Tebow

[RespectTradition]

If God is immutable and perfect, then said God would only need to hand down one law.

God is perfect. Man is not. If you had a child, would the rules be the same for a 2 yr old and a 12 yr old? The old law was a school master to bring mankind to a stage where we were ready to accept the final covenant.

 

[lumberjack4]

God is perfect. Man is not. If you had a child, would the rules be the same for a 2 yr old and a 12 yr old? The old law was a school master to bring mankind to a stage where we were ready to accept the final covenant.

Since the overwhelming majority of the world is not Christian, I guess we weren't ready for it after all...

 

[RespectTradition]

Since the overwhelming majority of the world is not Christian, I guess we weren't ready for it after all...

There is a difference between ready and willing.

 

[therealUT]

God is perfect. Man is not. If you had a child, would the rules be the same for a 2 yr old and a 12 yr old? The old law was a school master to bring mankind to a stage where we were ready to accept the final covenant.

This is nonsense. Technological advances have occurred over thousands of years; as for the state of mankind, the state of humanity there is nothing that demonstrates that Man has in any way evolved morally over the past four thousand years.

 

[RespectTradition]

This is nonsense. Technological advances have occurred over thousands of years; as for the state of mankind, the state of humanity there is nothing that demonstrates that Man has in any way evolved morally over the past four thousand years.

Nope. No moral evolution at all.

Child sacrifice is still common. As is human sacrifice in general.

Slavery is widespread and rampant.

Pedophilia is tolerated at the national level.

Women are still second class citizens.

The majority of us still believe that someone's race is enough reason to kill them.

Girls are still considered their father's property and are sold to a husband they have never met in most of the civilized world.

Women are prostituted for religious purposes on a regular basis.

Most of us in the civilized world think it is ok to rape women in war zones.

Droit de seigneur is practiced by govt officials all over the United States.

Torture is commonly used in the criminal justice systems of most western countries. (unfortunately we are walking backwards here)

Women are routinely murdered in western countries for infidelity.

There are undoubtedly a lot more things that we have not improved on at all.

Someday, I hope that we might evolve morally. But, until then, I am gonna take my club, kill my neighbor, knock his hot wife over the head and drag her back to my place for some pre-Christmas fun.

 

[therealUT]

Nope. No moral evolution at all.

Child sacrifice is still common. As is human sacrifice in general.

Slavery is widespread and rampant.

Pedophilia is tolerated at the national level.

Women are still second class citizens.

The majority of us still believe that someone's race is enough reason to kill them.

Girls are still considered their father's property and are sold to a husband they have never met in most of the civilized world.

Women are prostituted for religious purposes on a regular basis.

Most of us in the civilized world think it is ok to rape women in war zones.

Droit de seigneur is practiced by govt officials all over the United States.

Torture is commonly used in the criminal justice systems of most western countries. (unfortunately we are walking backwards here)

Women are routinely murdered in western countries for infidelity.

There are undoubtedly a lot more things that we have not improved on at all.

Someday, I hope that we might evolve morally. But, until then, I am gonna take my club, kill my neighbor, knock his hot wife over the head and drag her back to my place for some pre-Christmas fun.

In this century, we have killed more fellow humans than in any other century and in extremely barbaric and savage ways. While it might not be 'socially acceptable' (societal norms vs. morals) to be a pedophile, to beat your wife, to beat your children, to rape, etc., etc. these things still occur and there is nothing that demonstrates they do not occur at the same levels as they always have.

Sure, there have been a handful of societies over a handful of millenia that have, in said society, institutionalized certain things: slavery, pedophile, human sacrifice, etc; however, even when these things were institutionalized they were still viewed as barbaric and backwards by most other societies (see Herodotus and Thucydides).

Man has and always will struggle morally due to the tension between thought and volition. There has been no progress in said area; it is doubtful that there ever will be progress there.

On top of that, you try to defend the God of the OT's immutability and perfection in giving two laws under the pretext of some moral evolution of Man (which does not exist); yet, this same God would have had to experience his own moral evolution (which is a contradiction) since he is personally responsible for killing infants in Egypt and for inspiring the Hebrews to eradicate those peoples who inhabited the area now referred to as Israel and Palestine.

 

[therealUT]

Moral evolution?

