Show how answer would have any bearing whatsoever on my earlier comments.

If you can't do that then your question is irrelevant and you are the one dodging.

Not My Name said...

This is explained in Hebrews 8 (aka as the verse which shall be ignored forever and ever, amen).

You're a damned liar.

I did address it right here in this thread.

Then later you claimed I had ignored it when I hadn't. I then pointed out that I did address it.

But now you're saying the exact same falsehood, AGAIN.

You are a damned LIAR.

Not My Name said...

Christ is talking about the moral law here, the 10 Commandments,

There are 4 problems with this "interpretation":

1) Self Contradiction - You have to contradict yourself to make it.

2) Too Many Words - This interpretation requires ignoring the fact that the phrase describes more than would fit only the 10 Commandments.

3) Inconsistent With Other Scripture - This phrase is used elsewhere in Scripture in a way that is clearly not the 10 Commandments.

4) Historically Inaccurate - This interpretation contradicts how the Jews described the Old Testament.

Time for details:

1) Self Contradiction

You wrote:

The law that was given to Moses was the Old Covenant and put in place with an eye to the future-the coming of Jesus. Once Christ arrived, its purpose was concluded.

This is partially correct. The Old Testament did promise and set up the arrival and sacrifice of The Messiah, which has been fulfilled. But that is not all that has been prophesied and promised in the Old Testament.

For example, Ezekial 37 (Valley of dry bones) wasn't fulfilled until 1948. And there are other prophesies which have not yet been fulfilled. For example:

and he said to me, “Son of man, this is the place of my throne and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the people of Israel forever. And the house of Israel shall no more defile my holy name, neither they, nor their kings, by their whoring and by the dead bodies of their kings at their high places,
— Ezekiel 43:7

So you cannot claim the entire Old Testament has been fulfilled.

And of course, in pointing out that "The Law and The Prophets" were pointing towards Christ, you could only have meant the Old Testament as a whole because the 10 Commandments do absolutely nothing to promise or set all the conditions for The Messiah's arrival.

So you've already claimed that "The Law and The Prophets" refers to the Old Testament. You cannot now turn around and claim that only means the 10 Commandments. Oh, wait, you just did.

but all the ceremonial law of the OT (shellfish, hair grooming etc) is gone.

As is the Sabbath, one of the 10 Commandments. The other 9 have been reiterated in the New Testament as applying to everyone, even after Jesus' resurrection.

2) Too Many Words

The 10 Commandments is only law. It contains no prophecy. In order to claim that Jesus meant the 10 Commandments when He said, "the Law or the Prophets", you have to ignore that He said, "the Prophets". Because there is no prophecy in the 10 Commmandments, "the Prophets" winds up being words without any meaning whatsoever. Therefore, "the Law or the Prophets" must mean more than just the 10 Commandments.

There's also a problem with that little word right in the middle of that phrase: "or". It indicates clear divisions between types of Scripture. But there is no way to apply such a division between "Law" and "Prophets" to the 10 Commandments. I'll address this division in Point 4.

Not My Name said...

3) Inconsistent With Other Scripture

The New Testament refers to Law and Prophets 23 times. For example:

Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,
— Luke 24:44–45

Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”
— John 1:45

When they had appointed a day for him, they came to him at his lodging in greater numbers. From morning till evening he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets.
— Acts 28:23

Not one of these references can be understood as only referring to the 10 Commandments. Therefore, it is unreasonable to think that this particular reference to the Law and Prophets (and only this particular reference) means something far more limited than every other reference.

Furthermore, the vast majority of the time, when "the Law" is mentioned in the Bible, the clear meaning is almost always "the Law of Moses", frequently explicitly stated, usually assumed and undeniably implied. This is the Torah, the first 5 books of the Bible which were written by Moses.

In fact, look at what immediately follows Jesus' declaration in the Sermon on the Mount. He addresses 6 difference misinterpretations of the Law (There's only one right one!), only 2 of which are part of the 10 Commandments. Again, indicating that "the Law or the Prophets" obviously means more than just the 10 Commandments.

4) Historically Inaccurate

Take another look at the passage from Luke 24:

Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,
— Luke 24:44–45

By the time of Jesus' incarnation, this three part description of the Old Testament has become the standard way of referring to the Old Testament for more than 100 years.

It [the Bible] is divided into the Old Testament, containing thirty-nine books, and the New Testament, containing twenty-seven books. The names given to the Old in the writings of the New are “the scriptures” (Matt. 21:42), “scripture” (2 Pet. 1:20), “the holy scriptures” (Rom. 1:2), “the law” (John 12:34), “the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms” (Luke 24:44), “the law and the prophets” (Matt. 5:17), “the old covenant” (2 Cor. 3:14, R.V.). …

The Old Testament is divided into three parts:, 1. The Law (Torah), consisting of the Pentateuch, or five books of Moses. 2. The Prophets, consisting of (1) the former, namely, Joshua, Judges, the Books of Samuel, and the Books of Kings; (2) the latter, namely, the greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets. 3. The Hagiographa, or holy writings, including the rest of the books.

— “BIBLE,” Easton’s Bible Dictionary

In fact, this description of the Old Testament was so common among the Jews that it actually had a well known acronym: TaNaKh

Bottom line: There is not a single piece of evidence to claim that "the Law or the Prophets" means only the 10 Commandments. All the evidence points towards Jesus' meaning being the entire Old Testament.

Are there any other words you're having trouble "interpreting?"

Not My Name said...

I guess it's official. Brave Sir Marxy has bravely run away.

Mark's approach to Scripture in this thread strikes me as being almost exactly as Jesus described here:

Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”
— John 8:42–47

Yet he insists that God is on his side, and that God would never be on the side of those who actually take God's Word seriously. Sadly, that's too bad for him. I certainly would not want to be in his shoes when he face God.

One last thought: In looking up this passage, I could not help but be struck how much the Jews' response sounds like Markadelphia:

The Jews answered him, “Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?”
— John 8:48

It's also interesting to note where that conversation went:

Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.
— John 8:58–59