So Um... Why Don't The "devout" Xians Stick It Out?

[Antlerman]

A man's nipples were specifically designed for what reason, Ray?

 

Oh, oh, oh...I know! Can I answer this please?

Oh oh, I smell a set up here... I give. Why?

Purple Nurples! (That wasn't really what I was thinking, but you weren't supposed to call me out on that!) HA!

So you're saying God designed nipples on men so they could be twisted by would-be tormentors? In other words, after the fall of Adam, God cursed man by adding them to him as targets for pain? This actually makes sense. Another idea is that they were there at the outset because Adam and Eve were in fact one flesh, both being female. The curse caused the separation of the sexes and Adam's boobs deflated and the extra flesh drooped out down somewhere else on him.

 

That's actually much closer to scientific reality, than man being created first. It used to be believed that women were not fully developed males in the womb, which is why they were always subservient to men. But that bad, evil, disruptive science is now saying that in the womb they actually start female and then become male. Oh oh again! So what special creation site tries to refute that?

[NotBlinded]

A man's nipples were specifically designed for what reason, Ray?

 

Oh, oh, oh...I know! Can I answer this please?

Oh oh, I smell a set up here... I give. Why?

Purple Nurples! (That wasn't really what I was thinking, but you weren't supposed to call me out on that!) HA!

So you're saying God designed nipples on men so they could be twisted by would-be tormentors? In other words, after the fall of Adam, God cursed man by adding them to him as targets for pain? This actually makes sense. Another idea is that they were there at the outset because Adam and Eve were in fact one flesh, both being female. The curse caused the separation of the sexes and Adam's boobs deflated and the extra flesh drooped out down somewhere else on him.

 

That's actually much closer to scientific reality, than man being created first. It used to be believed that women were not fully developed males in the womb, which is why they were always subservient to men. But that bad, evil, disruptive science is now saying that in the womb they actually start female and then become male. Oh oh again! So what special creation site tries to refute that?

Well, I had something less painful in mind actually. Purple Nurples was something that I had to say so I wouldn't look like this: (darn, where did all the emoticons go?). Anyway, I would embarrass myself!

 

You mean there is actually a site that tries to refute that we are all female in the womb up to a certain point?

[Antlerman]

You mean there is actually a site that tries to refute that we are all female in the womb up to a certain point?

I'm sure if people were to make a bigger issue of it that it refutes the Bible, I'm sure AiG would find some scientist to refute it in order to preserve the infallibly of the Bible.

[rayskidude]

I'm confused. Which one of us are you talking to? I think I answered rayskiddude's question above which was almost similar in another post and said nothing about being a slave to anything. On the contrary, I mentioned Buddhist monks controlling their neurology and alike with meditation. Thus why I'm confused. However, I agree, IF there were a god, IT (because there is no gender with chemicals) would have to be some sort of a chemical element or alike. On slight change in human chemistry, one elemental change, and we would not be humans. We'd be some other ape or maybe a cat. It was all in how the chemicals combined in this vast world of evolution.

 

God is an immaterial Spirit, not subject to the limitations of chemistry.

[chefranden]

God is an immaterial Spirit, not subject to the limitations of chemistry.

 

What the heck is "immaterial"? Is that like anti-matter? Can you actually make something out of it?

 

I suppose the immaterial can't be energy, because energy is just a different form of matter. So what is it? Nothing? That would make sense. God is made out of nothing and therefore appears to be nothing.

 

 

He roller-coaster, he got early warning

He got muddy water, he one mojo filter

He say "One and one and one is three"

Got to be good-looking cos he's so hard to see

Come together right now over me

[rayskidude]

Long before Paul came along with his replacement theology, God stated that each person would die for their own sin and could save themselves by repenting and keeping the law.

Ezek 18:20-22,27

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.

Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.

They are trusting in that law to bring blessings and salvation, just as the Bible promises.

Ezek 18:9(NIV)

He follows my decrees and faithfully keeps my laws.

That man is righteous; he will surely live, declares the Sovereign LORD.

You’re trying to establish your pet doctrine about God as being the only valid one, which is why Christianity is a replacement theology, denying the formula for salvation as defined by God in the Hebrew scriptures and introducing a much easier one in its place. The advantage being that it made the pool of potential converts much bigger.

 

But you're ignoring the following promise of God;

Eze 36:25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.

Eze 36:26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

Eze 36:27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

Eze 36:28 You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.

Jer 31:30 But everyone shall die for his own sin. Each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge.

Jer 31:31 "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,

Jer 31:32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.

Jer 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Jer 31:34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

Jer 31:35 Thus says the LORD, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar-- the LORD of hosts is his name:

Jer 31:36 "If this fixed order departs from before me, declares the LORD, then shall the offspring of Israel cease from being a nation before me forever."

 

Isa 59:7 Their feet run to evil, and they are swift to shed innocent blood; their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; desolation and destruction are in their highways.

Isa 59:8 The way of peace they do not know, and there is no justice in their paths; they have made their roads crooked; no one who treads on them knows peace.

Isa 59:9 Therefore justice is far from us, and righteousness does not overtake us; we hope for light, and behold, darkness, and for brightness, but we walk in gloom.

Isa 59:10 We grope for the wall like the blind; we grope like those who have no eyes; we stumble at noon as in the twilight, among those in full vigor we are like dead men.

Isa 59:11 We all growl like bears; we moan and moan like doves; we hope for justice, but there is none; for salvation, but it is far from us.

Isa 59:12 For our transgressions are multiplied before you, and our sins testify against us; for our transgressions are with us, and we know our iniquities:

Isa 59:13 transgressing, and denying the LORD, and turning back from following our God, speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart lying words.

Isa 59:14 Justice is turned back, and righteousness stands far away; for truth has stumbled in the public squares, and uprightness cannot enter.

Isa 59:15 Truth is lacking, and he who departs from evil makes himself a prey. The LORD saw it, and it displeased him that there was no justice.

Isa 59:16 He saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no one to intercede; then his own arm brought him salvation, and his righteousness upheld him.

Isa 59:17 He put on righteousness as a breastplate, and a helmet of salvation on his head; he put on garments of vengeance for clothing, and wrapped himself in zeal as a cloak.

Isa 59:18 According to their deeds, so will he repay, wrath to his adversaries, repayment to his enemies; to the coastlands he will render repayment.

Isa 59:19 So they shall fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun; for he will come like a rushing stream, which the wind of the LORD drives.

Isa 59:20 "And a Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression," declares the LORD.

Isa 59:21 "And as for me, this is my covenant with them," says the LORD: "My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children's offspring," says the LORD, "from this time forth and forevermore."