 

[RespectTradition]

In this century, we have killed more fellow humans than in any other century and in extremely barbaric and savage ways. While it might not be 'socially acceptable' (societal norms vs. morals) to be a pedophile, to beat your wife, to beat your children, to rape, etc., etc. these things still occur and there is nothing that demonstrates they do not occur at the same levels as they always have.

Sure, there have been a handful of societies over a handful of millenia that have, in said society, institutionalized certain things: slavery, pedophile, human sacrifice, etc; however, even when these things were institutionalized they were still viewed as barbaric and backwards by most other societies (see Herodotus and Thucydides).

Man has and always will struggle morally due to the tension between thought and volition. There has been no progress in said area; it is doubtful that there ever will be progress there.

On top of that, you try to defend the God of the OT's immutability and perfection in giving two laws under the pretext of some moral evolution of Man (which does not exist); yet, this same God would have had to experience his own moral evolution (which is a contradiction) since he is personally responsible for killing infants in Egypt and for inspiring the Hebrews to eradicate those peoples who inhabited the area now referred to as Israel and Palestine.

When you say that we have killed more, are you saying per capita or total? Because the only way to judge is per capita. If 3 people out of 1000 are killed, then is that 3 times as much as if 1 person out of 10 is killed?

Societal norms are indicative of our moral standards.

BTW, I never said that God gave us the new law because we had evolved morally. I said that the old law was to prepare us so that we would be ready to accept the new law. Kind of like learning algebra before learning calculus.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Why does god hate UT?

I think God loves UT. Just as Joseph was put in the pit by his brothers and sold into slavery .......it was done so all Israel would be saves. Joseph told his brothers what was meant for evil God used for good. Tennessee football is being prepared for greatness by God himself.



How did I miss this thread till now?

 

[therealUT]

When you say that we have killed more, are you saying per capita or total? Because the only way to judge is per capita. If 3 people out of 1000 are killed, then is that 3 times as much as if 1 person out of 10 is killed?

I would argue that the twentieth century saw more murder (this includes war) per capita than any century prior.

Societal norms are indicative of our moral standards.

'Societal Norms' are not morals. There are plenty of 'societal norms' that are immoral; there are plenty that are moral; there are plenty that are amoral.

BTW, I never said that God gave us the new law because we had evolved morally. I said that the old law was to prepare us so that we would be ready to accept the new law. Kind of like learning algebra before learning calculus.

'Prepare us'? Definitely not; I did not live four thousand years ago. I also am not a believer in inherited knowledge. So, I fail to see how this concept would even begin to apply.

Again, though, why is it that God, who is immutable, felt it was justified at one time to kill infants, murder women and children, and eradicate peoples yet now does not?

Marcion, in the Second Century, insisted that the Christian God could not be the same as the Hebrew God, citing the violence of the Hebrew God (actually said the Hebrew God was the source of all evil). Marcion was labeled a heretic and one of the main charges against him was that he would not allow the scripture to be interpreted allegorically; he insisted it must all be literal.

 

[possumslayer]

I think tebow is the anti-Christ.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[overseasorange]

Tebow should be playing for the Saints NOTTTT

 

[RespectTradition]

I would argue that the twentieth century saw more murder (this includes war) per capita than any century prior.

I think the ability to travel and commit murder have taken a quantum leap due to technology. As such, I am not sure that the numbers mean anything that we can learn from. Before the 20th, mass bombings by air, nukes, widespread machineguns, mustard gas, etc were not really available. If they had been there 1000 years ago, with the almost constant state of warfare in Europe, would they have all killed each other off? I think so. However, I am talking about maybes and ifs and there is no way to prove if I am right or not.

'Societal Norms' are not morals. There are plenty of 'societal norms' that are immoral; there are plenty that are moral; there are plenty that are amoral.

Societal norms are not morals. However, they do reflect the true morality of the population. Not the stated or purported morality, but the only real measure of morality, which is the one lived.

'Prepare us'? Definitely not; I did not live four thousand years ago. I also am not a believer in inherited knowledge. So, I fail to see how this concept would even begin to apply.

Again, though, why is it that God, who is immutable, felt it was justified at one time to kill infants, murder women and children, and eradicate peoples yet now does not?

Marcion, in the Second Century, insisted that the Christian God could not be the same as the Hebrew God, citing the violence of the Hebrew God (actually said the Hebrew God was the source of all evil). Marcion was labeled a heretic and one of the main charges against him was that he would not allow the scripture to be interpreted allegorically; he insisted it must all be literal.

