Did the god of the bible kill people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liars like 17:15 are why we can never have good conversations on DCUM.

I am going by the words written, and I am the liar? While you are making things up out of whole cloth that aren't in the book?

That's rich.

As I said before, I am feeling pretty good about the objective value of my position, and will let it stand as is.

You may now resume shameless name calling and other ad hominems, as they clearly make you feel better and don't bother me at all, so why not? Indulge.

Says the troll who chooses negative meanings that fit her bigoted narrative and denies any word could possibly have other, more common meanings. Indulge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liars like 17:15 are why we can never have good conversations on DCUM.

I am going by the words written, and I am the liar? While you are making things up out of whole cloth that aren't in the book?

That's rich.

As I said before, I am feeling pretty good about the objective value of my position, and will let it stand as is.

You may now resume shameless name calling and other ad hominems, as they clearly make you feel better and don't bother me at all, so why not? Indulge.

Says the troll who chooses negative meanings that fit her bigoted narrative and denies any word could possibly have other, more common meanings. Indulge.

I didn't choose anything. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims. Glad you took me up on my offer though. Have a great evening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liars like 17:15 are why we can never have good conversations on DCUM.

I am going by the words written, and I am the liar? While you are making things up out of whole cloth that aren't in the book?

That's rich.

As I said before, I am feeling pretty good about the objective value of my position, and will let it stand as is.

You may now resume shameless name calling and other ad hominems, as they clearly make you feel better and don't bother me at all, so why not? Indulge.

Says the troll who chooses negative meanings that fit her bigoted narrative and denies any word could possibly have other, more common meanings. Indulge.

I didn't choose anything. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims. Glad you took me up on my offer though. Have a great evening.

You claimed to know the so-called exclusive meanings of the widely-understood words “fulfill” and “new” and denied these could possibly have other, more common meanings. I mean, how silly and transparently bigoted could you be? Have a good evening, perhaps enhanced by a drink to get yourself out of your lexicographical and mental boxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liars like 17:15 are why we can never have good conversations on DCUM.

I am going by the words written, and I am the liar? While you are making things up out of whole cloth that aren't in the book?

That's rich.

As I said before, I am feeling pretty good about the objective value of my position, and will let it stand as is.

You may now resume shameless name calling and other ad hominems, as they clearly make you feel better and don't bother me at all, so why not? Indulge.

Says the troll who chooses negative meanings that fit her bigoted narrative and denies any word could possibly have other, more common meanings. Indulge.

I didn't choose anything. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims. Glad you took me up on my offer though. Have a great evening.

Classic hair flip. “I know I’m wrong about defining a basic word like ‘new’ so I’ll just insult the other poster, declare victory, and flounce off.” Classic! Thanks for the laugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liars like 17:15 are why we can never have good conversations on DCUM.

I am going by the words written, and I am the liar? While you are making things up out of whole cloth that aren't in the book?

That's rich.

As I said before, I am feeling pretty good about the objective value of my position, and will let it stand as is.

You may now resume shameless name calling and other ad hominems, as they clearly make you feel better and don't bother me at all, so why not? Indulge.

Says the troll who chooses negative meanings that fit her bigoted narrative and denies any word could possibly have other, more common meanings. Indulge.

I didn't choose anything. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims. Glad you took me up on my offer though. Have a great evening.

Classic hair flip. “I know I’m wrong about defining a basic word like ‘new’ so I’ll just insult the other poster, declare victory, and flounce off.” Classic! Thanks for the laugh.

I didn't insult anyone. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liars like 17:15 are why we can never have good conversations on DCUM.

I am going by the words written, and I am the liar? While you are making things up out of whole cloth that aren't in the book?

That's rich.

As I said before, I am feeling pretty good about the objective value of my position, and will let it stand as is.

You may now resume shameless name calling and other ad hominems, as they clearly make you feel better and don't bother me at all, so why not? Indulge.

Says the troll who chooses negative meanings that fit her bigoted narrative and denies any word could possibly have other, more common meanings. Indulge.

I didn't choose anything. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims. Glad you took me up on my offer though. Have a great evening.

Classic hair flip. “I know I’m wrong about defining a basic word like ‘new’ so I’ll just insult the other poster, declare victory, and flounce off.” Classic! Thanks for the laugh.

I didn't insult anyone. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims.

LOL. Only because you’re sticking to your guns about “fulfill” meaning “Amazon fulfillment” instead of the other widely-used meanings of “completion” and “realization.” And the word “new” meaning, as you put it “throwing out the entire OT” instead of a more reasonable newer version that has some modifications.

You look silly. I’m repeating your definitions here so everybody on this new thread page can see how ridiculous you are. Tell us, how did you do on the SATs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious to know how Bible literalists and Jews reconcile with the slaughter of the Canaanites, the Amorites, those teenagers, and others who displeased God.

