Old Testament not valid

Juan
Juan's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2006-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Testament not valid

Hey Rook, most Christians that I debate keep saying that the Old covenant laws are no longer valid. To this I usually respond with Matthew 5:17-20. What else can I add to this?


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Juan, If they are

Juan,
If they are christians, why don't they accecpt the words of Jesus?

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
That's simple,

That's simple, Randallord.

The words of Paul are so much easier for them to live by.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
So let me get this stright,

So let me get this stright, they prefer the words of Paul over Jesus Christ, but they call themselves "Christians"? Maybe they should be called "Paulinians".

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Juan wrote:Hey Rook, most

Juan wrote:
Hey Rook, most Christians that I debate keep saying that the Old covenant laws are no longer valid. To this I usually respond with Matthew 5:17-20. What else can I add to this?

Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Basically, there aren't any 'optional only' sections of the 'bible'..... yet every christian you'll find is a cafeteria line christian...

You can also see many of the horrors of the OT repeated in the NT.... particularly the acceptance of slavery.

I don't see how the can rely on the OT as the 'evidence' that supports jesus, and then discard it otherwise.... how can it be a prophetic set of books that otherwise are useless? How can it accurately predict the future, yet fail to grasp basic points of morality - i.e. that slavery isn't a good idea, etc.? Just one more bizare, irrational compartmentalization from our christian friends....

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Juan
Juan's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2006-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Well said. I completely

Well said. I completely agree... but many Christians seem to cling on to the idea that we are all sinners, and we will always be sinners, not one of us is good, blah, blah, blah... So that's when Jesus comes in. God sends his only begotten son etc...(which makes no sense, why couldn't God just forgive us instead of going through all that hassle?). So now all you have to do is love Jesus, love everyone, and love your parents(at the same time hate everyone, including your parents, but I'll leave that for later discussions).


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
The whole Jesus story is

The whole Jesus story is absurd (and unoriginal, but that's discussed elsewhere.) God had himself tortured to death, to change a rule he himself made? So next time someone does me wrong, instead of just forgiving them unconditionally like a normal person would, should I go find someone to kick my ass or torture me in order to get me to forgive them? Does this make ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER????? It's just another example of the stupidity and insanity that the babble is filled with.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


LoveOfGod
Posts: 1
Joined: 2006-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Jesus died on the cross, He

Jesus died on the cross, He was dying for the sins of the world. If you understand the punishment of that whole ordeal you can see how loving that is. Jesus said, “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.” (John 15:13). God’s law demanded blood for justice to be meant, so the blood that He shed is now able to forgive us. God did that so if anyone who repents and places their faith in Jesus can enter Heaven, but if they reject it then God has to be just and punish the person for their sins. He doesn’t want to do that because He loves us –that’s why He sent Jesus – but He is also just enough to punish people who reject His remedy for sin.

Yes God knew that the Jews would not obey that law and He even foretold it! (Deuteronomy 31:14-18).God in numerous times in the Old Testament told His people about the Messiah that would come and deliver them. He even predicted about the New Covenant while the Old Covenant was still in effect (Jeremiah 31:31-34). He didn’t make a mistake. He had it planned all along. The Old Testament lays the foundation for the New Testament.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, ok. You want to

Yeah, ok. You want to believe the irrational idea Jesus actually existed. Face it. Even if it were true, God's plan in the Babble was insane.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


HowietheChristian
Posts: 23
Joined: 2006-12-05
User is offlineOffline
todangst...

a few things....

your right, there are no optional sections of the bible, and there are many cafeteria lines of which many are standing in, however which line are you in....

I'm in the line that takes all the bible has and lives accordingly, not perfectly but God will perfect a believer over time.

the slavery issue....so because the bible and the people in it don't say anything against slavery they support it? NO, if that were the case then maybe the bible supports other things it doesn't speak against. Come to think of it , are there any issues you personally have not spoken against that you are against? Well if not then that must mean you support it right?

HowietheChristian


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Please. I try to fight

Please. I try to fight irrationality as much as I can, but I certainly am not a God. If an actual god wrote the babble wouldn't he fight the stupid parts?

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


HowietheChristian
Posts: 23
Joined: 2006-12-05
User is offlineOffline
to Juan:

Not very well said, sorry dude? We are all sinners in the eyes of the God of the bible. "For all have sinned and falled short of the Glory of God" Look if you broke a law in America like stealing, and get caught, go to court and stand in front of the judge who says you broke the law and your a theif, your punishment is a 1,000 dollar fine, and 30 days in jail, do you have anything to say for yourself? If you asked for forgivness what would that do? Well he might forgive you but still even though your forgiven your still accountable for the punishment because you committed the crime. So God being the perfect judge will hold you accountable to breaking His commands. Sure the bible says God will forgive you, but it also says God will punish all those who transgress His law. The only way for you not to be punished is if you are given the GIFT of Eternal life. Which means God will see the Righteousness of Jesus Christ and not your sins.