You don't believe in inherited knowledge? Not exactly sure what you mean by that. Do I think we soak up knowledge in our dna? Of course not. Do I believe that we soak up knowledge from our environment? Yes. I think that if our society decided 100 years ago that women were capable of being more active and voting, then that became a part of our conventional wisdom. The next generation grew up with that understanding. They built on it. Women worked. Were allowed to divorce. The pill. Bra burnings. etc. Till we get to where we are now, where most of us believe that women should be treated fairly and equally. That is incremental progress. Ideas grow and have children.

That being said, that is not why we had the old law. Unless you just want to talk about it with an open mind, I would rather not try and explain it. I really don't think you care. Correct me if I am wrong, but you simply have an antagonistic attitude towards religion and you would rather argue about it than try to learn about it.

 

[therealUT]

I think the ability to travel and commit murder have taken a quantum leap due to technology. As such, I am not sure that the numbers mean anything that we can learn from. Before the 20th, mass bombings by air, nukes, widespread machineguns, mustard gas, etc were not really available. If they had been there 1000 years ago, with the almost constant state of warfare in Europe, would they have all killed each other off? I think so. However, I am talking about maybes and ifs and there is no way to prove if I am right or not.

Has there not been an almost constant state of warfare in the world over the past century? Even for us educated and informed Americans, the beacon for the world, we have spent at least 38 of the past 100 years engaged in war.

Anyhow, for you analogy to work, you would have to compare the Hebrews of the OT to the Christians since them; bringing up the almost constant state of warfare in Europe "1,000 years ago" actually hurts your argument with regard to being morally ready for the New Covenant.

Societal norms are not morals. However, they do reflect the true morality of the population. Not the stated or purported morality, but the only real measure of morality, which is the one lived.

'Societal Norms' only reflect the values that are esteemed by certain societies. 'Societal Norms' in the Occident have 'progressed' if anything in an effort to make capitalism even more efficient. Strikes, boycotts, etc. had monetary impacts. Money speaks. Money is not morality.

You don't believe in inherited knowledge? Not exactly sure what you mean by that. Do I think we soak up knowledge in our dna? Of course not. Do I believe that we soak up knowledge from our environment? Yes. I think that if our society decided 100 years ago that women were capable of being more active and voting, then that became a part of our conventional wisdom. The next generation grew up with that understanding. They built on it. Women worked. Were allowed to divorce. The pill. Bra burnings. etc. Till we get to where we are now, where most of us believe that women should be treated fairly and equally. That is incremental progress. Ideas grow and have children.

Society decided to let women vote because it was expedient and efficient; not because anyone felt that women were equal. Today, there are still plenty in America who do not feel that women are equal, nor are African-Americans. In fact, I will be surprised if another African-American is elected POTUS in my lifetime; since, many in this 'morally advanced society' with these 'flourishing ideas' will simply draw an analogy between Obama's Presidency and potentially what will happen if any other African-American holds the Oval Office. I could be wrong; I bet I am not, though.

That being said, that is not why we had the old law. Unless you just want to talk about it with an open mind, I would rather not try and explain it. I really don't think you care. Correct me if I am wrong, but you simply have an antagonistic attitude towards religion and you would rather argue about it than try to learn about it.

I do have an antagonistic attitude toward religion; that does not mean that I am unlearned in the subject. I have yet to hear a coherent argument in which any Christian can reconcile the Old Testament and the New Testament without conceding that both are only to be taken allegorically.

Please, though, explain why it is that an Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent, Perfect, and Immutable being had to affect a radical change in his creation and, in doing so, make his previous admonishments null and void.

While you are on the subject, if you could explain to me how it is that a Perfect entity can create Imperfection without then causing Itself to thus be Imperfect, I would be much obliged and in your debt.

 

[RespectTradition]

Has there not been an almost constant state of warfare in the world over the past century? Even for us educated and informed Americans, the beacon for the world, we have spent at least 38 of the past 100 years engaged in war.

Anyhow, for you analogy to work, you would have to compare the Hebrews of the OT to the Christians since them; bringing up the almost constant state of warfare in Europe "1,000 years ago" actually hurts your argument with regard to being morally ready for the New Covenant.

