Split Thread Signs of the End Times

[abaddon]

I asked—do you know what it means to take the Name of God in vain?

No. Does it mean that we all know that god is an idiot but refuses to acknowledge it? Or that you vainly seek excuses for his crappy behaviour?

 

[Meadmaker]

The New Testament does not allow polygamy—a man can commit adultery, I never said he could not.
The rapist must be put to death in order to exonerate the victim.

The teachings of Jesus clearly demonstrates that a man can only have one wife.
Luke 16:18 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the manwho marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
How come you do not take note of what I post?????

I think there are probably passages in the NT that say a man can have only one wife, but this isn't one of them.

This passage says that a man cannot divorce his wife and marry another. A polygamist would not divorce any of his multiple wives.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Well it seems you want to make your own rules that are contrary to what the Creator decreed.

See this is where I disagree.
I do not believe your creator god exists and I firmly believe I am morally superior to the being you claim to represent.

However IF an all powerful creator exists then by definition I would not be able to go against its wishes and therefore I am doing nothing wrong.

 

[Foster Zygote]

There is something bigger planned—something far, far bigger, than withering some grass.

You can't even manage that, so we won't hold our collective breath.

 

[Paul Bethke]

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. Deuteronomy 24:1-2

So - becoming another man's wife is permissible?
And, presumably the original husband can remarry, if he's allowed to divorce his wife.
Nothing about adultery...

But now Jesus re-establishes what the Creator intended from the beginning---Mat 19:4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'
Mat 19:5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?
Mat 19:6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Mat 19:7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
Mat 19:8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
Mat 19:9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."


Then we see that it is further stated---

Luke 16:18 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

So yes divorce is permitted—but not remarriage.

 

[Paul Bethke]

[/HILITE]


Because there is no god and it's just you and your issues with women talking.

There is a Creator, and you do not like his laws---I have a calling to re-establish the marriage covenant as the Creator decreed—it is not only women, but men also, because men play the biggest role in the offence.

 

[halleyscomet]

-I have a calling to re-establish the marriage covenant as the Creator decreed

And yet you spend your time here, casting the seeds upon the path and among thorns.

Why?

Why waste your time in a place where according to Jesus himself, the seed you spread is wasted? If you actually believed what you say, shouldn't you be engaged in a more productive ministry?

Why are you here, where your "calling" is guaranteed to be thwarted. Should we be calling you "Jonah" instead of "Paul" as you, like Jonah, seem to be fleeing your calling instead of obeying it?

Is this forum your "belly of the whale?" Are you here to hide from your alleged commission?

 

[Paul Bethke]

And I answered that I know what it means. I explained what it means. There was a tangential discussion among other posters about it.

Did you somehow think that asking me what it means constitutes an answer about your own conduct?

Since you seem confused about what the phrase means and you're already a known liar who invokes your preferred deity at the drop of a hat, I think it highly likely that you do take the Lord's name in vain, even if you do it incidentally instead of intentionally. I could probably find a few examples of you doing so in this thread.

I'll put you down as "Does Not Follow" unless you say otherwise.

Next up:
31Ex. 20:9 — To sanctify the day with Kiddush and Havdalah — Yemenite->Ex. 20:8

Kiddush is the prayer said over the wine at a Sabbath meal.

Havdalah is the prayer to mark the end of the Sabbath.

Since you've already given an absurdly self-serving, classist excuse for why you don't observe the Sabbath I'll put you down as "Does Not Follow" for that one too.

The next one is also a given because you don't observe the Sabbath.

32Ex. 20:11 — Not to do prohibited labor on the seventh day — Yemenite->Ex. 20:10

This gets us to:

33Ex. 20:13 — Not to murder — Yemenite->Ex. 20:12

Have you ever killed anyone?

This is a tough one, as you've make your genocidal intentions towards black South Africans clear. I doubt you'd see personally carrying out any of those abominable intentions as "murder." Again, mods, this is not an attack or an insult, but qualifications on a question based upon "Paul's" previous posts.

Well maybe I missed your explanation of what it means to take the Name of God in vain---I am no liar, there is no need for me to lie, I do not owe anybody anything, and I am not afraid that I need to lie.
To take the Name of God in vain is to disregard his commands—his Name and his Word are an integral part of his character.----( Psa_138:2 I will bow down toward your holy temple and will praise your Name for your love and your faithfulness, for you have exalted above all things your Name and your Word.

