Are you saying that our understanding of photons has not changed over time?

Have you ever tried to explain wave-particle duality and the double slit experiment to someone who has no background in physics? It's really tough for someone like that to understand.

Rather, you're proving yourself to be unworthy. If you read the Bible in fundamentalist ways, then you will reach fundamentalist-like conclusions, most of which fairly absurd.

If saying that you've got bad assumptions means you're dumb, then you're dumb. But if saying that you've got bad assumptions means that you should at least reevaluate your assumptions, then you're open-minded. Take your pick.

I'm telling you that the reading of the character of the book lacks depth. If you read it as a flat character, you're going to see contradictions. If you read it as a round character (ie, a character with depth) you're going to see a different picture. I will grant that some might say that the character "changed" over time, but I think that time is what allows more of the original character to be revealed.

Before I make a statement, let me ask you how you define murder.

So if you grant that your options were not sufficient, what other things might you be missing?

I appreciate your attempts at clarity. But more is required.

Aaron,

You think the bible is a collection of mostly parables about a God that exists correct? Why do you even have a problem with there being contradictions?

"Mostly parables"? Probably not. The large majority of the Bible isn't really even in a narrative form.

Both.

This question essentially asks, 'how can I overthrow a government and set up a new one', to give you an idea of the enormity of the task.

However, in a way it's already in place. The judges and possibly members of the BAR (British Accreditation Registry) are aware that the British (Brit means covenant in Hebrew and Welsh) Monarch descends from David, and the Saxons (Isaac-sons) are Israel.

Deut. 4:2 states that the law cannot be added or subtracted from. So, if one were to find themselves in a court in a Saxon country, or one where the lawyers and judges are members of the BAR, if you challenge their jurisdiction properly, you may be able to avoid being prosecuted, if you should find yourself a victim of their fraudulent legislation.

It should also be noted that in Queen Elizabeth's coronation oath, she swore to uphold God's laws, (which she broke), as further evidence of her families origin, and what constitutes proper law in the U.K.

Obviously, getting them to divide the land up into proper estates (numbers 33:54) is going to require massive social upheaval.

Eh, not so much, but kind of I guess. A person is a spirit being - a soul, and the holy spirit is like telepathic access to God. The animal body is merely a vessel that our soul lives in. God uses our body to punish our soul when we go astray and Lucifer uses it to preoccupy us with base behavior, as opposed to learning how to be good so God can let us back in heaven.

Eh, I don't like thinking about pre-destination so much, as it's not very fruitful to do so. Between God's laws and ways being well known, and reincarnation until the last day, everyone appears to have an adequate chance of straightening up.

I think you know what I am asking.

Thanks for contributing all of these things as well as the other ideas presented in your other posts below, both of you.

Maybe im tired, but i dont understand this.

I mean, lets suppose you guys are talking about violence being ok as a means to end violence and violent behaiviour . Violence is still wrong isnt it ?

I'll just ask, how do you see violence as being necessary because of the world we live in ? to end violent behaviour ? ok maybe

and

Why do you think governors need to enforce violence unless it is to end violent behaviour ?

I can see justice being the answer, the violent will be wiped out because of their own violence type of thing.

am i missing something ?

peace

Does this mean that Christians are still under the Mosaic covenant, and should be following those commands? Why or why not?

Yes, but I don't think you realize what you're actually asking.

Dont want to refer to the same writings over and over, but it would appear that "Christians" are under mosaic covenant and then some.

read this - it should give you a clear example of what i mean -> https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5

Edit:but dont forget as festeringZit pointed out, things often get lost in translation, adding to confusion and as I pointed out there are other (at the very least) things that i would have put differently such as the moon not being needed and the word month appearing in the same verse.

Your wording makes things a little tricky. "Christianity" seems to be some kind of Roman cult composed of many different religious traditions, so...they're kind of irrelevant imo.

The British (people of the covenant) and their descendants are still obligated to fulfill their end of the deal, yes. It appears foreigners living in their countries are also obligated to obey the law as well.

Deut 8:11Beware that thou forget not the LORD thy God, in not keeping his commandments, and his judgments, and his statutes, which I command thee this day: 12Lest when thou hast eaten and art full, and hast built goodly houses, and dwelt therein; 13And when thy herds and thy flocks multiply, and thy silver and thy gold is multiplied, and all that thou hast is multiplied; 14Then thine heart be lifted up, and thou forget the LORD thy God, which brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage; 15Who led thee through that great and terrible wilderness, wherein were fiery serpents, and scorpions, and drought, where there was no water; who brought thee forth water out of the rock of flint; 16Who fed thee in the wilderness with manna, which thy fathers knew not, that he might humble thee, and that he might prove thee, to do thee good at thy latter end; 17And thou say in thine heart, My power and the might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth. 18But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day. 19And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish. 20As the nations which the LORD destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because ye would not be obedient unto the voice of the LORD your God.