 

SO God has promised that a new covenant, which includes forgiveness and cleansing from sin - and Go'ds enablement by His Holy Spirit to follow God's laws, will indeed replace the old covenant. And we're now living in New Covenant times.

[centauri]

Long before Paul came along with his replacement theology, God stated that each person would die for their own sin and could save themselves by repenting and keeping the law.

Ezek 18:20-22,27

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.

Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.

 

They are trusting in that law to bring blessings and salvation, just as the Bible promises.

Ezek 18:9(NIV)

He follows my decrees and faithfully keeps my laws.

That man is righteous; he will surely live, declares the Sovereign LORD.

 

You’re trying to establish your pet doctrine about God as being the only valid one, which is why Christianity is a replacement theology, denying the formula for salvation as defined by God in the Hebrew scriptures and introducing a much easier one in its place. The advantage being that it made the pool of potential converts much bigger.

 

But you're ignoring the following promise of God;

Eze 36:25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.

Eze 36:26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

Eze 36:27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

Eze 36:28 You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.

Jer 31:30 But everyone shall die for his own sin. Each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge.

Jer 31:31 "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,

Jer 31:32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.

Jer 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Jer 31:34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

Jer 31:35 Thus says the LORD, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar-- the LORD of hosts is his name:

Jer 31:36 "If this fixed order departs from before me, declares the LORD, then shall the offspring of Israel cease from being a nation before me forever."

 

Isa 59:7 Their feet run to evil, and they are swift to shed innocent blood; their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; desolation and destruction are in their highways.

Isa 59:8 The way of peace they do not know, and there is no justice in their paths; they have made their roads crooked; no one who treads on them knows peace.

Isa 59:9 Therefore justice is far from us, and righteousness does not overtake us; we hope for light, and behold, darkness, and for brightness, but we walk in gloom.

Isa 59:10 We grope for the wall like the blind; we grope like those who have no eyes; we stumble at noon as in the twilight, among those in full vigor we are like dead men.

Isa 59:11 We all growl like bears; we moan and moan like doves; we hope for justice, but there is none; for salvation, but it is far from us.

Isa 59:12 For our transgressions are multiplied before you, and our sins testify against us; for our transgressions are with us, and we know our iniquities:

Isa 59:13 transgressing, and denying the LORD, and turning back from following our God, speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart lying words.

Isa 59:14 Justice is turned back, and righteousness stands far away; for truth has stumbled in the public squares, and uprightness cannot enter.

Isa 59:15 Truth is lacking, and he who departs from evil makes himself a prey. The LORD saw it, and it displeased him that there was no justice.

Isa 59:16 He saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no one to intercede; then his own arm brought him salvation, and his righteousness upheld him.

Isa 59:17 He put on righteousness as a breastplate, and a helmet of salvation on his head; he put on garments of vengeance for clothing, and wrapped himself in zeal as a cloak.

Isa 59:18 According to their deeds, so will he repay, wrath to his adversaries, repayment to his enemies; to the coastlands he will render repayment.

Isa 59:19 So they shall fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun; for he will come like a rushing stream, which the wind of the LORD drives.

Isa 59:20 "And a Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression," declares the LORD.

Isa 59:21 "And as for me, this is my covenant with them," says the LORD: "My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children's offspring," says the LORD, "from this time forth and forevermore."

 

SO God has promised that a new covenant, which includes forgiveness and cleansing from sin - and Go'ds enablement by His Holy Spirit to follow God's laws, will indeed replace the old covenant. And we're now living in New Covenant times.

There isn’t anything in these passages about people needing to believe in a human sacrifice to be saved.

The new covenant is when God will reaffirm his law under a new contract.

Christianity does not adhere to the promise made in Ezek 36.

Ezek 36:27

And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules

 

Exactly opposite to the promise, Christianity is not careful to obey the rules or walk in the statutes of the law.

Paul set those rules aside, claiming they were no longer binding, being replaced by faith in a human sacrifice.

 

Nor does Christianity adhere to the promise in Jer 31, which states that each person would die for their own sin.

There is no vicarious human sacrifice involved with the new covenant as defined by Jer 31.

God will infuse his law directly into the people and reaffirm it under a new contract.

That hasn’t happened yet.

There will also be no need to teach people about God for, just as it says, everyone will know God.

That hasn’t happened yet either.

The new covenant as defined by Jer 31 has nothing to do with Jesus or the Christian replacement theology.

[Mriana]

I'm confused. Which one of us are you talking to? I think I answered rayskiddude's question above which was almost similar in another post and said nothing about being a slave to anything. On the contrary, I mentioned Buddhist monks controlling their neurology and alike with meditation. Thus why I'm confused. However, I agree, IF there were a god, IT (because there is no gender with chemicals) would have to be some sort of a chemical element or alike. On slight change in human chemistry, one elemental change, and we would not be humans. We'd be some other ape or maybe a cat. It was all in how the chemicals combined in this vast world of evolution.

 

God is an immaterial Spirit, not subject to the limitations of chemistry.

 

Immaterial? Then it doesn't actually exist and is truly a human concept. Actually, immaterial is one of two things- not consisting of matter, which would make it anti-matter, which in and of itself would have a scientific concept also OR it is of no importance. Since it is not anti-matter either, then that would make it unimportant. Since it is unimportant, then what's the big deal? meh.

 

It would also be incorporeal, which has no intrinsic value. Now here is anti-matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter So, IF what you were saying were true, then it would be a matter for physics, but what you are saying does not fit the laws of physics, so it is of no value.

[Onyx]

Oh yes, giving credit to something external and supernatural instead of to humans themselves. As for the beauty of the earth, it is very beautiful and very awe inspiring. It is the external stimuli that triggers neuro-chemicals in the brain causing awe and wonder. The only thing that works through everything within in the universe are various elements which act and react to other elements.

 

Should I conclude form this that you hold to 'biochemical predeterminism'? as espoused by some prominent scientists - that all of life's pleasures, emotions, wonder, romantic love, etc are simply biochemical rxns in our brians over which we have no control - we are just slaves to our personal physiology?

 

It is only we humans who can save it and keep it beautiful. The earth is not for us to rape and pillage so we can use it's resources until it implodes on itself and is no more. Only we can take care of the earth, nothing external and/or supernatural to it. It is all internal to the human being, other animals, the earth, and the universe as a whole.

 

God certainly gave Adam & Eve the responsibility to be good stewards of the Creation He provided.