Don't recall making that argument. You are the only one who has said anything about being morally ready or morally evolved as a reason for the new law. The old law built a foundation of interaction, precedent and prophecy. The new law is built on that foundation, not a foundation of man's progress.

'Societal Norms' only reflect the values that are esteemed by certain societies. 'Societal Norms' in the Occident have 'progressed' if anything in an effort to make capitalism even more efficient. Strikes, boycotts, etc. had monetary impacts. Money speaks. Money is not morality.

I am missing your point. Your morality is the code by which you live. For some people, money is their morality. Read Atlas Shrugged some time. Specifically, the part of how money is the root of all good.

Society decided to let women vote because it was expedient and efficient; not because anyone felt that women were equal. Today, there are still plenty in America who do not feel that women are equal, nor are African-Americans. In fact, I will be surprised if another African-American is elected POTUS in my lifetime; since, many in this 'morally advanced society' with these 'flourishing ideas' will simply draw an analogy between Obama's Presidency and potentially what will happen if any other African-American holds the Oval Office. I could be wrong; I bet I am not, though.

That is a very sad take on it and one I disagree with.

I do have an antagonistic attitude toward religion; that does not mean that I am unlearned in the subject. I have yet to hear a coherent argument in which any Christian can reconcile the Old Testament and the New Testament without conceding that both are only to be taken allegorically.

The problem is that antagonism makes an open mind impossible. A closed mind is unwilling to hear or truly consider an opposing point of view. Think about talking to gs about islam and you will know what I mean. As long as you are antagonistic, then it will be impossible to have a meaningful conversation about it. But here is a try at it anyway.

Synopsis of the bible: God created the world. Man was put into the world. Man messed up. What was perfect was perfect no more. God interacted with man and tried to guide us. We were stubborn. God wanted to teach the world that God wanted us to be a part of the world as it was created, not a part of the world that we had corrupted. He chose a group of people to use to lay a foundation. These people were blessed and given good things. In return, they were expected to live by a code. Those who were not chosen were allowed to live as they chose. The chosen group were rewarded when they lived by the code and punished when they were not. This was to show an example to us all. The example was that God's way is better. The old code was based on a combination of the world as it had become and the world as it should be. After that foundation was established, God decided the time was right to institute a code that was not a compromise with the corrupt world. The new law was given. See the progression: perfect world > corrupt world > compromise code as a stepping stone > perfect code as the next stepping stone > perfect world (not achieved yet)

Please, though, explain why it is that an Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent, Perfect, and Immutable being had to affect a radical change in his creation and, in doing so, make his previous admonishments null and void.

While you are on the subject, if you could explain to me how it is that a Perfect entity can create Imperfection without then causing Itself to thus be Imperfect, I would be much obliged and in your debt.

I don't see how you can think that the bible can only be taken allegorically. There are parts that are literal and parts that are allegory and it is usually pretty easy to tell which is which.

I think your last two paragraphs need to be looked at together. First, I would ask why you think it is necessary that a perfect being cannot create imperfection? Why can't God make something flawed, if it is intentional then it is not a mistake, no? If you can give me reasons why you think this is impossible, then I will try and explain the flaw in your logic, if I see one.

Note, I am not saying that God created anything imperfect. That is your unproven assertion. Man has free will. If it were not possible for us to do wrong, then we would not have free will. I believe that what was created perfect was made imperfect by mankind. I do not believe that free will is a bug, it is a feature.

 

[NEO]

World is getting worse. We will continue to morally degenerate as we get further away from creation.

 

[Orangeslice13]

World is getting worse. We will continue to morally degenerate as we get further away from creation.

Are you a Pre, Mid, or Post Trib guy Neo?

 

[NEO]

To answer your question in depth if I understand what you are asking.

I believe we are pre-rapture which will then bring in tribulation and then the second coming.

But it is not 100% clear which it true, this version, or the others.

 

[NEO]

I also think we will get to a one world government, one world currency, freedom of religion no longer an option, drones flying over on a daily basis and accepted by society, majority of population Muslim or main group in power Muslim before anything goes down.

 

[Orangeslice13]

To answer your question in depth if I understand what you are asking.

I believe we are pre-rapture which will then bring in tribulation and then the second coming.

But it is not 100% clear which it true, this version, or the others.

