Is the Bible for reading only or to keep God's statutes and judgments and to do them?

[Confident]

--------



When you read the bible, you find out that it's not only a book to read, but also to keep God's statutes and judgments and to do them.
read this verse:

8 And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you.
and this:
22 Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out.

But what are these statutes and judgments to do them??

8 And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you.
9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
11 And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
17 And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.
18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.
19 And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister, nor of thy father’s sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity.
20 And if a man shall lie with his uncle’s wife, he hath uncovered his uncle’s nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.
21 And if a man shall take his brother’s wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless.
----------

Read and keep God's statutes and judgments....

----------

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You make posts as though they are questions but they arent. You are A LIAR.

By the way, the OT, which you quote, was directed to the JEWS AS A GROUP, not to the individual current followers of God/Jesus. Jesus talked to us as individuals, the OT writings of the word of God was directed at the nation of Jews. Stick that in your pipe and chew on it, while you spew out your hatred.

 

[Said1]

I"m not really sure what his point is, acutully, however:Is the Koran for reading only or to keep Allah's statutes and judgments and to do them?

Read and keep Allahs statutes and judgments..........or else.

 

[Powerman]

You make posts as though they are questions but they arent. You are A LIAR.

By the way, the OT, which you quote, was directed to the JEWS AS A GROUP, not to the individual current followers of God/Jesus. Jesus talked to us as individuals, the OT writings of the word of God was directed at the nation of Jews. Stick that in your pipe and chew on it, while you spew out your hatred.

So if God specifically instructed the Jewish people to live a certain way and follow certain laws, what kind of tortured logic would lead you to believe that God didn't want you to also follow those same rules? If God told the Jewish people not to eat pork then I don't see why he would want Christians to eat it. It's the same God is it not?

 

[Gunny]

So if God specifically instructed the Jewish people to live a certain way and follow certain laws, what kind of tortured logic would lead you to believe that God didn't want you to also follow those same rules? If God told the Jewish people not to eat pork then I don't see why he would want Christians to eat it. It's the same God is it not?

By what kind of tortured logic do ask a question of the answer?

 

[no1tovote4]

So if God specifically instructed the Jewish people to live a certain way and follow certain laws, what kind of tortured logic would lead you to believe that God didn't want you to also follow those same rules? If God told the Jewish people not to eat pork then I don't see why he would want Christians to eat it. It's the same God is it not?

It's called the New Covenant. The commandments remain, but the rules of purity like don't eat pork etc do not. It's in the new testament, this only shows an ignorance of the religion, it isn't a deep new thought.

 

[MissileMan]

It's called the New Covenant. The commandments remain, but the rules of purity like don't eat pork etc do not. It's in the new testament, this only shows an ignorance of the religion, it isn't a deep new thought.

If God is perfect, and His word is perfect, why the need for a revision? He didn't get it perfect the first time?

 

[no1tovote4]

If God is perfect, and His word is perfect, why the need for a revision? He didn't get it perfect the first time?

Because of the ultimate sacrifice it was no longer necessary to purify oneself to be able to be in the Temple, therefore God's presence. It was showing that such purity rules no longer applied because the ultimate sacrifice had been made for them, they were purified by the blood of Christ.

LOL. Teaching of Christ by the Buddhist....

Anyway the reason I understand this is because of the context of my upbringing, not necesarily belief.

 

[MissileMan]

Because of the ultimate sacrifice it was no longer necessary to purify oneself to be able to be in the Temple, therefore God's presence. It was showing that such purity rules no longer applied because the ultimate sacrifice had been made for them, they were purified by the blood of Christ.

I guess you miss the point of the question. Was the original covenant in the OT wrong? A mistake? It must have been if it needed to be changed. How can this occur if God's word is perfect?

 

[Gunny]

I guess you miss the point of the question. Was the original covenant in the OT wrong? A mistake? It must have been if it needed to be changed. How can this occur if God's word is perfect?

Nice twist. It is not God's perfection that is the problem. It's Man's imperfection that is. God allows Man freedom of choice. That freedom of choice alters the World we live in every minute.

God's reaction to change brought about by Man is not a reflection on His perfection.

 

[MissileMan]

Nice twist. It is not God's perfection that is the problem. It's Man's imperfection that is. God allows Man freedom of choice. That freedom of choice alters the World we live in every minute.

God's reaction to change brought about by Man is not a reflection on His perfection.

How about a reflection on His foresight then?

Aw shit! My bad. I keep forgetting that you can't use logic or common sense in discussions of religion. I guess I'll stop asking these kinds of questions.

 

[manu1959]

How about a reflection on His foresight then?

Aw shit! My bad. I keep forgetting that you can't use logic or common sense in discussions of religion. I guess I'll stop asking these kinds of questions.

free will dude

 

[no1tovote4]

I guess you miss the point of the question. Was the original covenant in the OT wrong? A mistake? It must have been if it needed to be changed. How can this occur if God's word is perfect?