 

 

 

Ah, chemicals are beautiful in themselves. They give us keys to the world but if they didn't, we as humans, would never exist. Alternatively, we'd experience existence in another way. Or if you follow parallel universes/alternative theories - there could be a multiplic bunch of existences (humans wouldn't even be called humans) with chemicals completely different from ours... in short, there's so much possibilities but we know little about the realities.

 

If god were to exist - he'd have to have chemicals to enable his perceptions and consciousness so he'd have to talk to Moses without having to be dead or nonexistent or non-sentient or all three. So in a way, are you saying that The Ultimate Master is slave to His Own Chemicals and is miserable?

 

I'm confused. Which one of us are you talking to? I think I answered rayskiddude's question above which was almost similar in another post and said nothing about being a slave to anything. On the contrary, I mentioned Buddhist monks controlling their neurology and alike with meditation. Thus why I'm confused. However, I agree, IF there were a god, IT (because there is no gender with chemicals) would have to be some sort of a chemical element or alike. On slight change in human chemistry, one elemental change, and we would not be humans. We'd be some other ape or maybe a cat. It was all in how the chemicals combined in this vast world of evolution.

 

That was to him, Rayskiddude.

 

As for your quote on God's immateriality, Ray, here goes.

God + spirit-matter + atoms = does not add up.

However if : God + chemicals + atoms + a skeleton or any other conceivable structure for existence within this particular universe + whatever size as long as it does not violate the laws of this particular universe + The highest limit of memorization and intelligence allowable in this universe + the limits of superpowers + part of all nature = it just might add up or it adds up.

 

But so far, there is no conclusive evidence reached upon the existence of a traditional deity as stated by the Abrahamic religious adherents between these aforesaid people and freethinkers ranging from agnostics to pantheists to atheists to skeptics and etc so far. If there are truly irrefutable proof of a God existing then I or any other fair minded person upon this issue shall (or out of political disgust, still doesn't acknowledge God's authority which if proven as per the Biblical account of God's leadership, would paint him in a morally, ethically, politically and fidelitically disreputable light, which will be putting it mildly - however the jury is still out on this issue too.) acknowledge his or (Her) existence.

 

Personally, I have a hunch that we shall NEVER find God even if we tried our damnedest, God to me, is an unprovable or a dangerously imaginary thing that therefore should be accorded the same status as Greek Myths to avert whatever harm that may come from reading Quran, The Bible, Book of Mormon and Torah fundamentalistically, literally, unbendative and dogmatically.

 

Whew - I guess that's it for me writing in a Legal case style diction!

[Vigile]

I'm not usually a pedant, but since this thread keeps showing up every day can someone please fix the title?

 

Devout, not devote.

[Mriana]

I'm confused. Which one of us are you talking to? I think I answered rayskiddude's question above which was almost similar in another post and said nothing about being a slave to anything. On the contrary, I mentioned Buddhist monks controlling their neurology and alike with meditation. Thus why I'm confused. However, I agree, IF there were a god, IT (because there is no gender with chemicals) would have to be some sort of a chemical element or alike. On slight change in human chemistry, one elemental change, and we would not be humans. We'd be some other ape or maybe a cat. It was all in how the chemicals combined in this vast world of evolution.

 

That was to him, Rayskiddude.

 

As for your quote on God's immateriality, Ray, here goes.

God + spirit-matter + atoms = does not add up.

However if : God + chemicals + atoms + a skeleton or any other conceivable structure for existence within this particular universe + whatever size as long as it does not violate the laws of this particular universe + The highest limit of memorization and intelligence allowable in this universe + the limits of superpowers + part of all nature = it just might add up or it adds up.

 

I'm not saying it does add up though. I'm just saying that if it were immaterial (anti-matter) or even matter, then science would fine it, whatever it is.

 

But so far, there is no conclusive evidence reached upon the existence of a traditional deity as stated by the Abrahamic religious adherents between these aforesaid people and freethinkers ranging from agnostics to pantheists to atheists to skeptics and etc so far. If there are truly irrefutable proof of a God existing then I or any other fair minded person upon this issue shall (or out of political disgust, still doesn't acknowledge God's authority which if proven as per the Biblical account of God's leadership, would paint him in a morally, ethically, politically and fidelitically disreputable light, which will be putting it mildly - however the jury is still out on this issue too.) acknowledge his or (Her) existence.

 

Personally, I have a hunch that we shall NEVER find God even if we tried our damnedest, God to me, is an unprovable or a dangerously imaginary thing that therefore should be accorded the same status as Greek Myths to avert whatever harm that may come from reading Quran, The Bible, Book of Mormon and Torah fundamentalistically, literally, unbendative and dogmatically.

 

Whew - I guess that's it for me writing in a Legal case style diction!

 

Yes, and I have to admit, the idea of Gaia is appealing in that IF one is going to create a god, then the earth, which "creates" life and recycles it back into itself, in an ever perpetuating cycle of birth, death, and rebirth, makes more sense than the Abrahamic god. The sun is always "rising" and "dying", as the Egyptian metaphoric mythology states- both in the seasons and in a 24 hour cycle. Metaphorically, Mother Earth and Father Sky are almost always having a relationship as the Father Sky penetrates her with rain and sun rays. Horus, symbolism for the sun, goes into the underworld every night to concur it (Set). Horus does the same thing during the various seasons also.

 

Now back to the Bible with similar mythology- Samson hair represents the rays of the sun. He is a symbol for the sun. Robert Price has talked about this, at least in his Bible Geek podcasts and I have heard and read other theologians say this (ie Victor H. Matthews). In the Creation story, I asked Bob Price about this one after a mythology class in the prof said, "You can't keep a good Mother Earth god down", when Adam ("borrowed" from Atum in Egyptian mythology) was created from the earth, that was a reference to a Mother Earth god. It is around this time that the Israelites were polytheistic and at one time, they did have a male and female god. In effect, this was a reference to that time (again, see Victor H. Matthews).

 

Note: I refer to Matthews as a resource, only because he was one of the profs at the uni, in which a took a class called by the same title of his book,"Old Testament Parallels and ironically taught the same things in his Adult Sunday School classes (Episcopal Church). So, I know his work fairly well and feel comfortable refer to him (and Bob) for others to look into this more. IMHO, the Xians around here have not looked into these things enough to know much about Xian mythology and from where it evolved. I can make the same case for the Jesus stories too, in relationship to solar mythology, but I don't have many resources to back up my words, except Acharya, and some things Bob discusses, but Bob doesn't go into as much as she does. IF one puts the Jesus story in such a context, it makes a whole lot more sense then the hardcore Xians interpretation. All too many Xians, as well as non-Xians, seem to be close-minded to such an interpretation, esp when it makes more sense.