No, I granted that they may be. The wording is all very clear.

You make some of the same mistakes you critique of others. I'm good though Aaron, I'm getting much more out of interacting w/ Herb. Thanks for all the 'help'.

Your tactics do let you puff your chest out but they don't seem to be rooted in a good motivation tbh.

Your understanding seems close enough in my opinion.

Thanks for the posts Herb, I'm watching a UFC card now but I'll return to the thread in a few hours and read what you've posted.

I really appreciate it, and I'm not saying that because it contrasts with Aaron either. I'm legitimately thankful, I'm not passive-aggressive.

Glad to help.

If you get the question you don't need to fix it, even if my vernacular wasn't correct.

No, because that's a bit of a trap. If I assume you meant something other than what you typed, then sometimes when I answer the question, I'm told I'm dodging the question because I didn't answer the question that was asked.

So I'll answer the question you ask, and if you asked the wrong question, I'll give you the chance to ask the right question.

Yes, and you're on the wrong side of it.

You say you said yes, but now you're saying that you said no. This is nonsense.

The game with "may be" other possibilities versus "are" other possibilities is one of the reasons why it feels like you're playing games and you're not actually engaged in thinking about things yet.

If you take *ANY* piece of literature in which at least at a superficial level a character undergoes change, you can attempt to make your trichotomy:

And it would still be a false trichotomy. This has nothing to do with "God" or religion or anything like that. It's just a fundamentally flawed way of reading and interpreting a text.

I don't really follow you, the question is not tricky. You quoted Deut 8, which deals with the Mosaic covenant, are you implying that a follower of Christ should be following the Mosaic covenant?

You quoted Matthew 5 earlier and I wanted to see where you were going with it. Christ says he did not come to abolish but to fulfill, so should I as a Christian be killing my fellow Christians when they commit certain sins like is commanded in the Torah, or not?

You appear to be claiming that you are concerned with dodging questions, giving the appearance of dodging questions, or being perceived as dodging questions.

You are either joking or lying, but in any case you are certainly aware that anyone can go through this forum and read your many posts and see for themselves that you very rarely fail to dodge questions.

Yes, the followers of Christ (whom followed God), should follow God and his commandments, statutes, and judgements as well. How could it be any other way?

I think you should have asked, 'should I as a follower of Christ, and therefore God, kill my fellow countrymen when they break certain laws as God has commanded?' (since it's questionable if those who commit capital offenses are truly followers of Christ)

From what I see in the law it certainly appears that way doesn't it? I don't see how it can be any other way. Whether filing charges or vigilantism is in order, I'm not sure.

Why did they (humans) leave their home in heaven?

We got booted out and banished to earth.

My understanding of the situation is that 1/3 of the angels decided to follow Lucifer and start a war against God and the other angels. They lost, and instead of instantly executing them, God decided to give them a chance to repent.

This plan involved suiting the evil angels up in animal bodies, which are naturally selfish and base, and provides God a way to punish the spirit beings, as they naturally have no ass to spank, so to speak. There's reincarnation, and many lives to get things right, but at some point it's all going to come to an end - the last day.

Lucifer was the only angel who refused to suit up, and he petitioned God to let him live until the last day so he can tempt the fallen angels to follow him again, thereby ensuring our execution. He hates us and regards us as traitors. God agreed, and so he's an additional obstacle that we must overcome, and thereby prove to God we're legit. Since he didn't submit to human limitations, he still has all his powers.

Seems very childish. Do you believe this story?

Also why did we humans get booted out of our home? You mention Lucifer but I have nothing to do with Lucifer.
Also when you say animal bodies, what do you mean exactly?

Is that a problem for you, Super Mario?

It makes sense to me

Human animal bodies.

The obvious answer is that you need to examine the verse in relation to it's pericope, not as a single thought. Christ came to fulfill, not to abolish - how do understand this? We don't simply assume that this means that the Old Covenant is as it always was, if that was true, then the entire New Testament (called New Covenant) becomes superfluous at best.

Sacrificial sin offerings, for instance, were part of the Old Covenant. Lambs were sacrificed as sin offerings. When Christ came and became a sin offering (aptly named the Lamb of God) it became unnecessary to offer such sacrifices. So here we see that the Law is still upheld, it was not abolished, Christ himself became the offering. Note that our actions change, but the law has not; God still requires a sacrifice, and it has been met.

If you can concede that our actions in relation to the New Covenant may have been altered by Christ's fulfillment, then it's worth to investigate what the New Covenant represents. The only way to successfully do this is by reading the Epistles of Paul. If you do not accept them, then you are going to be left with some significant contradictions, and it will be difficult to reconcile the words of Christ with his actions, and how the early Church understood the teachings of Christ.