Questions and Statements about God...

[theillestrator]

it must have been a while...txmade questioning the bible?

 

[TX_Made713]

Murder outside of the law of justice.

There is a difference.

i thought the commandments were written in stone...literally...meaning if god says dont murder then there is no excuse

 

[And Step]

i thought the commandments were written in stone...literally...meaning if god says dont murder then there is no excuse

You kill to eat. You have to put the scripture in context. Besides the english translation is not as clear as the original hebrew meaning. Some words are translated identically and they are not. The word "ratsach" can be used differently depending upon how it is used in a sentence. In some intances it means intentional killing, which is murder, in other instances it is used to denote accidental death. The english translators make no distinction, which is erroneous.

Killing another human being unjustly is what is meant.

To have any serious discussion on the Bible, you have to have studied Hebrew. To quote a english translation, which has been mistakenly and intentionally mistranslated is a futile exercise

This is what caused Reggie White trouble over the last few years of his life. He began to study Hebrew and found out that what he had been taught in the Bible by his teachers was grossly in error.

 

[And Step]

i thought the commandments were written in stone.

He sums it up nicely.

[video=youtube;0iv6eKaplk0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iv6eKaplk0[/video]

LOL

 

[The GMW]

There is an upside if Jesus's Blood is a substitute for mankind's blood for atonement. What is forgiveness if the convenant that mankind made is still broken? I can break something and apologize to somebody about it. This person forgives me. However, that thing is still broken and needs to be replaced.

One thing that I don't want to do is make you think that believing in God is easy. There is nothing easy about believing in God. I'm just trying to address what we believe and why we believe it.

But the whole point of this topic is why God would have come up with that covenant. Why would he want Jesus' blood, or mankind's blood, or an animal's blood, or any blood at all in exchange for atonement? Why is there such a covenant in the first place? Why does he mandate suffering? Where was his infinite benevolence when he came up with that idea?

 

[TX_Made713]

Blah

I've studied hebrew and the translation issues....that is nothing new to me. you still didnt answer the question, if god says dont kill why would he go back and say "stone them to death if they commit adultry?" why not "Lock them up for life until I bring them home"

this dude is hilarious

[video=youtube;9pPlFrmkXlE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pPlFrmkXlE&[/video]

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

Killing another human being unjustly is what is meant.

"If you cannot give life as a reward, you cannot give death as a penalty." ~Osho

 

[TX_Made713]

naw apparently your judgement would be to be stoned to death, even though the main commandment says thou shall not murder

 

[alissowack]

But the whole point of this topic is why God would have come up with that covenant. Why would he want Jesus' blood, or mankind's blood, or an animal's blood, or any blood at all in exchange for atonement? Why is there such a covenant in the first place? Why does he mandate suffering? Where was his infinite benevolence when he came up with that idea?

The Bible says why, but I don't think that is the answer you are looking for. I could be wrong, but maybe your hope is that if the God of the Bible exists and that mankind did do something wrong against God, that maybe, given His Eternal stature, that He would just settle for something small; that God can pardon the finite mishaps of mankind with His Infinite Forgiveness. It sounds like a noble thing to do if God's idea of disobedience is finite as well. If that is the case, then God shouldn't have cursed all of mankind off of just one mere act of disobedience. Even if mankind knows the rules and still disobeyed, that God should just be happy with the finite cries of apologies. If disobedience is really a big problem to God, then just one act is catastrophic; it's condemning. Why blood...why innocent blood? Who knows, but it must be something that requires our best and our most vital aspect of our lives. And even in giving our best, it's still not enough.

 

[The GMW]

Why blood...why innocent blood? Who knows, but it must be something that requires our best and our most vital aspect of our lives.

But then there's the fact that God decided that animal sacrifices would do the trick as well. What significant meaning does an animal sacrifice have to a human being? Yes, animals were valuable back then, but only as a material/monetary asset. And for the very wealthy, sacrificing one animal would have meant absolutely nothing. And if God wanted people to sacrifice something of material value, he could have had them sacrifice something inanimate, rather than mandating the needless suffering of his own creations.

So clearly an animal sacrifice is not something that has to do with the most vital aspect of one's life. And if an animal sacrifice is something that could bring forgiveness from sin, then it must not be necessary to sacrifice something vital to one's life in order to be forgiven.

 

[alissowack]

But then there's the fact that God decided that animal sacrifices would do the trick as well. What significant meaning does an animal sacrifice have to a human being? Yes, animals were valuable back then, but only as a material/monetary asset. And for the very wealthy, sacrificing one animal would have meant absolutely nothing. And if God wanted people to sacrifice something of material value, he could have had them sacrifice something inanimate, rather than mandating the needless suffering of his own creations.

