I believe I’ve done so.

No you have not. You have just resorted to more gibberish as you usually do. Matt 5:18 says the old law stands unchanged to the end of the world. Unchanged. There is no clause in the old law exempting believers. Nor is there any such clause in matt 5:18. I state again: Unchanged. Not one jot or tittle. Not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter. Any rider regarding believers would have to exist in the old law. Unchanged. Seems to me like you’re calling Jesus a liar.
What actually happened was that when Paul invented christianity, he knew that he would not get many converts if he insisted on the old law so he wrote exemptions into the text. However the gospel clearly and unambiguously states that the old law remains unchanged. No new exceptions. No old exceptions. If there exists a contradiction between gospel and non gospel I would assume the gospel takes precedence. Plus the existence of contractions proves that the holy babble has no basis in reality

Wizard’s Ninth Rule: A contradiction cannot exist in reality. Not in part, nor in whole

LH:

You have not explained how we seperate law that still stands from law that Jesus fufills. How do I know which ones to obey, and which ones to disregard? Jesus was specific, he did not change the law.

You’re right. I haven’t explained the difference. I personally believe Jesus fulfilled all of the law. When Jesus was asked which of the commandments were most important, he responded thusly:

Mark 12:28-33

The Greatest Commandment
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.”

“Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

Why go back and insist on a works-based system of law-keeping when Jesus made believers free to strive for the spirit of the law? Last Hussar, I’m not trying to evade your genuine question, I’m pointing to Jesus’ own response to the law question. You state that Jesus was specific that He did not change the law. I’m not clear where my above post did not address that. Is there a scripture that you are referring to?

Merely stating X, Y and Z are correct just because this book says so is not an argument.  If it was then all religions would be correct.

I agree. I did not quote the Bible extensively to prove it’s true. I did so to show that it gets a strong reaction. Of course, other religious books and claims get strong reactions as well, but none, it seems, as intense as Biblical quotes. My interpretation (there’s that word again) is that the truth of the Bible is what makes people respond with such passion.

Where in the NT does it actually say it is ok to wear mixed fibres?

How about 1 Corinthians 10:23
All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify.
Just like when the NT declares all foods to be made clean. Jesus showed us that it’s not what goes in to a man that defiles him, but what comes out of him (his heart). For a more extensive treatment of law vs, grace, there’s this link if you’re interested.

Study the texts of other religeons.  They have everything that Christianity has

except a God that does everything necessary to redeem you from sin. Every other religion expects something from you to get to heaven.

When you understand why reject their inerrant truths, you will understand why we choose to go on god further.

Wha?

Of course, other religious books and claims get strong reactions as well, but none, it seems, as intense as Biblical quotes. My interpretation (there’s that word again) is that the truth of the Bible is what makes people respond with such passion.

Other religious books are not forced on people with the same vigor and intensity as the bible, at least in Western countries. Also did you ever stop to think that you get a strong reaction because every thing you quote has been said here many many times before? Do you think you are telling us something we dont already know?

except a God that does everything necessary to redeem you from sin. Every other religion expects something from you to get to heaven.

The christian god does not do everything necessary to redeem you from sin. He expects you to believe in a load of contradictory, non-sensical, illogical and convoluted stories with absolutely no proof. He expects you to surrender your mind, your reason to the forces of darkness, ignorance and faith. He expects us to do all these things or else face an eternity of torment under a system he set up with full prior knowledge of how small a fraction of humanity would be “saved”. The God you worship sounds positively Lovecraftian. If he had done everything necessary to redeem you from sin, then everyone would be automatically “saved”.

using a pseudonym is not a license to perform ‘experiments’ on people, it’s duplicitous (and annoying and pathetic).

