to andy (and everybody should probably read this)
 

i read in one of your posts some time ago that you had only read the old testement

if this is so then how can you say that you are qualified to argue the posts of christians when you dont know half the story

Re: to andy (and everybody should probably read this)
 

spam, you should be ashamed of yourself for making David's point on his logic & morals thread about so many people not arguing logically.

Obviously if you don't accept the old testament there is no way you could accpet the new as it is the foundation for the new testament. This is not to say that someone would not convert after reading only the new testament and never having read the old, just that acceptance of the old is a necessary condition at some point for acceptance of the new. Thus there is no way he would believe the virgin birth of Christ or his resurrection since he does not accept the book containing the prophecies of which those supernatural acts were a fulfillment. Therefore he doesn't in fact even need to read it, although hopefully he wouldn't just regurgitate the thoughts of others regarding technical historical or translation points.

I shouldn't even have to explain something like this but at least wanted a christian to do it before all the logical heathen horde did so.

Re: to andy (and everybody should probably read this)
 

spam,

From what Andy has read from the Old Testament, he has seen enough of a picture to hate the Christian God. (He has called him a "mean, old bastard," I believe were the words.) He has seen someone who has wiped out families, cities, and even the whole world save one family for reasons that appear insufficient, unneccesary, and cruel. He has seen someone who allowed his most faithful servant to be tortued and ruined, over a pissing contest with the devil. There are more examples, but you get my (Andy's) point.

And since Christians are willing to stipulate that God has not changed, nor will ever change, there is no need for Andy to look further.

I expect that the above is a pretty accurate representation of how Andy would respond to that.

Re: to andy (and everybody should probably read this)
 

while i agree that if you dont accept the old testement reading the new testement should not change your mind but some people see the God of the new testement a kinder God and therefore accept God because of this

also he has answered many posts about predestination where most of the proof of predestination lies in the new testement

Re: to andy (and everybody should probably read this)
 

most people see the God of the new testement as a kinder God before accepting Christ when after then they see that God doesnt change

Re: to andy (and everybody should probably read this)
 

[ QUOTE ]
spam, you should be ashamed of yourself for making David's point on his logic & morals thread about so many people not arguing logically.

[/ QUOTE ]

could yo please explain what i did wrong i just said i agreed with him and that it was something i needed to work on as well

Re: to andy (and everybody should probably read this)
 

[ QUOTE ]
most people see the God of the new testement as a kinder God before accepting Christ when after then they see that God doesnt change

[/ QUOTE ]


So your trying to trick people?

Re: to andy (and everybody should probably read this)
 

no thats just peoples oppinion and us christians can't help that

Re: to andy (and everybody should probably read this)
 

I don't think I've argued any New Testament points. It is my understanding that Christians and Jews believe in the same god, the difference being that Jews do not accept that Jesus was the son of god. Do Christians believe in the Old Testament? I had thought that they do. The sacred history of the ancient Israelites has been the spiritual matrix out of which Christianity arose.

Re: to andy (and everybody should probably read this)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
spam, you should be ashamed of yourself for making David's point on his logic & morals thread about so many people not arguing logically.

[/ QUOTE ]

could yo please explain what i did wrong i just said i agreed with him and that it was something i needed to work on as well

[/ QUOTE ]

You failed to see the logical problem in your reasoning which I explained.