Noah's ark?

Bizarre?! Only because you don't want to listen to their message- are you saying I should ignore certain bits because the word of God isn't that coherent really? Please point out to me where Jesus says to ignore these parts... oh, wait, he doesn't, he says you should read them and take heed. :rolleyes:

/thread derailment

no, what Lep quoted isn't mataphors at all. that was part of the law given to the jews. to be taken very literaly by them. there are still hardliners who think these laws should be revieved. but that is a concern for the jews. the whole point of jesus was to do away with the need for the laws of the old testament, the 'eye for an eye' concept, and bring in a new era of forgiveness and tolerance. what made things right or wrong in the old testament will still make them right or wrong today, but how we were told to deal with it got changed 2000 years ago. it just seems not to have sunk in yet

Leperous said:
Well, just shows they don't read their bible.

bwahahaha. good point :biggrin:

... well you see, this engineer, he was.. more thwacks

Good point, Fishy.

Well, then it begs the question as to why the rules needed changing? And I don't think Jesus ever once said that the laws of the OT are "old" and not worth paying attention to, quite the opposite in fact.

and then, that stupid engineer tried to... more thwacks

My post was a joke.

I just feel it's incredibly intrusive and mean-spiritedly instigational for someone outside of a group to say to all those inside mostly following a coda (and are better off by ignoring parts of that coda which are antiquated) that they happen to be forgetting certain areas of it. There's a passage in Deuteronomy that explicitly calls for the genocide of one of the other peoples of the Arab region (one which had attacked the Jews following the Exodus when they were at their weakest and which currently exists in no form whatsoever). Would we be better off following it by tracking down their descendants and killing them, as we are "called" to do? No.

Frankly, in this age of detestable religious intolerance, it absolutely baffles me that you're trying to incite MORE.

finally, this engineer, after losing his hat, his glasses, and his... even more thwacks _____________flatlines__________

Leperous said:
Well, then it begs the question as to why the rules needed changing? And I don't think Jesus ever once said that the laws of the OT are "old" and not worth paying attention to, quite the opposite in fact.

the rules needed changing because society had changed. remember, the people that had these laws came from a very different age than ours.

the jews began there existance as a band of escaped slaves. the laws they had/were given were to maximise their chances of survival. in an age without penecillan or std clinics, what kind of damage do you think adultery could do to such a closed community? the idea of worshiping other gods in those times wasn't the same as would be now. other popular religions of the time advocated all sorts of 'unhealthy' practices, which would again be a danger to the jews very existance.

it's impossible to look at these laws and understand them in the context of todays society. they were becoming hard to understand 2000 years ago, as the jews had changed from a small nomadic community, living on a knife edge, to a small nation, that was living in well established towns and cities. the threat to their existance by a couple of poxy tarts was somewhat decreased, and the need to tolerate different peoples/customs was increased with demand for trade.

society had changed, the rules had changed. they never did get changed back, so there's no reason for any present day christian to go and fill a bag with rocks.

In the Old Testament, God is the "god of the Israelites" - they are his chosen people. In the gospels of the New Testament, Jesus explicitly changes this - from then on, the Israelites have no special status; all people have an equal claim on God, and He will treat them purely by their character and not on the basis of their descent.

Unfortunately I don't have a Bible on me so I can't quote it. But look it up - it's there!

Of course, this account does not sit comfortably with certain claims about the nature of God, such as His immutability. In the Bible He is seen to "change His mind" in this way, which is a clever trick for a timeless being to pull off. Oh, but He's omnipotent so I suppose that takes care of the problem :wink:

1000 posts! So anyway, this engineer said to the duck.......

And Cash - a coda is not the same thing as a code. Anybody who followed a coda of ethics would behave quite peculiarly indeed!

Very well. But like Gollum said, it doesn't seem compatible with the claims you make about God's nature. If he has to have a chosen tribe and can't cope with all of mankind, he doesn't seem too infinite or all-loving either?! See, this is one of the main problems I have with Christianity (and all religions), the selective nature of it- what happens to the people he does not and has not ever touched. And I suppose you'd argue too that, unlike the Israelite's laws, these new ones will apply to all of time and never get old? What does the bible say about cloning, genetic engineering, alien life? And you also cherry pick- while you're quick to denounce the 'silly' things I've pointed out, you're just as fast to pull out prophecies or 'positive' teachings from the same books...

Gollum said:
1000 posts! So anyway, this engineer said to the duck.......

"WHAT DO YOU MEAN QUACK!??" the structure of those 1000 posts is solid as a... thwack