Loving others won't save you. Yes were commanded to Love, but not for salvation.

Hey, read the book of 1st John.

HowietheChristian


BarkAtTheMoon
Rational VIP!
BarkAtTheMoon's picture
Posts: 85
Joined: 2006-02-22
User is offlineOffline
HowietheChristian wrote:a

HowietheChristian wrote:
a few things....

your right, there are no optional sections of the bible, and there are many cafeteria lines of which many are standing in, however which line are you in....

I'm in the line that takes all the bible has and lives accordingly, not perfectly but God will perfect a believer over time.

the slavery issue....so because the bible and the people in it don't say anything against slavery they support it? NO, if that were the case then maybe the bible supports other things it doesn't speak against. Come to think of it , are there any issues you personally have not spoken against that you are against? Well if not then that must mean you support it right?

HowietheChristian


The Bible mentions slavery numerous times, never condemns it, and even talks about rules of how to buy slaves and how to treat them, and in the New Testament orders slaves to honor and obey their masters. I wouldn't call that merely failing to speak out against the practice. SAB link.

So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth;
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth!
- Eric Idle, from The Galaxy Song


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
HowietheChristian wrote:a

HowietheChristian wrote:
a few things....

your right, there are no optional sections of the bible, and there are many cafeteria lines of which many are standing in, however which line are you in....

I'm over at the atheist cafe, in the Bright section.

Quote:

I'm in the line that takes all the bible has and lives accordingly, not perfectly but God will perfect a believer over time.

I'm willing to bet that you actually live according to what you've learned from the secular world: your own empathy driven sense of right and wrong, what you've learned from parents and loved ones, and that you backdate all of that to the bible, after the fact.... Have you ever considered that?

Quote:

the slavery issue....so because the bible and the people in it don't say anything against slavery they support it? NO,

Actually, yes. Both the OT and the NT speak of slavery, condone it, use it in parables without speaking against it, etc.

Quote:

if that were the case then maybe the bible supports other things it doesn't speak against. Come to think of it , are there any issues you personally have not spoken against that you are against? Well if not then that must mean you support it right?

HowietheChristian

Sorry, but you've only attacked a strawman here. No one is saying that the bible condones slavery simply because it doesn't speak out against it. We are saying that the bible condones slavery because it in fact condones slavery.

Take a look:

http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

" When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

What does the Bible say about beating slaves? It says you can beat both male and female slaves with a rod so hard that as long as they don't die right away you are cleared of any wrong doing.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong.

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

So both the OT and the NT provide information on how to keep slaves. They both openly condone slavery. And even 'jesus' uses the concept of slavery in a parable, which is an implicit endorsement.

So your entire argument is a strawman, the actual argument before you is that the bible openly condones slavery, not that it simply doesn't speak against it.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Howie, Are you advocating

Howie,

Are you advocating the "Peek-a-boo" religion of "Once saved. always saved" Calvinism?

That basically says, "I can do whatever I want because no matter what I do, all God the Father sees is the blood of Jesus."

Non-Biblical and morally bankrupt doctrine, that.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


reason_passion
Rational VIP!
Posts: 158
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
misunderstanding

This is absurd. Is there really nobody here who doesn't know how to answer these questions?

All of the OT examples used by Todangst can be ignored due to them being classified under the section of "social law", which is not always synonomous with the "moral law". This has long been a distinction both in christianity and in judaism.

As to the NT quotations, none of them actually say that slavery is ok. For example:

todangst wrote:
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

Neither of these verses says that slavery is good, only that if a believer is in the situation of being a slave or owning a slave, then the believer must act in a particular way. And the argument that since it doesn't repudiate the practice, therefore it must approve it, is ridiculous. There's no place in scripture that mentions watching child pornography is wrong, but that doesn't mean its ok to do so. There must be some careful thinking here before contradiction starts being bandied about.

todangst wrote:
So both the OT and the NT provide information on how to keep slaves.

Exactly, it gives info on how to deal with slaves, not that one must have them. The context is always about living in a fallen world and how one then acts to show the truth of God. This is explicit in the Timothy quotation.

Every one of your relationships to man and to nature must be a definite expression of your real, individual life corresponding to the object of your will. -Erich Fromm


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
reason_passion wrote:This is

reason_passion wrote:
This is absurd.

The only thing that is absurd here is the idea that you can distance yourself from the odious aspects of the bible by compartmentalizing parts of it...

Quote:

Is there really nobody here who doesn't know how to answer these questions?

We know the standard ad hoc dodges, if that is what you mean.

Now do you understand why they don't work?

Quote:

All of the OT examples used by Todangst can be ignored due to them being classified under the section of "social law", which is not always synonomous with the "moral law".

This is a fine example of ad hocism. They are declared not 'synonomous' BECAUSE of their immoral aspects, as a way to dodge their moral problems!