 

Edit: took out some previous quotes to make post a little shorter.

[Mriana]

I'm confused. Which one of us are you talking to? I think I answered rayskiddude's question above which was almost similar in another post and said nothing about being a slave to anything. On the contrary, I mentioned Buddhist monks controlling their neurology and alike with meditation. Thus why I'm confused. However, I agree, IF there were a god, IT (because there is no gender with chemicals) would have to be some sort of a chemical element or alike. On slight change in human chemistry, one elemental change, and we would not be humans. We'd be some other ape or maybe a cat. It was all in how the chemicals combined in this vast world of evolution.

 

God is an immaterial Spirit, not subject to the limitations of chemistry.

 

Are you sure about that? What if I could use both neuro-psychology and cognitive Psychology, along with the evolution of human thought, to show you... It's all in your head?

[agnosticator]

 

God is an immaterial Spirit, not subject to the limitations of chemistry.

 

Are you sure about that? What if I could use both neuro-psychology and cognitive Psychology, along with the evolution of human thought, to show you... It's all in your head?

 

Go for it, girl!

[rayskidude]

Rayskidude >> SO God has promised that a new covenant, which includes forgiveness and cleansing from sin - and God's enablement by His Holy Spirit to follow God's laws, will indeed replace the old covenant. And we're now living in New Covenant times.

There isn’t anything in these passages about people needing to believe in a human sacrifice to be saved.

The new covenant is when God will reaffirm his law under a new contract. Christianity does not adhere to the promise;

Ezek 36:27

And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules

Christianity most certianly does fulfill the promise recorded in Ezekiel.

 

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Joh 3:7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'

 

Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,

Joh 14:17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

 

Joh 16:7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.

Joh 16:8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:

Joh 16:9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;

Joh 16:10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer;

Joh 16:11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

Joh 16:12 "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.

Joh 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

Joh 16:14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

Joh 16:15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

 

Mat 22:35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him.

Mat 22:36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?"

Mat 22:37 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.

Mat 22:38 This is the great and first commandment.

Mat 22:39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Mat 22:40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."

 

Exactly opposite to the promise, Christianity is not careful to obey the rules or walk in the statutes of the law.

Paul set those rules aside, claiming they were no longer binding, being replaced by faith in a human sacrifice.

 

What Jesus & Paul taught was that there is no works-righteousness before God - which Judaism had degenerated into.

Gen 15:5 And he brought him outside and said, "Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be."

Gen 15:6 And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

 

Yet that was followed by a sacrifice to confirm the promise;

Gen 15:9 He said to him, "Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon."

Gen 15:10 And he brought him all these, cut them in half, and laid each half over against the other. But he did not cut the birds in half.

Gen 15:11 And when birds of prey came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away.

Gen 15:12 As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him.

Gen 15:17 When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces.

Gen 15:18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram

 

Nor does Christianity adhere to the promise in Jer 31, which states that each person would die for their own sin.

There is no vicarious human sacrifice involved with the new covenant as defined by Jer 31.

God will infuse his law directly into the people and reaffirm it under a new contract.

That hasn’t happened yet.

 

People who receive the New Covenant will not experience the Second Death - but all people die because of their own sin. BTW - it is the garce of God that people die - or else we would live forever in this sinful estate. Now we can live a glorified after-life. But note how Jesus provides for the New Covenant;

Joh 1:26 John answered them, "I baptize with water, but among you stands one you do not know,

Joh 1:27 even he who comes after me, the strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie."

Joh 1:28 These things took place in Bethany across the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

Joh 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Joh 1:30 This is he of whom I said, 'After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.'

Joh 1:31 I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel."

Joh 1:32 And John bore witness: "I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him.

Joh 1:33 I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'

Joh 1:34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God."

Joh 1:35 The next day again John was standing with two of his disciples,

Joh 1:36 and he looked at Jesus as he walked by and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God!"

Joh 1:37 The two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus.

 

Mat 26:27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you,

Mat 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Mat 26:29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."

Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me."

Luk 22:20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

 

I would recommend that you read the Book of Hebrews for further explanation of the New Covenent.

 

There will also be no need to teach people about God for, just as it says, everyone will know God. That hasn’t happened yet either.

The new covenant as defined by Jer 31 has nothing to do with Jesus or the Christian replacement theology.

 

All of God's people (the Church) do currently know Him - and God's promise that at some point in time all Israel will know God will happen in the future;

Rom 11:1 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.

Rom 11:2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel?

Rom 11:3 "Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life."

Rom 11:4 But what is God's reply to him? "I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal."

Rom 11:5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.

Rom 11:6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

 

Rom 11:11 So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous.

Rom 11:12 Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!

Rom 11:13 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry

Rom 11:14 in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them.

Rom 11:15 For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?

 

Rom 11:25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

Rom 11:26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";

Rom 11:27 "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins."

Rom 11:28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.

Rom 11:29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

[rayskidude]

 

Rayskidude >> God is an immaterial Spirit, not subject to the limitations of chemistry.

 

Immaterial? Then it doesn't actually exist and is truly a human concept. Actually, immaterial is one of two things - not consisting of matter, which would make it anti-matter, which in and of itself would have a scientific concept also OR it is of no importance. Since it is not anti-matter either, then that would make it unimportant. Since it is unimportant, then what's the big deal? meh.

 

It would also be incorporeal, which has no intrinsic value. Now here is anti-matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter So, IF what you were saying were true, then it would be a matter for physics, but what you are saying does not fit the laws of physics, so it is of no value.

 

Why do you limit yourself to consider God only in regards to the physical Creation? Are you saying it's impossible for something, even God, to be neither matter nor anti-matter? How can you make a sweeping dogmatic statements?

 

Why would you think God was subject to His Creation - Scripture teaches that God is exalted high above Creation - not subject to its limitations. Would a God subject to physical laws and existence be worthy of our complete love & devotion & worship? Wouldn't He just be another product of evolution? Ergo, no better than oursleves. Didn't someone sing...

 

"What of god were one of us?

Just a clod like one of us

trying to find his way back home..."

 

And why do folks on this site Wikipedia as a source of truth. Wikipedia is a flawed product. I grant there is much good info - but it admits that much is debatable. And I just returned from Albania, where I was informed that the person who wrote the Albania info for Wikipdeia was obvioulsy a severly biased apologist for Albania - with significant embellishment of their history.

 

So again, why refer to Wikipedia as though it were .. dare I say.. "GOSPEL TRUTH!"