Some Christians just focus on the “new” covenant established by Jesus with the “God of Love.”

For the rest of you, is God a severe taskmaster and that’s OK?

So Christians believe that God had a personality change? One of the few things Saint Boethius, Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas agreed upon is that nothing about God ever changes. One of the many joys of atheism is not having to reconcile this.

That’s what Jesus’ new covenant was all about—a new relationship between God and man. The various saints/theologians wouldn’t deny this.

Signed, I read Augustine’s Confessions cover to cover, and other parts of his work, have you?

Indeed I have read Augustine’s Confessions while studying Latin in high school and Latin theology in college. Augustine’s description of how he went from paganism to Manichaeism to Christianity is fascinating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liars like 17:15 are why we can never have good conversations on DCUM.

I am going by the words written, and I am the liar? While you are making things up out of whole cloth that aren't in the book?

That's rich.

As I said before, I am feeling pretty good about the objective value of my position, and will let it stand as is.

You may now resume shameless name calling and other ad hominems, as they clearly make you feel better and don't bother me at all, so why not? Indulge.

Says the troll who chooses negative meanings that fit her bigoted narrative and denies any word could possibly have other, more common meanings. Indulge.

I didn't choose anything. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims. Glad you took me up on my offer though. Have a great evening.

Classic hair flip. “I know I’m wrong about defining a basic word like ‘new’ so I’ll just insult the other poster, declare victory, and flounce off.” Classic! Thanks for the laugh.

I didn't insult anyone. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims.

LOL. Only because you’re sticking to your guns about “fulfill” meaning “Amazon fulfillment” instead of the other widely-used meanings of “completion” and “realization.” And the word “new” meaning, as you put it “throwing out the entire OT” instead of a more reasonable newer version that has some modifications.

You look silly. I’m repeating your definitions here so everybody on this new thread page can see how ridiculous you are. Tell us, how did you do on the SATs?

We agree on one thing. I also encourage everyone to read the entire exchange.

Have a great evening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liars like 17:15 are why we can never have good conversations on DCUM.

I am going by the words written, and I am the liar? While you are making things up out of whole cloth that aren't in the book?

That's rich.

As I said before, I am feeling pretty good about the objective value of my position, and will let it stand as is.

You may now resume shameless name calling and other ad hominems, as they clearly make you feel better and don't bother me at all, so why not? Indulge.

Says the troll who chooses negative meanings that fit her bigoted narrative and denies any word could possibly have other, more common meanings. Indulge.

I didn't choose anything. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims. Glad you took me up on my offer though. Have a great evening.

Classic hair flip. “I know I’m wrong about defining a basic word like ‘new’ so I’ll just insult the other poster, declare victory, and flounce off.” Classic! Thanks for the laugh.

I didn't insult anyone. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims.

LOL. Only because you’re sticking to your guns about “fulfill” meaning “Amazon fulfillment” instead of the other widely-used meanings of “completion” and “realization.” And the word “new” meaning, as you put it “throwing out the entire OT” instead of a more reasonable newer version that has some modifications.

You look silly. I’m repeating your definitions here so everybody on this new thread page can see how ridiculous you are. Tell us, how did you do on the SATs?

All righty then.

Reasonable people can conclude that when Jesus said in Matthew 5:17, “Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them,” he wasn’t tossing his new teachings on diet and food restrictions out the window in order to return to pure OT law. That wouldn’t make sense anyway—why would these have been included in the gospels if Jesus later threw them out. Jesus was was using “fulfill” to mean “perfect” or “complete.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liars like 17:15 are why we can never have good conversations on DCUM.

I am going by the words written, and I am the liar? While you are making things up out of whole cloth that aren't in the book?

That's rich.

As I said before, I am feeling pretty good about the objective value of my position, and will let it stand as is.

You may now resume shameless name calling and other ad hominems, as they clearly make you feel better and don't bother me at all, so why not? Indulge.

Says the troll who chooses negative meanings that fit her bigoted narrative and denies any word could possibly have other, more common meanings. Indulge.

I didn't choose anything. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims. Glad you took me up on my offer though. Have a great evening.

Classic hair flip. “I know I’m wrong about defining a basic word like ‘new’ so I’ll just insult the other poster, declare victory, and flounce off.” Classic! Thanks for the laugh.

I didn't insult anyone. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims.

LOL. Only because you’re sticking to your guns about “fulfill” meaning “Amazon fulfillment” instead of the other widely-used meanings of “completion” and “realization.” And the word “new” meaning, as you put it “throwing out the entire OT” instead of a more reasonable newer version that has some modifications.

You look silly. I’m repeating your definitions here so everybody on this new thread page can see how ridiculous you are. Tell us, how did you do on the SATs?

All righty then.

