Karl`s PC Help Forums Last active: Never
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

In memory of Karl Davis, founder of this board, who made his final journey 12th June 2007

Post Reply
Who Can Post? All users can post new topics and all users can reply.
Username   Need to register?
Password:   Forgot password?
Subject: (optional)
Icon: [*]
Formatting Mode:
Normal
Advanced
Help

Insert Bold text Insert Italicised text Insert Underlined text Insert Centered text Insert a Hyperlink Insert E-mail Hyperlink Insert an Image Insert Code Formatted text Insert Quoted text Insert List
Message:
HTML is Off
Smilies are On
BB Code is On
[img] Code is On
:) :( :D ;)
:cool: :o shocked_yellow :P
confused2 smokin: waveysmiley waggyfinger
brshteeth nananana lips_sealed kewl_glasses
Show All Smilies

Disable Smilies?
Use signature?
Turn BBCode off?
Receive email on reply?
The file size of the attachment must be under 200K.
Do not preview if you have attached an image.
Attachment:
    

Topic Review
marymary100

[*] posted on 12-2-2016 at 00:01
According to scholar you were never included in the contract, not being an Israelite and all.
LSemmens

[*] posted on 11-2-2016 at 23:43
Actually the covenant was perfect, we (mankind) chose to break it. In the OT the rules were set out, a good example is Deuteronomy 28. It lists the benefits and the repercussions. Christ came to fulfil the Law and "re-negotiate" the contract. It is we who have chosen to ignore said contract with the appropriate consequences.
marymary100

[*] posted on 11-2-2016 at 07:10
I disagree scholar. If the covenant had been perfect for mankind in general there would have been no need for a "saviour". As you well know some interpret the NT and the OT as literal works to be followed or doomed. Dangerous people.

Christ is either the way the truth and the light (the only path) or he is not. It is in Jews' best interests to believe he is not and in Christians' best interests to believe that he is. They can't both be right.
scholar

[*] posted on 11-2-2016 at 02:22
Marymary, your main points are right and well-said.

There is one error worth noting herein:
Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
And in Hebrews we are reminded that if the original covenant between mankind and God had been perfect there would have been no need for a new set of laws or thinking.

The covenant mentioned in Hebrews was with the Israelites, not mankind. Several details of that covenant are very specific to that group (such as, if the Israelites faithfully lived according to the covenant, they would abide in the land of Canaan).

I don't know anyone who holds that the native peoples of North America, Australia, etc. were obligated to celebrate the Passover, have their males circumcised, etc. from the time of Moses to the time of Christ.
marymary100

[*] posted on 10-2-2016 at 17:27
Quote:
Originally posted by John_Little
What amazes me is when "Christians" like to defer to the old testiment (like new wine in old wine skins) when it suites them, and drift away from the peace and love philosophy back to the "eye for an eye" one.

I think the problem is they shouldn't be part of the same book.


Those who accept the Sermon on the Mount literally need to follow the OT.

Jesus says, “For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” (Matthew 5:18)

We do, of course, no longer follow the "laws" like animal sacrifice or ritualised slaying of animals. Nor do we avoid bacon, shrimp, fabric from mixed threads (hahahaha) etc.

In my interpretation the Sermon on the Mount is a subversive way of getting people to question the rituals and what they meant.

Paul wrote : “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” (Colossians 2:16-17)


And in Hebrews we are reminded that if the original covenant between mankind and God had been perfect there would have been no need for a new set of laws or thinking.

Christians should believe that Christ has "accomplished everything". Therefore Jesus has swept away the old and replaced it with the new. For Christians Jesus's word is "The Word" and the authoritative set of rules to obey in order to be saved.


However, some backward ill-educated people still abide by OT laws. Even the ones that are patently insane.
John_Little

[*] posted on 10-2-2016 at 10:06
What amazes me is when "Christians" like to defer to the old testiment (like new wine in old wine skins) when it suites them, and drift away from the peace and love philosophy back to the "eye for an eye" one.

I think the problem is they shouldn't be part of the same book.
LSemmens

[*] posted on 10-2-2016 at 02:26
"I must also reemphasize that this analysis is superficial and the findings are by no means intended to be conclusive. Ours is a 30,000-ft, cursory view of three texts: the Quran and the Old and New Testaments, respectively."

As he has stated the analysis is only superficial and on the surface, a particular word may well be picked up more times in one text than another. Context also plays a big part in this sort of analysis. I've not spent much time studying the Quran so can only provide a superficial analysis of that text. I do agree that there were many texts in the old testament where a group was wiped out, however, the context usually explains why. Again, to a person for whom the Biblical world view is not their purview, some of the texts do seem unduly harsh. Also the original language each of the texts was written in should be part of the analysis as English, especially, is a very vague language with one word having several meanings, depending upon context. e.g. UP, what's up, it blew up, he's up to it, and so forth.
marymary100

[*] posted on 9-2-2016 at 23:24
Independent



Quote:

An analysis into whether the Quran is more violent than the Bible found killing and destruction occur more frequently in the Christian texts than the Islamic.

Investigating whether the Quran really is more violent than its Judeo-Christian counterparts, software engineer Tom Anderson processed the text of the Holy books to find which contained the most violence.

In a blog post, Mr Anderson explains: "The project was inspired by the ongoing public debate around whether or not terrorism connected with Islamic fundamentalism reflects something inherently and distinctly violent about Islam compared to other major religions."

Using text analytics software he had developed, named Odin Text, he analysed both the New International Version of both the Old and New Testaments as well as an English-language version of the Quran from 1957.

It took just two minutes for his software to read and analyse the three books.

By categorising words into eight emotions - Joy, Anticipation, Anger, Disgust, Sadness, Surprise, Fear/Anxiety and Trust - the analysis found the Bible scored higher for anger and much lower for trust than the Quran.

Further analysis found the Old Testament was more violent than the New Testament, and more than twice as violent as the Quran.


Mr Anderson summarises: "Of the three texts, the content in the Old Testament appears to be the most violent.

"Killing and destruction are referenced slightly more often in the New Testament (2.8%) than in the Quran (2.1%), but the Old Testament clearly leads—more than twice that of the Quran—in mentions of destruction and killing (5.3%)."

However, he adds: "First, I want to make very clear that we have not set out to prove or disprove that Islam is more violent than other religions.

"Moreover, we realize that the Old and New Testaments and the Quran are neither the only literature in Islam, Christianity and Judaism, nor do they constitute the sum of these religions’ teachings and protocols.

"I must also reemphasize that this analysis is superficial and the findings are by no means intended to be conclusive. Ours is a 30,000-ft, cursory view of three texts: the Quran and the Old and New Testaments, respectively."