Sorry you feel that way. It was a temporary name to show that everything I quoted was from “the Word,” not me. I am certainly not “the Word.” To claim so would be blasphemous. Once I ventured in to personal communication, I immediately shared my identity. I sincerely apologize if it hurt. I know you’re “real people,” otherwise I wouldn’t care to ever come back here and see what’s up.
While we’re on the topic of duplicity, I’m glad to hear it bothers you so. Mere proof that God’s law is in your conscious awareness. Thou shalt not lie.

If you want to persuade anyone here, make a logical argument.

O.K., let’s get the rules straight. Exactly what percentage of my posts can be scripture? And once that law’s been spelled out, could a newer, macro-law that better expresses the intent of the original formula supercede that?

I see that L4T is making his rounds again. Kind of wondered what happened to him, as he had been one of the few relatively decent Christians to make his presence known here.

Of course, other religious books and claims get strong reactions as well, but none, it seems, as intense as Biblical quotes. My interpretation (there’s that word again) is that the truth of the Bible is what makes people respond with such passion.

Buddy, the instant that I personally get harangued by rabid Muslims with Koran quotes, I guarantee you that I’ll react just as vigorously against those as I do with annoying Bible quotes.

Les said: Seems the fundies are starting to notice SEB once again. Shame they don’t realize quoting passages from a big we don’t believe in isn’t likely to convince us of anything other than what an idiot they are.

I agree with this but doing so puts me in an awkward position: I’ve quoted scripture at times to illustrate how illogical belief in the Bible is. Can non-believers rightly do so if it helps the argument against believers?

OK L4T, or Word, or Tom, or whoever the hell you are, it’s really annoying when you create new identities to escape the baggage you created with your previous ones.  This is a discussion table.  The other people here are actually people...But using a pseudonym is not a license to perform ‘experiments’ on people, it’s duplicitous (and annoying and pathetic).

Absolutely on the mark. LT4, by failing to reveal his true identity with his first entry as Word, becomes untrustworthy. Who can depend on these being his only identities here?

(Previously, Word/LT4 said): Just thought I’d see how long I could go posting nothing but scripture rather than personal opinion. I did so because, once it ventures in to personal interpretation, we’ve got man’s thinking vs. man’s thinking. Then, believer or not, the conversation just turns in to personal differences of opinion.

Hate to tell you, but it’s always going to be only “man’s thinking vs. man’s thinking”. When you let another person (authors of the Bible) do your thinking for you, you accept their thoughts as your own. We just feel that you should try to think for yourself. In every comment you’ve written so far, you’ve demonstrated just how little original thought you’re able to come up with.

You assume the Bible is the genuine word of a God and you present it’s contents to us that way and as though we automatically should too. From the start that sets up an uncomfortable association and our responses are going to illustrate that we resent your self-serving assumptions.

There’s lots that needs to be said to people like you but the Academy Awards presentation is on and I want to get back to it.

The Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy is foolish eh? - funny .. I found it very clever.
Obviously another god-botherer with little to no sense of humor..Or maybe he just did’nt get it?

LT4, by failing to reveal his true identity with his first entry as Word, becomes untrustworthy.

Well there it is, a reason to disregard anything I say from this point on. I won’t expect any further responses from you then.
Alright, one final explanation as to my motives, methods, and personal communication style:
My ability to be creative and original is irrelevant to the sharing of the gospel. I have won public speaking competitions in my time, and make a living talking to folks about sensitive issues. Regardless of any attacks that may come, I’m not looking to win personal kudos here. Like Paul (who, no-doubt, blew me out of the water in the communications and personal intelligence department), I resolve to preach nothing but Christ crucified. You have all demonstrated your ability to come up with your own personal world-views without my help, thank-you very much.
As always, I will strive for civility and respect, knowing in advance I will probably fail to do so.
You’re right Brock, I do assume the Bible is the genuine word of a God, but if my presentation implies that I automatically assume you should too, I can see how that would meet with resistance. I do Hope some here will come to believe, but I also believe that that is the Holy Spirit’s touch. My mission is simply to share the gospel.
Why would I do that here? Because the subject matter of Les’s religion posts keeps drawing me in. On top of that, once I get going, there’s such a flood of response that I literally can’t keep up. Tonight for example, I could easily stay up until 4 a.m. on these conversations. Not to use flattery, but the responses are great, and force me to clarify.
Of course, the easiest way to shut me up is to just ignore all my posts. If that happens, I’ll not take personal offense. I’ll just slink away praying (sad attempt at evangelical humor?)
If that doesn’t happen, I’ll assume (perhaps incorrectly) that the gospel message has hit a spiritual nerve with the responder, and they care enough about Jesus to debate, question, and (perhaps) even begin to trust the Savior. Wishful thinking? God only knows.
Gotta get some shuteye. Meantime, Sadie, may you never have to defend yourself (like you envisioned) with a Koran thumper. As annoying/obnoxious/pathetic as I may be, my God has not authorized me to use force in the spreading of this Good News.