Reasonable people can conclude that when Jesus said in Matthew 5:17, “Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them,” he wasn’t tossing his new teachings on diet and food restrictions out the window in order to return to pure OT law. That wouldn’t make sense anyway—why would these have been included in the gospels if Jesus later threw them out. Jesus was was using “fulfill” to mean “perfect” or “complete.”

Jesus never changed the dietary laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liars like 17:15 are why we can never have good conversations on DCUM.

I am going by the words written, and I am the liar? While you are making things up out of whole cloth that aren't in the book?

That's rich.

As I said before, I am feeling pretty good about the objective value of my position, and will let it stand as is.

You may now resume shameless name calling and other ad hominems, as they clearly make you feel better and don't bother me at all, so why not? Indulge.

Says the troll who chooses negative meanings that fit her bigoted narrative and denies any word could possibly have other, more common meanings. Indulge.

I didn't choose anything. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims. Glad you took me up on my offer though. Have a great evening.

Classic hair flip. “I know I’m wrong about defining a basic word like ‘new’ so I’ll just insult the other poster, declare victory, and flounce off.” Classic! Thanks for the laugh.

I didn't insult anyone. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims.

LOL. Only because you’re sticking to your guns about “fulfill” meaning “Amazon fulfillment” instead of the other widely-used meanings of “completion” and “realization.” And the word “new” meaning, as you put it “throwing out the entire OT” instead of a more reasonable newer version that has some modifications.

You look silly. I’m repeating your definitions here so everybody on this new thread page can see how ridiculous you are. Tell us, how did you do on the SATs?

All righty then.

Reasonable people can conclude that when Jesus said in Matthew 5:17, “Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them,” he wasn’t tossing his new teachings on diet and food restrictions out the window in order to return to pure OT law. That wouldn’t make sense anyway—why would these have been included in the gospels if Jesus later threw them out. Jesus was was using “fulfill” to mean “perfect” or “complete.”

Jesus never changed the dietary laws.

Christians don’t keep kosher.

Matthew 15 v. 17. Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body?
18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man `unclean.'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liars like 17:15 are why we can never have good conversations on DCUM.

I am going by the words written, and I am the liar? While you are making things up out of whole cloth that aren't in the book?

That's rich.

As I said before, I am feeling pretty good about the objective value of my position, and will let it stand as is.

You may now resume shameless name calling and other ad hominems, as they clearly make you feel better and don't bother me at all, so why not? Indulge.

Says the troll who chooses negative meanings that fit her bigoted narrative and denies any word could possibly have other, more common meanings. Indulge.

I didn't choose anything. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims. Glad you took me up on my offer though. Have a great evening.

Classic hair flip. “I know I’m wrong about defining a basic word like ‘new’ so I’ll just insult the other poster, declare victory, and flounce off.” Classic! Thanks for the laugh.

I didn't insult anyone. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims.

LOL. Only because you’re sticking to your guns about “fulfill” meaning “Amazon fulfillment” instead of the other widely-used meanings of “completion” and “realization.” And the word “new” meaning, as you put it “throwing out the entire OT” instead of a more reasonable newer version that has some modifications.

You look silly. I’m repeating your definitions here so everybody on this new thread page can see how ridiculous you are. Tell us, how did you do on the SATs?

All righty then.

Reasonable people can conclude that when Jesus said in Matthew 5:17, “Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them,” he wasn’t tossing his new teachings on diet and food restrictions out the window in order to return to pure OT law. That wouldn’t make sense anyway—why would these have been included in the gospels if Jesus later threw them out. Jesus was was using “fulfill” to mean “perfect” or “complete.”

Jesus never changed the dietary laws.

Goalposts moved

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liars like 17:15 are why we can never have good conversations on DCUM.

I am going by the words written, and I am the liar? While you are making things up out of whole cloth that aren't in the book?

That's rich.

As I said before, I am feeling pretty good about the objective value of my position, and will let it stand as is.

You may now resume shameless name calling and other ad hominems, as they clearly make you feel better and don't bother me at all, so why not? Indulge.

Says the troll who chooses negative meanings that fit her bigoted narrative and denies any word could possibly have other, more common meanings. Indulge.

I didn't choose anything. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims. Glad you took me up on my offer though. Have a great evening.

Classic hair flip. “I know I’m wrong about defining a basic word like ‘new’ so I’ll just insult the other poster, declare victory, and flounce off.” Classic! Thanks for the laugh.

I didn't insult anyone. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims.

LOL. Only because you’re sticking to your guns about “fulfill” meaning “Amazon fulfillment” instead of the other widely-used meanings of “completion” and “realization.” And the word “new” meaning, as you put it “throwing out the entire OT” instead of a more reasonable newer version that has some modifications.

You look silly. I’m repeating your definitions here so everybody on this new thread page can see how ridiculous you are. Tell us, how did you do on the SATs?

