nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
Also, in Hebrew, "Shalom" (lit translated "peace") just means "hello"...
Humans don't deal with admissions to Hell - that's the divine look-out.
'Judge not lest you be judged' etc
Jesus was always telling the disciples to calm down...
Um. There was no such thing as hell in the Torah. Jesus made it up.
So he's setting a good example now?
Wait a minute, this is confusing. If he was the Son of God, then he didn't 'make it up' - it's an update.
Yeah after the miracles they'd be afraid and he'd say "peace out, don't be afraid, calm down"...if you believe in that sort of thing.
You've gotta hand it to Jesus, he really knew how to piss off the establishment, and for that I'll always admire him as a literary invention.
See, this is an argument that I never understand, are we just supposed to forgive God for all his sins in the old testament 'cause he makes nice in the new one? He never appears to apologise or repent or do anything to make up for his evil actions as far as I'm aware so why should we?"In any case, the controversial stuff is nearly all Old Testament and that was superseded by the decidedly soft-focus sequel."
See, this is an argument that I never understand, are we just supposed to forgive God for all his sins in the old testament 'cause he makes nice in the new one? He never appears to apologise or repent or do anything to make up for his evil actions as far as I'm aware so why should we?
But I'm not talking about the people, I'm talking about the word of God (in the old testament) - seems as though he was an utter savage then as well. Surely he should be someone who can influence humanity for good, not just a follower who was savage when people were savage and who then mended his ways (a bit) when he realised that people were getting a bit civilised and the murderous old God wouldn't go over too well."people were utter savages back then though. it's not like they were tolerent or civil, minding their own business. All tribes continually invaded and enslaved other tribes, there were human sacrifices, etc."
See, this is an argument that I never understand, are we just supposed to forgive God for all his sins in the old testament 'cause he makes nice in the new one? He never appears to apologise or repent or do anything to make up for his evil actions as far as I'm aware so why should we?
So is the old testament right or not? Seems to me that if it is then my criticism still stands, if it's not then it ought not to appear in bibles printed since the year 0."Well, there is more authority behind the New Testament because it involves the appearance of the divine incarnate, coming down to set the record straight."
Well, I dunno about nice but God is held to be good isn't he? And if his interests are totally opposed then what is the rationale behind worshipping him other than currying favour and desperate self-interest? The moral low-ground in other words - and of course, it could all be pointless as in this case you have no reason to believe his word anyway. You might be tossed in the fire having wasted your life having proselytized for someone who hates you and having had no fun at all."Bear in mind that God needn't necessarily be 'nice.' God may well be wholly antipathetic to our interests."