[rayskidude]

[quote name='Mriana' date='02 August 2009 - 11:10 AM' timestamp='1249229410' post='47

IMHO, the Xians around here have not looked into these things enough to know much about Xian mythology and from where it evolved. I can make the same case for the Jesus stories too, in relationship to solar mythology, but I don't have many resources to back up my words, except Acharya, and some things Bob discusses, but Bob doesn't go into as much as she does. IF one puts the Jesus story in such a context, it makes a whole lot more sense then the hardcore Xians interpretation. All too many Xians, as well as non-Xians, seem to be close-minded to such an interpretation, esp when it makes more sense.

 

Christians have looked into these matters of mythology - and we have always ackowledged that alternate religions and explanations of human existence have been developed in a variety of cultures. And we have always known that these 'legends' have taken truth and changed/corrupted it to fit their cultural setting.

 

And part of the reason that Scripture was written ewas to preserve the truth about various matters of origins and history and God's interactions with Man. Ergo, the Bible is a polemic against false religion.

 

Such concepts such as Gaia do not make any more sense than sun-worship. After all, the Earth is a lifeless piece of matter apart from the sun.

[rayskidude]

As for your quote on God's immateriality, Ray, here goes.

God + spirit-matter + atoms = does not add up.

However if : God + chemicals + atoms + a skeleton or any other conceivable structure for existence within this particular universe + whatever size as long as it does not violate the laws of this particular universe + The highest limit of memorization and intelligence allowable in this universe + the limits of superpowers + part of all nature = it just might add up or it adds up.

 

Dude, all you've done here is describe Superman from the planet Kryton.

 

Faster than a speeding bullet

More powerful than a locomotive

Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound

"LOOK! Up in the sky - it's a bird.. its a plane"

 

IT'S SUPERMAN!!

 

dut da Da; dadadada; dut da Da dadadada...

 

A great guy - no doubt - always fighting for truth, justice, and the American way - but hardly the God of the universe worthy of worship, adoration, devotion, love, and joyful service.

 

Personally, I have a hunch that we shall NEVER find God even if we tried our damnedest, God to me, is an unprovable or a dangerously imaginary thing

 

I agree that we shall never find God thru reason alone - because God is beyond reason (though not against reason). GOd has stated that He will be found only by those who are humble and contrite in heart. So we can look at the data available and ask, "How did this all get here?" and then think through what would be the most plausible explanation.

 

Is it more plausible that all this diversity, intracacy, complexity, etc simply come about by accident - from some unknown perturbation of the equilibrium in the original infinitely dense particle which then resulted in the Big Bang. ANd then the current physical laws take over to generate the amazing and awe-inspiring universe we see? And then on Planet Earth, after physical interactions somehow 'create' life, then evolution takes over - and through a myriad of accidental mutations and supposed niche' selections - WHOA! we get where we are today.

 

Or it it more plausible that an all-wise and all-powerful God designed and created all this complexity, diversity, etc? And that He continues to direct its history.

[oddbird1963]

Why do you limit yourself to consider God only in regards to the physical Creation? Are you saying it's impossible for something, even God, to be neither matter nor anti-matter? How can you make a sweeping dogmatic statements?

There are some concepts that relate closely to physical, measurable phenomena or systems of phenomena. These could rightly be referred to as "immaterial" or "conceptual" in some way. They "exist" because the physical things that interact to create them exist.

 

But to allow for the realm of a god or heaven or hell or angels as being "immaterial" without some idea of how they can be "immaterial" yet be said to exist amounts to nonsense. That is what talk of god and the heavenly realm is: nonsense. That is, until you explain how these things could be said to exist in terms other than apophatic terms of "NOT material" or "NOT corporeal or "NOT <nnn>."

 

Why would you think God was subject to His Creation - Scripture teaches that God is exalted high above Creation - not subject to its limitations. Would a God subject to physical laws and existence be worthy of our complete love & devotion & worship? Wouldn't He just be another product of evolution? Ergo, no better than ourselves.

 

I think the point is many of us don't think god anything. Scripture teaches concepts that upon rational reflection and empirical study are nonsensical according to a contemporary world view. Just because you can add superlatives to a concept like "power," "presence," or "benevolence" does not mean that such terms are meaningful. Just because you can prepend the word "not" to concepts like "sinful," "flawed," or "limited" does not insure that such beings exist.

 

Upon close investigation, we don't find a god "worthy of our complete love & devotion & worship." We find a conceptual product of communities of believers struggling to make sense of a world into which they have been thrust. In each generation, these people found themselves to be creaturely in their dependence upon and similitude to that world, yet strangely able to stand outside of that world at times and ponder the otherness of it than themselves. Out of those experiences gods, demons, angels and eons were created in an attempt to explain that world and manage to live in it.

 

 

And why do folks on this site Wikipedia as a source of truth. Wikipedia is a flawed product. I grant there is much good info - but it admits that much is debatable. And I just returned from Albania, where I was informed that the person who wrote the Albania info for Wikipdeia was obvioulsy a severly biased apologist for Albania - with significant embellishment of their history.

 

So again, why refer to Wikipedia as though it were .. dare I say.. "GOSPEL TRUTH!"

 

Well Rayski, I guess Wikipedia is a convenient way to get information. While I sympathize with the citizens of Albania who feel in some way slighted, I don't see what that has to do with Antimatter - - unless you count the fact that both "Albania" and "Anitmatter" begin with the letter "A."

 

Actually, you almost answered your own question. There is much good info there AND it admits much is debatable. That is better than a publication that contains much that is debatable but provides no access for readers to contest, contribute and ultimately change it for the better in a somewhat timely manner.

 

I am sure I am like most people here at ex-c. When I turn to Wikipedia, I approach it with the attitude, "a good place to start gathering information, but I will have to research further to be certain of all the facts."

 

I think it is false to say that people accept Wikipedia as gospel truth.

 

Which leads me to a question. When you read the article on Antimatter, what erroneous information did you find?

 

It could be that Mriana knows enough about antimatter to determine the article on Wikipedia contains sound information.

[Mriana]

Rayskidude >> SO God has promised that a new covenant, which includes forgiveness and cleansing from sin - and God's enablement by His Holy Spirit to follow God's laws, will indeed replace the old covenant. And we're now living in New Covenant times.

 

There isn’t anything in these passages about people needing to believe in a human sacrifice to be saved.

The new covenant is when God will reaffirm his law under a new contract. Christianity does not adhere to the promise;

 

Only because the NT, like the OT, is a series of midrashes. You take parts of one story to form a new story. That was all that was being done. And yes, there are things that state people have to believe in a human sacrifice in order to be saved- more on that later, but the new contract included a human sacrifice, a blood one at that, called Jesus Christ.