You do not know what I do, so you cannot assume anything—I keep the commands, pertaining to what Jesus established.—Another thing is I am not a Jew living in Israel, if I were to go to Israel, I would observe the laws of the land.

Most of the time you talk a lot of hyperbole---my genocidal intentions towards blacks. (“Genocide,” a term used to describe violence against members of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group with the intent to destroy the entire group)

You seem intent on taking things out of context---My intentions is to show people what God is going to do to those who refuse to repent, it is not just blacks but whites also.

 

[Paul Bethke]

And yet you spend your time here, casting the seeds upon the path and among thorns.

Why?

Why waste your time in a place where according to Jesus himself, the seed you spread is wasted? If you actually believed what you say, shouldn't you be engaged in a more productive ministry?

Why are you here, where your "calling" is guaranteed to be thwarted. Should we be calling you "Jonah" instead of "Paul" as you, like Jonah, seem to be fleeing your calling instead of obeying it?

Is this forum your "belly of the whale?" Are you here to hide from your alleged commission?

Why not atheist must also here the message, so as to avert going to hell, surely this is a noble task to come onto the Forum and proclaim the Word of the Creator?

 

[Border Reiver]

But now Jesus re-establishes what the Creator intended from the beginning---Mat 19:4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'
Mat 19:5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?
Mat 19:6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Mat 19:7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
Mat 19:8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
Mat 19:9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."


Then we see that it is further stated---

Luke 16:18 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

So yes divorce is permitted—but not remarriage.

In other words, Deutoronomy is not the inerrant word of Yahweh, but Luke and Matthew are. Wouldn't that involve interpretation on your part? Something you claim to never have to do?

Or are you doing what most Christians do and have done since James and Paul split - pick and choose which of the doctrines contained in the Bible to follow, citing those passages that support your preferred view and ignoring any contrary views?

 

[halleyscomet]

But now Jesus re-establishes what the Creator intended from the beginning---
Mat 19:4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'

Mat 19:5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?

Mat 19:6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Mat 19:7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

Mat 19:8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

Mat 19:9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."





Then we see that it is further stated---



Luke 16:18 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.



So yes divorce is permitted—but not remarriage.

Funny how Jesus claimed on one hand that the law would not change but then took away God approved divorce and remarriage with the other. It's as if his right hand did not know what his left was doing. Yet again we see a fundamental conflict. If divorce followed by remarriage is not allowed, then that is a change from the Old Testament to the New. If that has changed, why not the kosher laws?

Reaching back a bit to Peter's dream of the net. One of the MAJOR interpretation conceits used to support Jesus as the Messiah is that individual Bible prophesies can refer to multiple events. Several of the messianic passages, in Isaiah for example, refer not just to Jesus but to a human military leader who came and went in the inter-testimonial period. This conceit, that a single prophesy can refer to multiple events, is in fact essential to claim many of the prophesies associated with Jesus as actually referring to him.

With this in mind, Peter's dream of the net likely refers to BOTH extending the ministry to Gentiles AND abolishing the kosher laws. Denying the possibility that the passage can convey both meanings necessitates a denial of many of the prophesies traditionally associated with Jesus the Christ. This in turn would cast doubt upon the divinity of Christ or at the very least the accuracy of the Gospels. Why would an accurate Gospel depict Jesus as fulfilling prophesies that were not about him?

 

[Border Reiver]

There is a Creator, and you do not like his laws---I have a calling to re-establish the marriage covenant as the Creator decreed—it is not only women, but men also, because men play the biggest role in the offence.

What evidence do you have that your holy book is any more accurate than any other collection of myths?

 

[halleyscomet]

Why not atheist must also here the message, so as to avert going to hell, surely this is a noble task to come onto the Forum and proclaim the Word of the Creator?

Not if it is proving futile as it is here. Even The Apostles left cities where the gospel was not being received. You'd know that if you actually READ the Bible. It's particularly shameful for you as hiding here is keeping you from the task you feel God has appointed you.

You seem to be confusing being stubborn and stiff-necked with being virtuous. If your commission is to reform the church then talking to atheists isn't even on your agenda except as incidental evangelism of opportunity.