Once again, in other words you missed the point of the answer, the only change between the Old Covenant and the new was in the laws of purity which allowed one to be pure enough to enter the Temple, or be in the presence of God. Those rules changed when the ultimate sacrifice was made, when they were purified with the only truly pure sacrifice. You are being deliberately stupid if you cannot understand the difference between what you are saying and what has been explained to you.

That humans needed to be purified never changed, the method of purification changed. The truly pure sacrifice made the other types of purification unnecessary, hence the New Covenant. It wasn't imperfection, but the conclusion of the plan that would negate the need to purify yourself from sin by not eating pork etc. The one that was first prophesied in Genesis.

 

[no1tovote4]

How about a reflection on His foresight then?

Aw shit! My bad. I keep forgetting that you can't use logic or common sense in discussions of religion. I guess I'll stop asking these kinds of questions.

Foresight? The first prophesy that the New Covenant would come, that Christ would defeat Satan was in Genesis. That shows a pretty good foresight if you are working within Biblical context. The only foresight that is needed here is from those who don't know the Bible assuming that there are no answers to questions like this in it.

Silly person, at least study what you want to attack, it would make you better at it.

 

[dmp]

Doug - give it up. These guys really have no interest in the answer; they refuse reason.

(shrug)

 

[no1tovote4]

Doug - give it up. These guys really have no interest in the answer; they refuse reason.

(shrug)

What is frustrating is that I understand it without belief, it takes deliberate ignorance to misunderstand on such a fundamental level. There are plenty of illogical things to discuss from the Bible but they pick one of the easiest and actually one of the most logical to refute and give an understanding of. It is simply deliberate misunderstanding.

 

[dmp]

What is frustrating is that I understand it without belief, it takes deliberate ignorance to misunderstand on such a fundamental level. There are plenty of illogical things to discuss from the Bible but they pick one of the easiest and actually one of the most logical to refute and give an understanding of. It is simply deliberate misunderstanding.

It's like they are trying to be obtuse, as the level of obtuseness? is so elevated among those guys. They are more worried about 'ah-HA! Gotcha!' than they are about understanding. It's particularly frustrating when their 'ah-ha' simply doesn't make sense. The thing is, I don't care if people don't believe it, just 'not-believe it' for the right reasons...ya know?

 

[manu1959]

It's like they are trying to be obtuse, as the level of obtuseness? is so elevated among those guys. They are more worried about 'ah-HA! Gotcha!' than they are about understanding. It's particularly frustrating when their 'ah-ha' simply doesn't make sense. The thing is, I don't care if people don't believe it, just 'not-believe it' for the right reasons...ya know?

there are many people in this world that are so busy trying to be right they are seldom correct

 

[MissileMan]

Once again, in other words you missed the point of the answer, the only change between the Old Covenant and the new was in the laws of purity which allowed one to be pure enough to enter the Temple, or be in the presence of God. Those rules changed when the ultimate sacrifice was made, when they were purified with the only truly pure sacrifice. You are being deliberately stupid if you cannot understand the difference between what you are saying and what has been explained to you.

That humans needed to be purified never changed, the method of purification changed. The truly pure sacrifice made the other types of purification unnecessary, hence the New Covenant. It wasn't imperfection, but the conclusion of the plan that would negate the need to purify yourself from sin by not eating pork etc. The one that was first prophesied in Genesis.

You mean they didn't have to refrain from eating pork in order to be pure enough to enter the temple. Got it.

There are more differences between the old and new testaments than just eating pork. The move from eye-for-an-eye to turn-the-other-cheek for instance. If something is "perfect" as in eye-for-an-eye, why would it need to be changed?

And since you brought it up, and since I saw it asked, but not answered in another thread, I have a question about the "truly pure sacrifice". If Jesus was God, and immortal, and he was aware of it, (he must have been because he claimed it openly) how was it a great sacrifice to be put to death when he knew he wasn't really going to die? Sacrifice entails a loss. Jesus lost nothing, assuming Christians are right and atheists are wrong.

 

[Hobbit]

You mean they didn't have to refrain from eating pork in order to be pure enough to enter the temple. Got it.

There are more differences between the old and new testaments than just eating pork. The move from eye-for-an-eye to turn-the-other-cheek for instance. If something is "perfect" as in eye-for-an-eye, why would it need to be changed?

And since you brought it up, and since I saw it asked, but not answered in another thread, I have a question about the "truly pure sacrifice". If Jesus was God, and immortal, and he was aware of it, (he must have been because he claimed it openly) how was it a great sacrifice to be put to death when he knew he wasn't really going to die? Sacrifice entails a loss. Jesus lost nothing, assuming Christians are right and atheists are wrong.

Let's see, there's the, uh, PAIN, both the physical and the spiritual when he was ripped away from his connection with God ("Father, why have you forsaken me?"). I mean, would you endure several hours of mind-numbing torture for the heck of it just because you knew you'd be fine when it was over?