This is my view as well. I think from everything presented the Pre-Trib view makes the most sense.
I was once asked to stop teaching a Sunday School class at an independent Baptist Church Based on my belief the Pre-Trib rapture is not a statement of fact.
I've always kinda felt the rapture would be the catalysis that brought in the one world government and the Tribulation would begin some time after that with the peace treaty being signed with Israel.
Where do you see the war of Ezekiel 38 fitting in to all of this?




I Probably should have started a new Thread for this.

 

[therealUT]

I don't see how you can think that the bible can only be taken allegorically. There are parts that are literal and parts that are allegory and it is usually pretty easy to tell which is which.

Fair enough. Which of the following are to be taken allegorically and which are to be taken literally:

1. Virgin Birth
2. Birth in Bethlehem during the Roman Census
3. The 'finding in the Temple' story
4. Water made in to wine
5. Walking on Water
6. Catching more than a boatload of fish by simply casting the net to the other side of the boat at Jesus's command
7. The Loaves and Fishes
8. Raising Lazarus from the dead
9. The Sermon on the Mount
10. The temptations in the desert
11. Telling the disciples to eat his flesh and drink his blood
12. The Crucifixion
13. The Resurrection
14. Telling Peter that he is the rock upon which Jesus will build the church and, subsequently, giving Peter the keys to Heaven
15. The Ascension

 

[RespectTradition]

Fair enough. Which of the following are to be taken allegorically and which are to be taken literally:

1. Virgin Birth
2. Birth in Bethlehem during the Roman Census
3. The 'finding in the Temple' story
4. Water made in to wine
5. Walking on Water
6. Catching more than a boatload of fish by simply casting the net to the other side of the boat at Jesus's command
7. The Loaves and Fishes
8. Raising Lazarus from the dead
9. The Sermon on the Mount
10. The temptations in the desert
11. Telling the disciples to eat his flesh and drink his blood
12. The Crucifixion
13. The Resurrection
14. Telling Peter that he is the rock upon which Jesus will build the church and, subsequently, giving Peter the keys to Heaven
15. The Ascension

1-10,12-13,15 are literal.
11 the bread and the wine are symbolic
14 he never told peter that he is the rock. peter's answer was the rock.

on keys

19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven

the keys to the kingdom is the knowledge revealed by the holy spirit. this will tell them the rules to give to mankind. note, there is a common misconception that they will make rules and those rules will be bound in heaven. that is a grammatical error. what it actually says is that the things they bind are things that are already bound in heaven and things they loose are things already loosed in heaven. that means that they are given the rules that god wants them to have, not that they make up the rules.

 

[therealUT]

1-10,12-13,15 are literal.
11 the bread and the wine are symbolic
14 he never told peter that he is the rock. peter's answer was the rock.

on keys

So, you would rather believe that a virgin can be with child than accept that story as an allegory, along with all the other 'miracles' as well (men being raised from the dead)?

If Jesus went out to the desert and wandered alone, who told of the stories? Did Jesus come back and tell his disciples, "I could have had all the worldly glory, but since I am not proud, I turned it down"? Not proud...?

None of these 'miracles' were recorded by anyone who was not trying to push the agenda; the Romans, who recorded everything, never recorded Jesus's Crucifixion, nor any of his miracles that were supposedly witnessed by many.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Fair enough. Which of the following are to be taken allegorically and which are to be taken literally:

1. Virgin Birth
2. Birth in Bethlehem during the Roman Census
3. The 'finding in the Temple' story
4. Water made in to wine
5. Walking on Water
6. Catching more than a boatload of fish by simply casting the net to the other side of the boat at Jesus's command
7. The Loaves and Fishes
8. Raising Lazarus from the dead
9. The Sermon on the Mount
10. The temptations in the desert
11. Telling the disciples to eat his flesh and drink his blood
12. The Crucifixion
13. The Resurrection
14. Telling Peter that he is the rock upon which Jesus will build the church and, subsequently, giving Peter the keys to Heaven

15. The Ascension

#11 is a betrothal speech. At the time his followers were used to metaphors ans parables but what do you think was going through their minds when he proposed marriage?

 

[therealUT]

#11 is a betrothal speech. At the time his followers were used to metaphors ans parables but what do you think was going through their minds when he proposed marriage?

I have always brought up, and repeatedly insisted upon, cannibalism when I have proposed; and, when some turn and walk away because they do not want to be cannibals, I ensure to let them walk away without explaining that it was a metaphor.