You are Jonah and this forum is the belly of your whale.

Moderators: Would it be a breach of forum rules for me to refer to "Paul Bethke" as "Jonah?" I would be doing this not as an insult or an attempt to mock him but shorthand for my interpretation of his behavior in light of his claims about a divine commission. It would also be expressing hope that he will one day mature morally and discard some, if not all, of the degenerate beliefs about race and gender he currently professes.

 

[Craig4]

There is a Creator, and you do not like his laws---I have a calling to re-establish the marriage covenant as the Creator decreed—it is not only women, but men also, because men play the biggest role in the offence.

If that were true the grass at the World Cup would have died.

 

[halleyscomet]

If that were true the grass at the World Cup would have died.

Deuteronomy 18:22
"If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed."

We're dealing with a false prophet and the Bible itself tells us to attach no importance to his words.

Does being a false prophet constitute taking the lords make in vain? I would say it does.

What does the Bible say to do with false prophets...

Deuteronomy 13:5
"That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. That prophet or dreamer tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you."

Oh dear.

Well, that's just another reason to be glad the Bible isn't the basis for the legal system either in the US or South Africa. That failed World Cup prophecy would have earned a certain someone a stoning!

 

[Foster Zygote]

There is a Creator, and you do not like his laws---I have a calling to re-establish the marriage covenant as the Creator decreed—it is not only women, but men also, because men play the biggest role in the offence.

Just out of curiosity, are you now, or have you ever been, married?

 

[Craig4]

Why not atheist must also here the message, so as to avert going to hell, surely this is a noble task to come onto the Forum and proclaim the Word of the Creator?

You mean to come here and proclaim that you have some really screwed up issues with women.

 

[halleyscomet]

Just out of curiosity, are you now, or have you ever been, married?

He has referenced a marriage that he proclaimed is "pure." It's been strongly implied but not explicitly stated that they never divorced. It is unknown if he is a widower.

I've been smacked by moderators for asking impertinent questions about his wife in the past, so I'll leave it up to the reader to determine what this tells us about his marriage,* assuming he's even telling the truth about being married or having a "pure" marriage.





* I'm not complaining, just pointing out I've learned the lesson and am trying to moderate my own behavior to better comply with the TOS and moderator guidelines.

 

[Meadmaker]

There is a Creator, and you do not like his laws---I have a calling to re-establish the marriage covenant as the Creator decreed—it is not only women, but men also, because men play the biggest role in the offence.

I think a huge problem is trying to apply the words of the old testament literally. Jesus himself preached against that.

When the prostitute was to be stoned to death, in accordance with the law, it was Jesus who put a stop to it. Jesus said that they should ignore the letter of the law. They, who were not without sin, were unfit to make such judgments.

Should we say that the prostitute Jesus saved was actually married to the first of her tricks? Hey wait a minute. That guy was probably a married man as well, wasn't he?

There are a lot of folks here at ISF. Very few believe in any sort of divine law, and many are openly hostile to the idea of divine law, but among the rest of us, we just hate to see divine law used irrationally or unjustly, and that's where some of us are coming from. Your ideas, carried to a logical end, would result in much misery. There just hasn't been much thought put into them. We're asking you to put some thought into it. Now, back to that prostitute Jesus saved from stoning.

So the virgin prostitute has sex with a married man. So far so good. Nothing out of the ordinary here. Who is now married to whom? She can't be married to him, because he was married to someone else already. We could solve the problem by stoning her to death, but Jesus put the kibosh on that, so there's no solution there. He can't have two wives. She can't be married to a man who is married to someone else. Jesus says we can't stone her to death to solve the problem. Now what?

The idea that sex= marriage cannot be correct.

All too often people pick and choose Bible passages that they like, but that isn't really acceptable. Obviously, the passages that suggest that sex automatically equals marriage cannot be correct, because that is inconsistent with other biblical teaching. They must be describing an ideal form of behavior, rather than some sort of magical transformation that occurs due to physical contact.

 

[Rincewind]

Maybe this would sort things out?

"Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." - allegedly spoken by Papal legate and Cistercian abbot Arnaud Amalric prior to the massacre at Béziers.

"Kill them all. Let God sort it out"