 

 

Immaterial? Then it doesn't actually exist and is truly a human concept. Actually, immaterial is one of two things - not consisting of matter, which would make it anti-matter, which in and of itself would have a scientific concept also OR it is of no importance. Since it is not anti-matter either, then that would make it unimportant. Since it is unimportant, then what's the big deal? meh.

 

It would also be incorporeal, which has no intrinsic value. Now here is anti-matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter So, IF what you were saying were true, then it would be a matter for physics, but what you are saying does not fit the laws of physics, so it is of no value.

 

Why do you limit yourself to consider God only in regards to the physical Creation? Are you saying it's impossible for something, even God, to be neither matter nor anti-matter? How can you make a sweeping dogmatic statements?

 

It isn't a dogmatic statements and I did not exactly say for a fact and without a doubt that it is what I believe. The Tao has a saying, "Those who say, don't know, and those who don't say, know". You are saying you know, I truly don't know and I really don't believe anyone else knows. Every religion, every mythology created by man is an explanation for the unexplainable, until science comes along and gives us an explanations. People once believed in volcano gods until volcanologist came along, studied volcanos, and gave us a real scientific explanation instead of a superstitious one. I also do not find it limiting, but in fact, unlimiting. I can decide for myself what I do and do not believe and no Inquisition is going to control how I chose to think.

 

Why would you think God was subject to His Creation - Scripture teaches that God is exalted high above Creation - not subject to its limitations. Would a God subject to physical laws and existence be worthy of our complete love & devotion & worship? Wouldn't He just be another product of evolution? Ergo, no better than oursleves. Didn't someone sing...

 

Scripture, scripture, scripture. Yours is not the ONLY human created explanation. There are many other religious texts and they are only pieces of the whole, until science comes along and fills in the pieces that are filled with superstition.

 

So again, why refer to Wikipedia as though it were .. dare I say.. "GOSPEL TRUTH!"

 

Why refer to a book as though it were "GOSPEL TRUTH"? It seems to me, with all the Biblical text you quote, you are the one who is upset with all of this. I have never seen huge amounts of texts quoted from one source, not even in a doctoral thesis, as you have done in this thread.

 

 

IMHO, the Xians around here have not looked into these things enough to know much about Xian mythology and from where it evolved. I can make the same case for the Jesus stories too, in relationship to solar mythology, but I don't have many resources to back up my words, except Acharya, and some things Bob discusses, but Bob doesn't go into as much as she does. IF one puts the Jesus story in such a context, it makes a whole lot more sense then the hardcore Xians interpretation. All too many Xians, as well as non-Xians, seem to be close-minded to such an interpretation, esp when it makes more sense.

 

Christians have looked into these matters of mythology - and we have always ackowledged that alternate religions and explanations of human existence have been developed in a variety of cultures. And we have always known that these 'legends' have taken truth and changed/corrupted it to fit their cultural setting.

 

And part of the reason that Scripture was written ewas to preserve the truth about various matters of origins and history and God's interactions with Man. Ergo, the Bible is a polemic against false religion.

 

Such concepts such as Gaia do not make any more sense than sun-worship. After all, the Earth is a lifeless piece of matter apart from the sun.

 

Um... no Xians have not always acknowledged other sources. In fact, some have dared to say, the other texts are the works of the devil or even the devil got there before God and tried to fool us. That is just and excuse to keep the masses in line and not think for themselves. BTW, even legend is a form of mythology. These other 'legends' as you call them, as a rule, came before Xianity, and did not corrupt anything by way of human thought. What you just stated is just another version of what many Xians say about other religions and is completely naive and such things as Gaia and alike do make more sense and Xianity is just another form of sun-worship. Jesus is the symbol for the sun, just as Samson is. The earth is not as lifeless as you may think. It has seasons and in winter, it appears to be dead and in spring, it appears to have new life. It is perpetually going through cycles of "death and rebirth", right down to humans. Thus the stories and human concepts people have invented over the centuries. I'm sorry, but you fool yourself if you actually believe that your Jesus is not a form of rewritten myth and have bought into a total brainwashing meant to control people- the idea of hell is a prime example of controlling adults as though they were children. People are not children who need to be told what to believe. It truly is time that we grew up and started thinking for ourselves instead of buying into myth.

 

And one last thing, the crucifixion of Jesus on the cross is a blood sacrifice- a human blood sacrifice, which according to Xianity, one must believe in or else. Jesus is a symbol for a sacrificial ram, just like the Passover ram. In astrotheology, he is ushering in the age of Pisces as he ushers out the age of the Ram/Taurus. That fish you adore, is part of Pisces and in the end, it is not an Apocalypse or a return of Christ, but a new age. That is all those stories are referring to, nothing more.

 

Hopefully, I fixed the quotes now so that they read right. I give up if it's still a mess and apologize if you see something twice towards the end, because it's not there in the edit box. That is what I get for trying to multiple quote.

[Antlerman]

Christians have looked into these matters of mythology - and we have always ackowledged that alternate religions and explanations of human existence have been developed in a variety of cultures. And we have always known that these 'legends' have taken truth and changed/corrupted it to fit their cultural setting.

And yet have a difficult time being objective about one's own underlying mythologies..... the old double-standard.

 

Myth studies have come to recognize for some time now that myth functions on a far deeper level in cultures than what you say of other cultures who have "taken truth and changed/corrupted it to fit their cultural setting." In a sense, that's true but on a far deeper level. They are creating truth as they envision it. They are creating an image of themselves to support themselves by, to believe in, to strive towards, etc.

 

It's not a sloppy, careless, accounting of facts. That's a totally misplaced perspective on it. Rather it's a specifically motivated effort to define reality for their societies. Myth plays a powerful and important role in culture. It's not just "quaint stories", or "tall tales", or "fantasy", etc. It's about social formation. This is precisely what Christianity has done as well. It is not something "greater" than myth. Nor is it something "less" than it. Myth is its nature, and its function.

 

And part of the reason that Scripture was written ewas to preserve the truth about various matters of origins and history and God's interactions with Man. Ergo, the Bible is a polemic against false religion.

Yes, you have just described the nature of Origin Myths. These are stories told and written to preserve a peoples understanding of themselves, their history, their significance, their purpose. It's how people talk about their past in symbolic terms. All cultures have this, and the Jews and Christians are no different in this regard. And Origin Myths also are about talking about themselves in contrast to others, ergo, "false religions". How about the myth of democracy? Equality, etc? Don't we contrast ourselves against the 'false systems' too? Like "Communism."

