Post by captainbryce on Dec 20, 2018 13:59:08 GMT
Dec 20, 2018 4:28:10 GMT goz said:
..before committing to the Bible and certain positions, they should have got in a huddle and sorted all this logical shit out first!
Proverbs 21:3
To do what is right and just
is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice. (kind of destroys the entire narrative of Christianity.)
James 2:13
because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment. (Contradicts Proverbs 21:3, and shows that Jesus's sacrifice is more important than justice)
the Christians should have got in a huddle and sorted the logical shit out first before writing the Bible and creating a religion around it!
In fairness, Christians didn't write "Proverbs" (or anything in the Old Testament for that matter). So the fact that the Old Testament contradicts the New Testament isn't necessarily a problem for Christian theology (at least not in all cases). The major problem they have is the changing nature of God. Both testaments agree that God does not change. And yet, in the Old Testament, justice triumphs over mercy, while in the NT mercy triumphs over justice. What happened, and why? Man didn't change! Which means God must have! And this is clearly demonstrable just by looking at his behavior and how and when he choose to act to address mankind. It can also be demonstrated in how the weight and morality of his commandments completely change from one testament to the other. The issue I have with Christians is when they try to have it both ways! The NT is allegedly based on prophecies of the OT being fulfilled, so it is absolutely essential to the foundation of Christianity in terms of history and in demonstrating the nature of the God that they worship. Unfortunately, Christianity completely "changes" the nature of God entirely in the NT from immoral, unmerciful, and just according to his own definition of justice - to immoral, merciful, and unjust according to all rules of logic.
What they need to have a huddle about is in how to reconcile the fact that God cannot be a just god and a merciful god at the same time. And that's an area where they either don't agree, or they can't agree on how best to present a case to the contrary. And to me, this demonstrates the futility of any argument to the contrary. If there was a valid one, most of them would be in agreement!