All righty then.

Reasonable people can conclude that when Jesus said in Matthew 5:17, “Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them,” he wasn’t tossing his new teachings on diet and food restrictions out the window in order to return to pure OT law. That wouldn’t make sense anyway—why would these have been included in the gospels if Jesus later threw them out. Jesus was was using “fulfill” to mean “perfect” or “complete.”

Jesus never changed the dietary laws.

Christians don’t keep kosher.

Matthew 15 v. 17. Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body?
18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man `unclean.'

But that was due to Paul wasn't it? He was the one who argued that someone (and he meant the Gentiles) didn't have to be circumcised or follow the Jewish dietary laws to be saved. They only had to believe in Jesus. There was much opposition to this initially among the surviving apostles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liars like 17:15 are why we can never have good conversations on DCUM.

I am going by the words written, and I am the liar? While you are making things up out of whole cloth that aren't in the book?

That's rich.

As I said before, I am feeling pretty good about the objective value of my position, and will let it stand as is.

You may now resume shameless name calling and other ad hominems, as they clearly make you feel better and don't bother me at all, so why not? Indulge.

Says the troll who chooses negative meanings that fit her bigoted narrative and denies any word could possibly have other, more common meanings. Indulge.

I didn't choose anything. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims. Glad you took me up on my offer though. Have a great evening.

Classic hair flip. “I know I’m wrong about defining a basic word like ‘new’ so I’ll just insult the other poster, declare victory, and flounce off.” Classic! Thanks for the laugh.

I didn't insult anyone. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims.

LOL. Only because you’re sticking to your guns about “fulfill” meaning “Amazon fulfillment” instead of the other widely-used meanings of “completion” and “realization.” And the word “new” meaning, as you put it “throwing out the entire OT” instead of a more reasonable newer version that has some modifications.

You look silly. I’m repeating your definitions here so everybody on this new thread page can see how ridiculous you are. Tell us, how did you do on the SATs?

All righty then.

Reasonable people can conclude that when Jesus said in Matthew 5:17, “Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them,” he wasn’t tossing his new teachings on diet and food restrictions out the window in order to return to pure OT law. That wouldn’t make sense anyway—why would these have been included in the gospels if Jesus later threw them out. Jesus was was using “fulfill” to mean “perfect” or “complete.”

Jesus never changed the dietary laws.

Christians don’t keep kosher.

Matthew 15 v. 17. Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body?
18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man `unclean.'

But that was due to Paul wasn't it? He was the one who argued that someone (and he meant the Gentiles) didn't have to be circumcised or follow the Jewish dietary laws to be saved. They only had to believe in Jesus. There was much opposition to this initially among the surviving apostles.

Whoever wrote Matthew’s gospel, there’s no evidence it was Paul.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liars like 17:15 are why we can never have good conversations on DCUM.

I am going by the words written, and I am the liar? While you are making things up out of whole cloth that aren't in the book?

That's rich.

As I said before, I am feeling pretty good about the objective value of my position, and will let it stand as is.

You may now resume shameless name calling and other ad hominems, as they clearly make you feel better and don't bother me at all, so why not? Indulge.

Says the troll who chooses negative meanings that fit her bigoted narrative and denies any word could possibly have other, more common meanings. Indulge.

I didn't choose anything. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims. Glad you took me up on my offer though. Have a great evening.

Classic hair flip. “I know I’m wrong about defining a basic word like ‘new’ so I’ll just insult the other poster, declare victory, and flounce off.” Classic! Thanks for the laugh.

I didn't insult anyone. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims.

LOL. Only because you’re sticking to your guns about “fulfill” meaning “Amazon fulfillment” instead of the other widely-used meanings of “completion” and “realization.” And the word “new” meaning, as you put it “throwing out the entire OT” instead of a more reasonable newer version that has some modifications.

You look silly. I’m repeating your definitions here so everybody on this new thread page can see how ridiculous you are. Tell us, how did you do on the SATs?

All righty then.

Reasonable people can conclude that when Jesus said in Matthew 5:17, “Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them,” he wasn’t tossing his new teachings on diet and food restrictions out the window in order to return to pure OT law. That wouldn’t make sense anyway—why would these have been included in the gospels if Jesus later threw them out. Jesus was was using “fulfill” to mean “perfect” or “complete.”

Jesus never changed the dietary laws.

Christians don’t keep kosher.

Matthew 15 v. 17. Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body?
18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man `unclean.'

But that was due to Paul wasn't it? He was the one who argued that someone (and he meant the Gentiles) didn't have to be circumcised or follow the Jewish dietary laws to be saved. They only had to believe in Jesus. There was much opposition to this initially among the surviving apostles.

Whoever wrote Matthew’s gospel, there’s no evidence it was Paul.

? well that's true. But what does it have to do with "Christians don't keep kosher."? That was die to Paul.