The Bible

Lee, I'm a little confused...

Are you saying the full OT Law is still in effect? If so, you are gravely mistaken.

Yeah........shes right. When Jesus came and fulfilled the law, a few things changed...

The law did not change. The ceromonial law was fullfilled but the law was not changed. God is the same yesterday today and forever. His law doesnt change. Jesus is not saying the law has changed. If you look at the context he is talking about an INDIVIDUAL turning the other cheek.The Laws in Exodus and Levititicus must have been being used to justify PERSONAL REVENGE. But the Laws in Exodus and Levititicus were talking about punishments for crimes dished out by the civil government. These laws have not changed. If they have changed then where is the model for society?

Your friend General Lee.

PS please tell me if you dont understand.

No, it did not change, but what I and Oppie are trying to say is the Law was fufilled. I know the Ten Comandments are still to be kept, but are you saying that all OT Law is to be kept?

I'm sorry if this seems stupid, but you are very confusing my friend! hehe

~Civ

Yes all of the old Testament laws are still to be kept, EXCEPT the ceromonial laws. The reason we dont need to keep those is because they pointed to Christ but now Christ has come and died. The other laws are in my opinion still in effect....
Please tell me if you dont understand...

Lots of people including my friends call me confusing.
I understand. lol

Your friend General Lee

The thing is is that those laws were the ones they could understand while having the law of Moses. They couldn't understand any other way.

Now, when Jesus came, it was fulfilled, and he added a few things they would have had if they had been rightous while in the Wilderness. They were among the laws that the first set of commandments had when Moses came down but broke them because of the wickedness. The Lord allows us to learn at our own pace, and gives us what we will be able to understand at that time.

DCCCfC aka General Lee wrote:

Yes all of the old Testament laws are still to be kept, EXCEPT the ceromonial laws. The reason we dont need to keep those is because they pointed to Christ but now Christ has come and died. The other laws are in my opinion still in effect....
Please tell me if you dont understand...

Ooook. Now I get what you're saying lol.

DCCCfC aka General Lee wrote:

Lots of people including my friends call me confusing.
I understand. lol

Your friend General Lee

Poor Lee. So misunderstood! lol

Lol thanks for the sympathy... I am SO mistreated! lol jk
I dont mind being called confusing. Thats what I am. lol

Haha. Hey being confusing has some advantages. Glad we cleared that up Lee:D


Civ started it;)

Sorry for the delay in responding...

Ok, I really didn't mean to have everyone jump on me for that one sentence, concerning "an eye for an eye..." and "turn the other cheeck". lol. That really didn't have anything to do with my point anyway. But what I meant in saying that, was that Jesus was obviously showing a more tolerant point of view than was previously provided, in the Old Testament, not that he disagreed with God. In my mind, this only proves that the Bible can adjust to different situations, as opposed to being harsh and absolute. I never meant to say that God and Jesus were contradicting each other. But I did say that the Bible contains some contradictory statements. It's inevitable when you have so many different people writing in such a big book (and as far as I know, God didn't hire an editor ). Of course, much of religion is in your point of view; that's why we have so many different branch-offs of the Christian religion. Just like most Americans can agree that the Constitution is a great document that must be followed, we still have different political parties who interpret it differently. And like so with the Bible.

Oppie, PLEASE stop saying that I am calling God two-minded. That's not nice. It's also falsly labeling my entire argument. And besides that, you sound really simple-minded saying it.

About the kings, in the passage provided by Oppie, God never said that kings in general were bad; what it sounded like to me was that by the PEOPLE asking for and selecting a king, it was obviously not one of God's choice. So, while God didn't speak in (or out of) favor of kings in general, neither did He speak too highly in favor of the Will of the People. Though I can see how the passage relates to the topic, I don't see how it delivers a definite message going either way. But, in my experience, this is the way with much of the Bible.

I think I understand what you were saying now. And I many agree... Except for that while it does SOUND contradictory it is NOT. If it contradicted itself it would be fallible. Besides since the Bible is inspired though it was written in many different styles by different writers it has the same author. God.
Your friend General Lee

General Stuart wrote:

And besides that, you sound really simple-minded saying it.

Thanks Stuart.. you told me I sounded simple minded too

You know Stuart...bleh. Ok, please don’t take this the wrong way...but...YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. He was NOT showing a more tolerant point of view. Lee posted on this already. The view is the same. Because Jesus, The Father, and The Holy Spirit are of the same mind. You need to stop saying that you aren’t calling God double mined. Because you ARE. And just because you've denied it, once again, I will quote you, once again. The Bible is very HARSH and VERY absolute. And if you don’t believe that, then you need to do some reading.

....."I think the best examples of this are the familiar lines: "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," and "turn the other cheek." These obviously give conflicting messages. They also clearly show a difference of mind between God and Jesus.".....

Are you trying to tell me that I don’t know how to read? Because that is the only way I could not see that you are calling God double minded. A difference between the mind of God and Jesus; doesn’t get much clearer then that. Call me simple minded if you want, but I’m not the only one that can see. Might I point out J , that you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven without the heart of a child, which is quite simple. By saying that The Bible contradicts itself you in consequence say that God and Jesus contradict themselves as well, which makes them two-minded, as you put it. You didn’t even have to say what you did to tell me that.