 

In short, Christianity is not wholly unique, by any stretch. Its stories of itself are a work of Origin Myth of the early Christians. It's a mythical story to describe the origins of their beginnings. "In the beginning was the Word... and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory..." That, is an Origin myth. It's a story about Christian origins.

 

Such concepts such as Gaia do not make any more sense than sun-worship. After all, the Earth is a lifeless piece of matter apart from the sun.

Don't mistake the concept of Gaia with Goddess worship. The concept of Gaia is a scientific hypothesis that uses the ancient Greek goddess of the earth as its namesake. But its concepts are not religious in nature. From Wiki, (of course not citing it as anything authoritative but convenient, and in this case no reason to challenge it),

 

"The Gaia hypothesis is an ecological hypothesis proposing that the biosphere and the physical components of the Earth (atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere) are closely integrated to form a complex interacting system that maintains the climatic and biogeochemical conditions on Earth in a preferred homeostasis. Originally proposed by James Lovelock as the earth feedback hypothesis,[1] it was named—at the suggestion of his neighbor William Golding—the Gaia Hypothesis, after the Greek supreme goddess of Earth.[2] The hypothesis is frequently described as viewing the Earth as a single organism. Lovelock and other supporters of the idea now regard it as a scientific theory, not merely a hypothesis, since they believe it has passed predictive tests."

 

BTW, your statement that "Earth is a lifeless piece of matter apart from the sun", is silly. Supremely silly. Earth is a living, breathing, dynamic system that supports organic life. If it were a "lifeless piece of matter" it would be a dead planet.

 

Do you view this planet as dead? Seriously? From where do we gain our sustenance then? Manna dropped from from heaven upon lifeless sand of a desert planet? Or does it grow up from living earth?

 

Again, with your pessimistic view of the world. How can you claim to believe in God if you deny the living its vital essence?

[centauri]

Rayskidude >> SO God has promised that a new covenant, which includes forgiveness and cleansing from sin - and God's enablement by His Holy Spirit to follow God's laws, will indeed replace the old covenant. And we're now living in New Covenant times.

God will infuse his law directly into the people and reaffirm it under a new contract.

That hasn’t happened yet.

There will also be no need to teach people about God for, just as it says, everyone will know God.

That hasn’t happened yet either.

The new covenant as defined by Jer 31 has nothing to do with Jesus or the Christian replacement theology.

Christianity does not follow the law, and instead promotes faith in a human sacrifice as the centerpiece.

 

centauri:

There isn’t anything in these passages about people needing to believe in a human sacrifice to be saved.

The new covenant is when God will reaffirm his law under a new contract. Christianity does not adhere to the promise;

Ezek 36:27

And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules

 

Christianity most certianly does fulfill the promise recorded in Ezekiel.

<SNIP>

Mat 22:35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him.

Mat 22:36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?"

Mat 22:37 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.

Mat 22:38 This is the great and first commandment.

Mat 22:39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Mat 22:40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."

No, it certainly does not.

Christianity promotes faith in a human sacrifice over obedience to the law, which is regarded as outdated and obsolete.

If it fulfilled Ezekiel, Christians would be careful to obey the law, rather than teaching people that it was replaced.

If the first commandment in Matthew 22:37 is important, then all the other laws are as well.

Loving God means keeping his law and following his instructions.

Saying you love God is not a substitute for doing the work of keeping it.

Christianity maintains the law is not binding because it’s no longer in effect.

The dietary law has very little to do with loving your neighbor.

 

centauri:

Exactly opposite to the promise, Christianity is not careful to obey the rules or walk in the statutes of the law.

Paul set those rules aside, claiming they were no longer binding, being replaced by faith in a human sacrifice.

 

What Jesus & Paul taught was that there is no works-righteousness before God - which Judaism had degenerated into.

Gen 15:5 And he brought him outside and said, "Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be."

Gen 15:6 And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

And that view is inconsistent with scripture that maintains keeping the law is righteousness.

It isn’t faith alone, it’s faith and doing the work of obedience, which means keeping the law.

Faith is one piece of being righteous because if you have faith, you keep the law.

Abraham was rewarded not simply because he had faith but because he also obeyed instructions.

Keeping the law is a sign that you have complete faith, not simply lip-service faith.

Ezek 18:9(NIV)

He follows my decrees and faithfully keeps my laws.

That man is righteous; he will surely live, declares the Sovereign LORD.

 

centauri:

Nor does Christianity adhere to the promise in Jer 31, which states that each person would die for their own sin.

There is no vicarious human sacrifice involved with the new covenant as defined by Jer 31.

God will infuse his law directly into the people and reaffirm it under a new contract.

That hasn’t happened yet.

 

People who receive the New Covenant will not experience the Second Death - but all people die because of their own sin. BTW - it is the garce of God that people die - or else we would live forever in this sinful estate. Now we can live a glorified after-life. But note how Jesus provides for the New Covenant;

<SNIP>

Mat 26:27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you,

Mat 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Mat 26:29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."

Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me."

Luk 22:20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

 

I would recommend that you read the Book of Hebrews for further explanation of the New Covenent.

Jer 31 is where the new covenant is defined, not in the Book of Hebrews, which is replacement theology.

There is nothing in Jer 31 that says the law would be replaced by faith in a human sacrifice, nor is there anything that says people would need a humans sacrifice to die for their sins.

In fact, it says the opposite.

Introducing a pagan blood drinking ritual is exactly the type of thing God warned his people not to be seduced by.

 

centauri:

There will also be no need to teach people about God for, just as it says, everyone will know God. That hasn’t happened yet either.

The new covenant as defined by Jer 31 has nothing to do with Jesus or the Christian replacement theology.

 

All of God's people (the Church) do currently know Him - and God's promise that at some point in time all Israel will know God will happen in the future;

<SNIP>

Rom 11:25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

Rom 11:26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";

Rom 11:27 "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins."

Rom 11:28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.

Rom 11:29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

Which church knows him?

They have different versions of him and his rules.

They can’t even agree if water baptism is required for salvation, if woman can preach, if Jesus is God, and they spend millions of dollars undercutting each other, trying to lure converts away from each other.

The Holy Spirit, which Jesus promised would guide believers to all truth, hasn’t done it’s job.

Jer 31 says there will be no need to teach about God when the new covenant is in place.

That function has not stopped in the slightest.

Paul’s denouncement of Jews as the enemies of God is ill-founded but necessary considering he was trying to sell a new theology, where he dismisses the stipulations of the new covenant as given in Jer 31, and teaches the opposite.

