Whether or not you believe it is accurate doesn't seem to distract the idea that the old and new testament flow together. Old testament more of a history lesson following a tribe of people, but you see some prophecy of Christ in the old testament. The new testament a picture of grace and forgiveness.
By the token that they promote an entirely different message shows pretty much that they don't "flow" together. One shows this very same god ordering the stoning to death of people, the next has this apparently same god saying don't. One shows this god refusing to allow the diseased and crippled to come near him, the other shows this god giving them loving hugs etc etc etc.
I don't think anyone can honestly state that the OT and NT "flow".
A side of God that seems to only be fully released to humankind with a blameless sacrifice.(christ)
Let it be said that he was in no way "blameless", indeed he was blamed for many things of which he was guilty under jewish biblical law, (working on the sabbath etc) - rules implemented by god. Now, if we're working under the assumption that jesus is this god in human form, he is still going against his own laws, but considers himself blameless because he is allowed to break his own laws.
In saying, jesus could have come down, been homosexual and bonked every man on the planet and then said "well I'm blameless, I'm god". There's nobody around powerful enough to challenge him, but it doesn't change him from being a hypocrite and
only being blameless because he says so -
not because he actually satisfied his own laws that he demanded of his own people.
Coming down to pretend to be a human is an entirely pointless endeavour if he then changes everything that humans are supposed to be doing merely to please himself. If I did that I would be toast. If I said "fuck that law", I'd be burned for eternity, he says "fuck that law" and of course there's nobody to call him on it. If he were an honest and non-hypcritical god he'd be burning alongside me.
Furthermore, wouldn't it then have seemed more 'genuine' if say noah, (blameless), or job, (blameless) was sacrificed? At least then you'd realise that a human had done so good in his life that he had saved mankind as opposed to a god, that is by default going to be blameless and isn't going to actually ever die and so this whole "sacrifice" is nothing but a magic show for the kiddies?
So if I am not feeling loved, maybe there is another power at work to try to stop God from meeting me relationally and meeting the need of Love. Hope that makes sense.
If you are not feeling loved I would assert that it is a person -> person issue, not a guy in the sky issue.
Thing I see is that people since the very beginning have always sought a higher power...whether a god or gods. Religion has been since the beginning. I feel like it is innate in people to search for God..
Well there has been the odd culture here and there that never specifically had a deity of any kind to worship - but it is quite apparent that an early ignorant people would have beliefs. People since the very beginning have shared beliefs in many bizarre things that don't honestly get given the time of day - along with all the gods they believed in.
It's to be expected from a people that couldn't even diagnose a case of diarrhea.
Even today I'm sure if you walked past a lake that had 'turned to blood' you'd scream supernatural to the highest order. You'd envision gods and demons and mothmen and vampires and ghosts and goblins -
only because you couldn't explain the occurrence. Would an ancient person, (or you), sit down and say: "well, that's got to be pfiesteria. It's a poisonous algae which can turn entire lakes red"? Of course not. So.. devoid of an actual answer, what is the next best substitute?
For me, the one that seems to take the test of time and survive is christianity. The one that seems most adequate to me is christianity.
1) Which version?
2) You must understand that to the mind of a christian it is obvious he would consider christianity the best. This does not answer for muslims, jews etc etc that equally would consider their own religions the best.
Kind of like if you never knew wrong, you wouldn't be able to know right. or vice versa.
I've always argued this on the basis that me not knowing "nice" does not hinder me from knowing that coffee ice cream tastes like shit. I would still cough and spit it out regardless to whether I'd ever had nice ice cream or not.
We could then also discuss "right and wrong" and ask whether there even is such a thing ultimately. According to this god of yours it is wrong to eat shellfish or wear clothing of two different materials. I ask you, is it? Is eating shellfish an "abomination" merely because a guy in the sky says so? Has our own sense of morality not outgrown his?
Are we not ultimately morally superior? god says homosexuality is detestable, modern day man, (generally), accepts that this man can do what he wants with his own penis.
If a man were to go around setting homosexuals on fire he'd be considered evil, hated by many - and yet this is gods most favoured trait. Your god will set fire to these people, instead of evil people claim him loving. I suppose burning people might be a display of love from a godly perspective, but from here on earth it just looks plain mean.
Adam and Eve sinned and God killed an animal to clothe them.
It's debateable. A minute ago you said we can't know right without knowing wrong etc. Adam and Eve didn't know either. How could anyone ever expect them to get it right?
So for all of those years, man had regulations and laws and governing on how they should live in order to have connection with God.
The laws you speak of, those 'weird laws and rules' were not implemented when god went about annihilating every man, woman, child and animal on the planet. If god forgot to implement those laws until a long time after, what justification is there in the wholesale slaughter of all humanity for being bad, (even though they had no laws defining what they could or could not do)?
There was a John and also a John the baptist
Yeah, fair point.
Do you think it means that God has two legs and two arms, a dick and spiked hair?
Isn't that what you're arguing for? (Alright, long hair as opposed to spiked).
Man can't keep every letter of the law and so it was inadequate in drawing man into relationship with God again.
This is worrying though. This god being turns round and says "well, we can't have a relationship because you're not perfect". I would state that such a being would not be worth the attention. From an OT perspective we really are talking 'perfect' - people couldn't even have damaged testicles. Imagine that, refused a relationship because someone kicked you in the bollocks last week.
But then somehow him killing himself means it's now ok to have a relationship with imperfect beings. Why not scrap all that nonsense and say "I accept your faults and human ways, let's be friends"? I guarantee you it would work out a lot better. Instead threats are used.. love me or burn - and while that will create relationships with cowards, it completely skips anyone with a little bit of self respect.
I contend that most humans know more about love and fellowship than this being does.
It was about obedience. Death is a result of sin. By Christ dying, he took on himself the sins of the world which resulted in physical death.
I contend that each and every single one of us dies. In saying it is painfully obvious that sin is still as rampant now as it was before the days of jesus - and thus no, he didn't take the sins of the world upon himself otherwise death would be non-existant.