Frumpa:

Obviously another god-botherer with little to no sense of humor..Or maybe he just did’nt get it?

Re-read my post. I didn’t say I didn’t personally like HHGttG (actually, I cracked up), I just used an analogy. Sorry you didn’t pick up on it. Care to shoot for another 41 incorrect assumptions about me?

Word/L4T/Tom writes…

That said, the Bible does seem to set off an intense reaction. With a few short scriptures, I encountered more hostile reaction than it took with weeks of conversation posting my ‘own’ thoughts. My interpretation of that is that The Word is God-breathed, and thus convicts the reader. Why don’t readers here just skip the Bible verses when they’re posted here? Instead, many seem compelled to get that bible-quoting guy off here ASAP.

You want to know why that creates such a hostile reaction? Because it’s not a discussion, it’s preaching. Because most of us are already plenty familiar with the Bible. Because that sort of shit happens all the damned time as if the person posting random quotes thinks it’s going to make us sit up and say, “Wow! I’d never heard that before! It makes so much sense now! I’ll convert right away!”

You want to come here and discuss what the Bible says and what you think it means that’s fine, but spouting random Bible quotes as though it means something when you haven’t even convinced anyone there’s a good reason ANY God might exist, let alone your specific God, is just stupid.

I haven’t been to this site in months, yet come back to find roughly the same share of pieces concerning ‘True Believers’ (TM) as ever. Are y’all really expecting to post such content without getting scripture quoted to you? I mean, would someone devote huge chunks of a blog to exposing the foolishness of “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy,” fans, and then declare: “Whoah, easy on those Douglas Adams quotes there poster!”?

Do you seriously mean to tell me that you think a fan of Douglas Adams would sit around spewing random HHGttG quotes in hopes of convincing people he was a good writer? This explains a lot.

Anyhow, hope you’re all doing well. Where’s Zilch these days? Thought you had a job lined up Les? Sorry things didn’t pan out. If you have to end up moving out of state, may it be to a warmer climate!

I worked for about a year before the same company that laid me off last time laid me off again.

Why is it, Tom, that your first instinct when you show up here is to act like an ass?

O.K., let’s get the rules straight. Exactly what percentage of my posts can be scripture?

You can use all the scripture you want, but unless you can provide us with some reason to accept it as anything other than a work of fiction then you’re likely to just be derided for relying on it.

If I don’t believe the book to be true then it doesn’t really matter what the fuck it says.

My mission is simply to share the gospel.

You don’t seem to understand that we don’t need you to share the gospel with us. At the very least you should ask first if we want you to share it with us before preaching. Most of us are capable of finding a church on our own if we feel the need.

Of course, the easiest way to shut me up is to just ignore all my posts.

When we ignore True Believers™ they try and claim they’ve won. If we respond then they assume we need more preaching too. And you wonder why we get annoyed?

I’ll assume (perhaps incorrectly) that the gospel message has hit a spiritual nerve with the responder, and they care enough about Jesus to debate, question, and (perhaps) even begin to trust the Savior.

You’re hitting a nerve, but it ain’t a spiritual one. What you engaged in wasn’t debate.