Paul also slightly misquotes Isa 59:20, when he says “from Zion” rather than “to Zion”.

[agnosticator]

Rayskidude >> SO God has promised that a new covenant, which includes forgiveness and cleansing from sin - and God's enablement by His Holy Spirit to follow God's laws, will indeed replace the old covenant. And we're now living in New Covenant times.

 

There isn’t anything in these passages about people needing to believe in a human sacrifice to be saved.

The new covenant is when God will reaffirm his law under a new contract. Christianity does not adhere to the promise;

 

Only because the NT, like the OT, is a series of midrashes. You take parts of one story to form a new story. That was all that was being done. And yes, there are things that state people have to believe in a human sacrifice in order to be saved- more on that later, but the new contract included a human sacrifice, a blood one at that, called Jesus Christ.

 

And one last thing, the crucifixion of Jesus on the cross is a blood sacrifice- a human blood sacrifice, which according to Xianity, one must believe in or else.

 

Yes, Mriana. Human sacrifice is what religion has been grounded in from ancient times. Without human sacrifice, there would be no christianity. The new contract is based upon the god-man sacrifice for appeasing an angry god. This makes a new life in a new earth possible. The only thing missing is that volcano!

[Mriana]

Such concepts such as Gaia do not make any more sense than sun-worship. After all, the Earth is a lifeless piece of matter apart from the sun.

Don't mistake the concept of Gaia with Goddess worship. The concept of Gaia is a scientific hypothesis that uses the ancient Greek goddess of the earth as its namesake. But its concepts are not religious in nature. From Wiki, (of course not citing it as anything authoritative but convenient, and in this case no reason to challenge it),

 

"The Gaia hypothesis is an ecological hypothesis proposing that the biosphere and the physical components of the Earth (atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere) are closely integrated to form a complex interacting system that maintains the climatic and biogeochemical conditions on Earth in a preferred homeostasis. Originally proposed by James Lovelock as the earth feedback hypothesis,[1] it was named—at the suggestion of his neighbor William Golding—the Gaia Hypothesis, after the Greek supreme goddess of Earth.[2] The hypothesis is frequently described as viewing the Earth as a single organism. Lovelock and other supporters of the idea now regard it as a scientific theory, not merely a hypothesis, since they believe it has passed predictive tests."

 

BTW, your statement that "Earth is a lifeless piece of matter apart from the sun", is silly. Supremely silly. Earth is a living, breathing, dynamic system that supports organic life. If it were a "lifeless piece of matter" it would be a dead planet.

 

 

Thanks for explaining the idea of Gaia further and adding a link. That was exactly what I was talking about and also confirming the earth is not dead.

[rayskidude]

BTW, your statement that "Earth is a lifeless piece of matter apart from the sun", is silly. Supremely silly. Earth is a living, breathing, dynamic system that supports organic life. If it were a "lifeless piece of matter" it would be a dead planet.

 

Do you view this planet as dead? Seriously? From where do we gain our sustenance then? Manna dropped from from heaven upon lifeless sand of a desert planet? Or does it grow up from living earth?

 

Again, with your pessimistic view of the world. How can you claim to believe in God if you deny the living its vital essence?

 

Please read my statement again >> "Earth is a lifeless piece of matter APART FROM THE SUN."

 

I believe the Earth to be a magnificant creation of fascinating interactive systems, cycles, societies, etc - which reflects to a degree the glory of its Creator.

 

BUT, from a scientific standpoint >> if the Earth were not constantly bathed by the sun's rays, it would be a lifeless piece of matter. Thus, the reason why I state that sun-worship would be preferable over Gaia goddess worship - because sun worship acknowledges truth - that the sun is the source of life on Earth (mechanistically speaking, of course).

[Antlerman]

BTW, your statement that "Earth is a lifeless piece of matter apart from the sun", is silly. Supremely silly. Earth is a living, breathing, dynamic system that supports organic life. If it were a "lifeless piece of matter" it would be a dead planet.

 

Do you view this planet as dead? Seriously? From where do we gain our sustenance then? Manna dropped from from heaven upon lifeless sand of a desert planet? Or does it grow up from living earth?

 

Again, with your pessimistic view of the world. How can you claim to believe in God if you deny the living its vital essence?

 

Please read my statement again >> "Earth is a lifeless piece of matter APART FROM THE SUN."

OK. I would agree with this. At the same token, the sun would be nothing without the clouds of gasses responsible for its formation. Or the forces of gravity as well. Or the particles of energy sewn throughout the universe.

 

I believe the Earth to be a magnificant creation of fascinating interactive systems, cycles, societies, etc - which reflects to a degree the glory of its Creator.

If you wish to call the whole of creation as expressive of a God as a creative agent, that's one way to perceive it. But not necessary in order to understand it. Maybe necessary for another reason.

 

BUT, from a scientific standpoint >> if the Earth were not constantly bathed by the sun's rays, it would be a lifeless piece of matter. Thus, the reason why I state that sun-worship would be preferable over Gaia goddess worship - because sun worship acknowledges truth - that the sun is the source of life on Earth (mechanistically speaking, of course).

Not entirely true, energy does come from the core as well, but life on the surface would really not have a place of survival. Life does exist on this planet where zero sunlight reaches.

 

In a sense I would agree that sun worship makes sense, but I also see that honoring the earth as a "goddess" could have appeal as well (again establishing that the Gaia hypothesis is not a religious belief, but a scientific hypothesis of a dynamic systems theory).

 

Honestly though Ray, how different is it to honor God by looking at creation as a whole, or by looking at the parts as wholes in themselves? If someone 'worships' the earth as a goddess, are they really ignoring the rest, or honoring a part of it - personifying it as a goddess? How different is that then from honoring the whole of the universe and personifying the creative nature of it as "God"? I see no difference.

 

You may try to argue that the creative force is not God himself, whereas the earth or sun worshipers are seeing those objects as the actual deity. But this is a weak argument. I don't think an earth worshiper excludes all other gods, but rather sees them as all manifestations of the whole, in individual ways. And that is no different than the Logos being the manifestation of God in human form. You do worship Jesus as God, don't you? If they are idolaters, then so are you.

 

God's creative force, morality, etc cannot be argued as distinctly different than the ultimate God itself, as mere "expressions" of God. If they were, then God would be subject to them; subject to something greater than himself, or at the least more fundamental. If God is ALL, then creativity IS the nature of God, the essence of God, and not a mere manifestation of God. To embrace those as God, would be to worship God itself. So if the Gaia worshiper embraces earth as god, they are worshiping your God, like it or not.