So clearly an animal sacrifice is not something that has to do with the most vital aspect of one's life. And if an animal sacrifice is something that could bring forgiveness from sin, then it must not be necessary to sacrifice something vital to one's life in order to be forgiven.

Even in animal sacrifices, He didn't settle for any animal sacrifice. It is usually the firstborn of their livestock and without any defects. And not anybody can make the sacrifices. Those appointed as high priests were the only ones who could. A wealthy person couldn't just make that sacrifice for him or herself; have a personal altar for themselves. And if the sacrifice isn't done perfectly, you die.

The issue is more about being perfect. It's one thing to be in sin and you can trust that the high priests will perform the sacrifices according to what God says. But what if a wealthy person does give the best of what he or she has and the high priests don't do the sacrifice "perfectly"? That person could just short change God and suffer the same consequence of dying. The rich are just as much in the same boat as the poor because the high priest would have to do everything right.

 

[blue falcon]

was all flesh destroyed after Katrina? NO. Wats ur point then?

 

[And Step]

I've have faked the funk on my Hebrew studies...., if god says dont kill why would he go back and say "stone them to death if they commit adultry?" why not "Lock them up for life until I bring them home"

s dude is hilarious

[video=youtube;9pPlFrmkXlE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pPlFrmkXlE&[/video]

Well if you actually studied the Hebrew you wouldn't have to ask the question. Once again you go back to a english mistranslation. I told you that the in the Hebrew there are many words that describe murder and the circumstances and meanings are different. In some parts it talks of injury, in some parts it talks about killing accidently, in some instances it talks of killing legally of for blood avenging. So when you try to limp that all under one category, that lets me known that you really have not studied and learned as you claim.

What your doing is like a referee in a basketball game, calling a traveling violation for double dribble, goal tending, foul, and carrying. While they are all violation, they are not all the same.

 

[And Step]

"If you cannot give life as a reward, you cannot give death as a penalty." ~Osho

"Shut up nigga" ~ Robin Harris

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

"Shut up nigga" ~ Robin Harris

Go suck a dick, faggot. ~ Me

 

[And Step]

Go suck a dick, faggot. ~ Me

^^^^co-sign

 

[The GMW]

Even in animal sacrifices, He didn't settle for any animal sacrifice. It is usually the firstborn of their livestock and without any defects. And not anybody can make the sacrifices. Those appointed as high priests were the only ones who could. A wealthy person couldn't just make that sacrifice for him or herself; have a personal altar for themselves. And if the sacrifice isn't done perfectly, you die.

The issue is more about being perfect. It's one thing to be in sin and you can trust that the high priests will perform the sacrifices according to what God says. But what if a wealthy person does give the best of what he or she has and the high priests don't do the sacrifice "perfectly"? That person could just short change God and suffer the same consequence of dying. The rich are just as much in the same boat as the poor because the high priest would have to do everything right.

That kind of demonstrates my point further. If the success or failure of the sacrifice is in the hands of the priest rather than the sinner, and the sinner really doesn't have to do anything but hand over his finest animal, what's the point of the whole ordeal? Why would he only offer forgiveness to sinners on the condition that an unrelated third party kills another unrelated third party? And think about this... say two people each commit a sin, pick out their finest animals, and give them to two different high priests to be sacrificed. One priest successfully carries out the sacrifice, and the other messes it up. Does that mean forgiveness for the first sinner, and damnation for the second, even though the actions of the sinners themselves were identical?

 

[TX_Made713]

Well if you actually studied the Hebrew you wouldn't have to ask the question. Once again you go back to a english mistranslation. I told you that the in the Hebrew there are many words that describe murder and the circumstances and meanings are different. In some parts it talks of injury, in some parts it talks about killing accidently, in some instances it talks of killing legally of for blood avenging. So when you try to limp that all under one category, that lets me known that you really have not studied and learned as you claim.

What your doing is like a referee in a basketball game, calling a traveling violation for double dribble, goal tending, foul, and carrying. While they are all violation, they are not all the same.

naw, what your doing is trying to make this obvious contradiction make sense....traveling, goal tendings,etc are completely different calls.

killings however is killings....THOU SHALL NOT MURDER...he says it clear as day. it means what it means...it doesnt say "Thou shall not murder unless certain circumstances occur"...so if god says this, why does he go back and say to murder someone?

and if the translation is off then wouldnt that make the bible flawed hense untrustworthy?

 

[TX_Made713]

.......im lost

 

[TX_Made713]

The rainbow is nothing biblical......it is merely light reflecting off water....just get a waterhose and cut it on on a sunny day and you can make one yourself.....smh at some of the things in here

for emphasis