Religion is NOT in a point of view. It is in FULL view, Gods view. Different interpretations are nothing but misinterpretations. Like looking through a pair of glasses. Even a normal pair messes up your depth perception. But then, take the glasses off, and bam, you can see perfectly. The glasses are like the branches of religion you are talking about, that have come up with their own definitions of faith, eternal life, and repentance. And before I go any further, this, THIS, is what true religion is from God’s perspective.

James 1:27
Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world

Pretty simple. Nothing complicated about discerning that. No need for a thousand different religions. But wait, they are already here! That is because people twist, manipulate, and change the scripture to fit their own design. Not because the Bible is this big vast and contradicting book that is extremely hard to understand. I hope this helps you understand that its not your point of view that makes religion true. Nothing in religion is designated by your point of view.

About kings, he did so say that kings in general were bad.
“……but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do….” Samuel goes on to explain what ANY king does. This can be applied to kings in General

Btw way civ, it lookes like we have something in common. Stuart thinks we are both simple minded

Yes your earlier quote does sound like you are calling God double minded.
Btw about kings... Until Saul Israel had been basically a theocracy. (a people directly under Gods authority. They were not in anarchy for they still had judges who judged them thru Gods word. ) By asking for a king like the other nations they were rejecting God's direct rule.

1Sam. 8:6-7 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us.And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

Until Saul they had only to obey God's word, but when Saul came in he made his own unbiblical rules too.
So do I believe it is wrong to be under a king? no
Do I think that it is best to be under a king? no
If we are a people directly under God and dont have a king should we desire one? no

Thats just my take...
Please tell me if I missed something.
Your friend General Lee

The Opposition wrote:

Btw way civ, it lookes like we have something in common. Stuart thinks we are both simple minded

......I'm changing to his view now.... LOL JK!!!!!


You both make very good points. Sorry Stuart, but I'm gonna have to agree with Oppie. You have no idea what you're talking about...

So, Civ, I have a good argument, yet at the same time I have no clue what I'm talking about? Lee, thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt; I NEVER meant to say that God and Jesus showed a difference in opinion, I'm sorry if that's how it came across. Oppie, my whole point was that the Bible expresses a certain amount of leanience, an ability to deal with different situations, without unjustly treating them all the same with absolute indifference to circumstances. I don't see why you suddenly insist on calling the Bible "very HARSH and ABSOLUTE." How can it be read in such a variety of ways, with a resulting variety of interpretations? There are many different forms of the Christian religion; are YOU going to call them all fools, if only because they interpret something in a different way than you would?

Like I said before, I'll be the first to admit that I am no Bible scholar. But I don't form opinions on a hollow foundation void of evidence either. No offense Oppie, but you're a very biased person. I think I'm more than justified in saying this by your earlier statement: "Religion is NOT in a point of view... Different interpretations are nothing but misinterpretations." Um, that's one way of looking at it. Tell me, what is the difference between the Catholic Church, and the common non-denominational Christian church? Please explain this to me; this would explain alot about the way you're thinking here. (Btw, your analogy concerning glasses isn't the greatest: most people who would need glasses in the first place wouldn't see "perfectly" by taking them off lol)

Oppie, one thing I don't have a clue about, is why you persist in debating over one sentence I accidentally wrote in a questionable context. If you would be so good as to continue reading the post in question, I went on to say in the next sentences that I find no fault with the Bible whatsoever, and do not consider the two statements to contradict each other. If you had any questions about the full meaning of my statement, this should have answered them. Clearly you're just looking for an argument here. You're preaching to the chior, Oppie, and it's really unnecessary.

And about the kings, Lee's got the right idea. I hear what you're saying, but I don't see where God describes the "bad" things any king will do over them. Of course, it's a given that a king has the power, and in other words, the ability, to wield power irresponsibly. But this doesn't mean that such misuse of power is inevitable and/or unavoidable.

Gotta go, cya.

General Stuart wrote:

So, Civ, I have a good argument, yet at the same time I have no clue what I'm talking about?

As I told Oppie, you were walking in the mountains and fell off a cliff

So.... I have a good point, but I'm dead?

No.... you were walking in the mountians and everything was ok, then you fell off a cliff

So, you agree with me up to a certain point? Please tell me where you think I'm wrong... And also please remember that I am NOT saying that God is of two minds... Regardless of what Oppie says.

So, you agree with me up to a certain point? Please tell me where you think I'm wrong... And also please remember that I am NOT saying that God is of two minds... Regardless of what Oppie says.

The bad things were discribed in 1Sam. 8:11-13. Btw Im glad that you dont believe like it sounded like you believe! lol
Your friend General Lee

Alright. I don't know if God is speaking against all kings, or just the peoples' foolish choice upon an impulse to select their own king. Does anyone think that this is only because the people would be selecting their own king (or Samuel) and not God? Because, whether or not God warns of the powers a king holds, he doesn't seem too keen on allowing the people to make their own decisions either.

Stuart, the thing about the Bible, there usually isnt two ways for a verse to be taken

Oppie, what language was the first Bible written in? Not English. In the early 1600s, King James the First of England had the first English-speaking Bible created by a select group of scholars and religious authorities. Thus, the King James Bible. Of course, for the creation of this Bible, the original Bible had to be translated. And for those who have studied a foreign language, you'll know that if you translate something directly, it comes out disjointed and making no sense. Similar to Chinese directions. This alone has sparked much debate, as to whether certain contexts were intended or not.

Oppie, why didn't you reply to my last post about the kings? I'd like to hear your take... And you never explained your point of view on the difference between the Catholic Church and the common non-denominational Christian church. Please do so.