Seneca said eons ago: Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
That makes me wise and you …

L4T: “Whoah, easy on those Douglas Adams quotes there poster!”?

Large difference; I wouldn’t mind Douglas Adams’ quotes because I find them interesting and insightful and even philosophical - if not amusing.

I do Hope some here will come to believe, but I also believe that that is the Holy Spirit’s touch. My mission is simply to share the gospel.

Gag. Gag. I think you’ll find fertile ground elsewhere.
Pick a place where the people have little education and therefore can’t think … for themselves.
I and many others here just don’t buy into all the delusional stuff of xianity/islam.
I see little difference between the two.
They both worship the god of Abraham and they both demand you believe in invisible beings or there’s no entry to heaven.

L4T: Every other religion expects something from you to get to heaven.

Aw come on, man.  Are your blinkers so effective?
You can ONLY buy grace or heaven or 72 virgins or any other crazy arsed prize by being willingly sucked into the scam.
If you don’t buy the scam there’s no entry. QEfD.
How’d you interpret “every other religion expects something from you to get to heaven”?
I was under the impression y’all believed you can only be saved if you believed in the delusional stuff; you know – mythical old bearded men in the sky … operating invisible surveillance cameras.
As far as I’m concerned that’s a cost … that “expects something”.
In other words the xian/muslim god expects stuff before you can enter heaven ... or did I miss something?
Yeah, I know. I repeated myself. Maybe that fundie stuff is rubbing off onto me.
Nah; I can still think. Musta been the wine.  (A twisted bit of George Carlin and Joe Pesci)

Brock said a few days ago: It’s hardly fair [of god] to force someone to exist then punish them for all eternity for existing incorrectly.
L4T, how do you explain that - taking into account that we’re supposed to have free-will and all?

gospel message has hit a spiritual nerve with the responder

Gag reflex is about all, mate.

Hey Tom/L4T/Word!  I’m still around.  You’ll have to excuse me, but at the moment all the debate-a-believer time I can afford is going to a mathematician here in Austria who’s managed to come up with some new (to me) arguments for the existence of God. He’s keeping me on my toes and improving my language skills at the same time- where else am I likely to learn how to say “falsifiable” in German?

If you can come up with something I haven’t heard before, I’ll happily join in.  So far, though, as Les and others have pointed out, we’ve heard it all before, so I will leave you to the tender mercies of the SEB crowd for now.  They speak for me, albeit with more patience than I could probably muster.  Cheers from Vienna, zilch

P.S.  I’ll be in the SF Bay Area for the month of March, if anyone wants to visit or call.  I’d love to chat with any of you guys.  Drop me a line if you’re interested.

L4T or whoever: “Sorry you feel that way. It was a temporary name to show that everything I quoted was from “the Word,” not me. I am certainly not “the Word.” To claim so would be blasphemous. Once I ventured in to personal communication, I immediately shared my identity. I sincerely apologize if it hurt. I know you’re “real people,” otherwise I wouldn’t care to ever come back here and see what’s up. grin

Apparently you’re fuzzy on the meaning of “hurt” versus “annoy”.  We can tell when you’re quoting scripture versus spouting your own inanity.  Most of us have read the bible.

While we’re on the topic of duplicity, I’m glad to hear it bothers you so. Mere proof that God’s law is in your conscious awareness. Thou shalt not lie.

BZZZT! Sorry, you didn’t win the prize.  By assuming a priori that moral thoughts can only come from god, you ignore other reasons for moral behavior.  And duplicitous behavior is hardly a good advertisement for your religion anyway.

O.K., let’s get the rules straight. Exactly what percentage of my posts can be scripture? And once that law’s been spelled out, could a newer, macro-law that better expresses the intent of the original formula supercede that?

Big surprise - you need a rule.  OK here’s one: when you are online, don’t pretend to be more than one person.  Then if you want to quote scripture in a way that is germane to the point you are making, go ahead.  Just be aware that it doesn’t carry the same weight with others that it does for you.  The bible does not have magic powers.

