Fox News Viewers Threaten American Atheists

[Dodger]

Good try.

But you attracted the opposition to make assumptions, so I must educate.

The bible completely contradicts itself in places. There's NO WAY to get a coherent story out of it without ignoring parts.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.  I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.  Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."  (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19)

The whole verse isn't there lol

Matthew 5:17

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

It is true that Christ did not come to destroy or to abolish the law or the Prophets. Every jot and tittle or last letter of the law is still in effect, but Jesus makes it very clear that what He came to do, is to FULFILL them.

Fulfill: ful.fil', v.i.-fulfilled, fulfilling. [a compound of full and fill; O.E. fullfyllan.]
(1) To accomplish or to carry into effect, as a Prophecy or a Promise; (2) to meet or satisfy the requirements; (3) to bring to a finish or completion; (4) to bring the conditions of a law to realization; (5)to bring to a consummation.
-ful.fil.er, n.--ful.fill.ment, ful.fil.ment, An act of fulfilling; condition of being accomplished.

[Ad Bot]

[Wizzeh]

Good try.

But you attracted the opposition to make assumptions, so I must educate.

(1) To accomplish or to carry into effect, as a Prophecy or a Promise;

That sounds a lot like the law still applying. When you fulfil a law you carry it into effect, you don't void it.

No, you are ignoring parts to try to manipulate people.  What you just said beforehand is completely wrong without adding on to it.

No, I'm right. I can provide a zillion examples of biblical contradictions that make sense even in full context.

[Dodger]

(1) To accomplish or to carry into effect, as a Prophecy or a Promise;

That sounds a lot like the law still applying. When you fulfil a law you carry it into effect, you don't void it.

S: (adj) fulfilled (completed to perfection)

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=fulfilled

Plēroō
In Matthew 5:17, the Greek word translated “fulfill” is plēroō. What does the Bible say this word means?
Can plēroō mean “fill to the full,” that is, to fill something as one would fill a glass of water? Yes. In fact, it often means this in the Bible. But the meaning is always natural and obvious from the context. Thus, the Bible speaks of being filled with wisdom (Luke 2:40), valleys being filled (Luke 3:5), a house being filled with an odor (John 12:3), sorrow filling hearts (John 16:6), and so on. Similarly, we also read of a net being full (Matthew 13:48) and several times of joy being full (John 15:11; 16:24; 1 John 1:4; 2 John 1:12).
There are also some Scriptures where time is fulfilled, obedience is fulfilled, etc., where someone might argue that plēroō could be translated “filled to the full.”
On the other hand, I want to point out that in every case where plēroō is used in connection with the coming about of what was written or spoken in the law, or the prophets, or a prophet, or the Scriptures, or what Jesus had said earlier and so on, the meaning is always clearly “fulfill” as meaning to satisfy what was spoken or written so as to complete it.

http://www.wordofhisgrace.org/jesusfulfilllawqa1.htm

[Wizzeh]

S: (adj) fulfilled (completed to perfection)

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=fulfilled

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law"

THAT MEANS THE LAW IS STILL IN EFFECT. When has fulfilling a law EVER meant voiding it.

[Roknrollwill]

No, I'm right. I can provide a zillion examples of biblical contradictions that make sense even in full context.

You could provide me with the 'zillions' of examples, but the Bible still holds many lessons and teachings.  It doesn't matter to me that you could prove me wrong, I'm still following for what I think is right.

Is it barbaric?  When did you conclude this?  In no way are these teachings barbaric.  You interpret in a negative way, I have never seen a Christian interpret it so it could side with them in their wrongdoings.  God advises them not to (And yes, he actually does, whoever doesn't listen is ignorant).  You want me to translate that part to you? The person is ignorant to listen to morals, therefore continues his wrongdoings.

[TeslaCoil]

You could provide me with the 'zillions' of examples, but the Bible still holds many lessons and teachings.  It doesn't matter to me that you could prove me wrong, I'm still following for what I think is right.

Is it barbaric?  When did you conclude this?  In no way are these teachings barbaric.  You interpret in a negative way, I have never seen a Christian interpret it so it could side with them in their wrongdoings.

Time to learn of the Crusades then. Most of the slaughter had the lords name slandered on it to justify the bloodshed.

[Wizzeh]

You could provide me with the 'zillions' of examples, but the Bible still holds many lessons and teachings.  It doesn't matter to me that you could prove me wrong, I'm still following for what I think is right.

"It doesn't matter that you can prove me wrong, I believe it anyway!"
If you're talking about the fact that there's plenty of good teachings in the bible, that's fine, but you certainly don't need the bible for them.

Is it barbaric?  When did you conclude this?  In no way are these teachings barbaric.  You interpret in a negative way, I have never seen a Christian interpret it so it could side with them in their wrongdoings.

I'm interpreting the bible literally. If you're interpreting the bible then you're not following the bible, you're following what you already think.

[Narkro555]

"Lets kill Jews because they killed Jesus (did they?)! Despite the fact that if he DIDN'T die Christianity wouldn't exist!"

[Dodger]

He did not destroy the law, he reestablished it and fufilled it.

http://www.wordofhisgrace.org/jesusfulfilllawqa1.htm

The law was not destroyed, it was reshaped and set in new standards.

[Stocking]

"Lets kill Jews because they killed Jesus (did they?)! Despite the fact that if he DIDN'T die Christianity wouldn't exist!"

What the hell are you even trying to say?


I'm thoroughly convinced that 95% of the people Dodger's arguing with are just trolls.

[Roknrollwill]

I'm interpreting the bible literally. If you're interpreting the bible then you're not following the bible, you're following what you already think.

I'm following the Bible along with the teachings of my church, my family, and other programs.

"It doesn't matter that you can prove me wrong, I believe it anyway!"

Its not a matter of proving it, you can't prove it.  Of course you could take the whole idea and call it 'mind games'.

[HelplessNobb88]

Lol, except they wouldn't actually do that. Im good if you like religion but if you act like these starfishs you are an idiot.

[Hiiro326]

ITT Atheists and Christians duke it out, Atheists make claims about the bible when none of them have read it and Christians say it makes sense.


GG

[Davy]

What the hell are you even trying to say?


I'm thoroughly convinced that 95% of the people Dodger's arguing with are just trolls.

Wizzeh's pretty damn intelligible.

[ChexGuy331]

what the forget happened to "thou shalt not kill?"