Tom

How about 1 Corinthians 10:23
All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify.

Is this the excuse the Shrub and Rummy will be using at the Pearly Gates- “Your book said it’s lawfull”

The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.

Now I could just use part, like the creationists do with 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. BECAUSE THIS WHAT HITLER DID.  The holocaust seems to have some roots in the part of the Jews in the cruxifiction.  Howver, because I am honest I will quote

’The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these

. Fair enough- forgive them the sin of the cruxifiction.  Worship God, and love everyone else. So why get so hung up with the gay community- they don’t hurt anybody. In fact why ban any form of consensual sexual behaviour. As long as I hurt no one, should I be allowed to do what I like.. Why discriminnate against non-Christians, as is evident in voting patterns in America. (thinks) Jesus was one of them Christian hating liberals!

oh sorry- typing at 3 in the morning means you forget stuff

When you understand why YOU reject their ‘inerrant truths’, you will understand why we choose to go on god further.

Study the texts of other religeons.  They have everything that Christianity has
(Tom)except a God that does everything necessary to redeem you from sin. Every other religion expects something from you to get to heaven.

Thats just a minor difference. Christianity is still a “Do this and you’re in” religeon.  It matters not tou your god how good I am, if I don’t worship him, I burn. I could be the very model of everything Jesus expects, but no prayer, no heaven. Religeons all say “Worship our god(s) or suffer.

Your book is full of holes. If the story is literally true then why do they not match up with observed reality.  Why do you not comment on the literal truth from Fixed Earth?

One quarter of Americans think Christ will return this year.

He’d better get a wriggle on then.

3 Days 5 Hours to go.

We need a jesus-incarnation version of deathclock

3 Days 5 Hours to go.

We need a jesus-incarnation version of deathclock

So which Time Zone are we following? I suggest GMT - 13 hours to allow him maximum leeway.

Good point - I suppose we can narrow down his possible birthplaces on the 31st moving in whichever way earth spins (i think it’s westwards). JC is limited by our arbitary decision of which hour to define the end of a day.

More seriously, theists could argue what if we simply didn’t know about his supposed rebirth? It need not necessarily be known to anyone at any point in their lives - it’s not as if anyone claiming to be JC is going to be able to do anything of substance - they’d just be a tourist attraction bound by people’s expectations and who’d be expected to make speaches that then get taken out of context by fundies.

Around now, they should be thinking of good follow-up questions for next year’s poll.  For instance, the 25% who thought Jesus was coming in 2007 should be asked: 

Now that 2008 is here, and Jesus didn’t come last year (I’m going out on a limb here and presuming He won’t show in the next 72 hours), which answer best describes your feelings?

a) maybe I was wrong about all this Jesus stuff- I guess I’ll sit down and read some Dennett and Dawkins

b) I’m sure He’ll come this year

c) He came, but He’s keeping a Low Profile

d) He came, and I’m Him

Perhaps he didn’t know about the 11 days the Pope nicked- that gives him an extra week and a half.

Alternatively someone is bound to argue he was born this year- so we’ll have to wait about 30 years to find out

You mean Pope Gregory, Hussar?  But what about all the Popes before him, who were also infallible, or have been retroactively since 1870, who said otherwise?  I’m confused…

Popes are not infallible unless they make it clear that they are speaking on a matter of doctrine from ‘the chair.’

I misread that as:
Popes are not inflatable unless…

-------------------------
Pokey Papal People
I propose a game - (maybe take turns) to keep adding a P word to the string belowabove, at any point, and the winner is the last one standing

Pissed-off Pokey Papal People.

You’d be thinking of the Inflatable Pope of 1582 then.  When a passing Jester made a Balloon Animal that became the pawn in a Vatican power struggle.  All Popes since then are jabbed with a ceremonial pin to show that they are not inflatable.