Quote:

This has long been a distinction both in christianity and in judaism.

Yes, driven by an ad hoc need to distance one's self from the reality that the OT advocates things like slavery!

The distinction is a distinction without any difference.

Quote:

As to the NT quotations, none of them actually say that slavery is ok.

Providing details as to how to properly make people into slaves isn't advocating slavery? Come on, brown lipstick doesn't look good on you....

These passages either advocate slavery or use it in an analogy which provides at least an implicit advocation.

todangst wrote:
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

Quote:

Neither of these verses says that slavery is good,

How can you be so obtuse, is it deliberate? The point before you is whether these passages endorse slavery, and they do! The passage says, point blank, that slaves should obey their masters! This is a clear endorsement of slavery!

Seriously, is this the level of obtuseness I can expect from you?

Quote:

only that if a believer is in the situation of being a slave or owning a slave, then the believer must act in a particular way.

In other words, this passage endorses slavery, by accepting it and requiring people to work within it's framework.

Quote:

And the argument that since it doesn't repudiate the practice, therefore it must approve it, is ridiculous.

This is a strawman of the actual argument.

Quote:

There's no place in scripture that mentions watching child pornography is wrong, but that doesn't mean its ok to do so.

I cannot believe that you went and reproduced the same strawman that I just refuted. One more time. No one is arguing that the bible simply doesn't repudiate slavery, the actual argument before you is that it endorses slavery, either directly or through implication. It even gives specific advice to slaves to obey their masters!

todangst wrote:
So both the OT and the NT provide information on how to keep slaves.

Quote:

Exactly, it gives info on how to deal with slaves, not that one must have them.

Providing details as to how to keep slaves is endorsement of slavery, particularly when the passage states, point blank, that slaves should obey their master.

Quote:

The context is always about living in a fallen world

You're whistling past the graveyard here. It goes beyond merely speaking of a fallen world, the passage actually openly endorses slavery by telling slaves to obey their masters.

Quote:

and how one then acts to show the truth of God. This is explicit in the Timothy quotation.

What is explicit also is that the framework of slavery is endorsed. Your responses miss the point in every case.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


HowietheChristian
Posts: 23
Joined: 2006-12-05
User is offlineOffline
Do you consider yourself to be a Good Person?

Do you consider yourself to be a good person?


reason_passion
Rational VIP!
Posts: 158
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
absolutism

This is a prime example of how absolutist thinking does not require to be cloaked in religious ideology.

todangst wrote:
We know the standard ad hoc dodges, if that is what you mean.

This is a fine example of ad hocism. They are declared not 'synonomous' BECAUSE of their immoral aspects, as a way to dodge their moral problems!

How can you be so obtuse, is it deliberate? The point before you is whether these passages endorse slavery, and they do! The passage says, point blank, that slaves should obey their masters! This is a clear endorsement of slavery!

Providing details as to how to keep slaves is endorsement of slavery, particularly when the passage states, point blank, that slaves should obey their master.

It's nice to see that you've studied philosophy and feel yourself capable of throwing around terms like ad hoc, but using it so much really isn't helping you out. This is because the only reason you think the religious arguments are ad hoc ones is due to your bias in thinking that one, you know how to interpret the bible correctly and two, that the way you interpret must therefore be the only way. Within the religious ideology, it is perfectly reasonable to participate in historical and biblical theology so as to understand the scriptures more thoroughly. Thus, while to you the answers seem ad hoc, that's because you've already decided what's going on from within your own ideological structure. Sorry, but that doesn't work, at least it doesn't if you take intellectual honesty seriously. Quite frankly, science engages in numerous ad hoc arguments, constantly changing their schemas when new information is found out that disproves their previous theories.

To put it a bit more obviously, you are engaging the religious thinker from your own perspective and thus am missing what is actually being said. The arguments that I presented work great FROM WITHIN THE CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE and that is precisely the point. You haven't actually touched that perspective. Your absolutist mindset concerning the validity of your own assumptions, which by the way have not been shown yet to be valid, clearly makes you unable to see where the theist is coming from. This is shown repeatedly by your implicit agreement with the theist that their is a Bible. By allowing this to go forward without question, you have allowed the theist to then be capable of engaging in the numerous academic disciplines that have grown up around this belief and thus are stuck in a hopeless situation. That you then dismiss those disciplines is only because you don't agree with them, again from your own assumptions. That isn't an argument, it's simply you saying you're right, they're wrong and that's that. Sounds familiar.

As to the continued debate about the passage, I'm not sure how much clearer it can be said. The passages only indicate that, given the institution of slavery, then this is how a believer is to act. There is no necessity in thinking that there is an explicit endorsement of slavery, only that given the reality of the fallen world, therefore these actions follow. It is only because you have pre-judged your own interpretation and anachronistically placed your modern thinking back upon the situation in question. From the christian perspective, there is no reason to think that the bible endorses slavery because God's decrees are inherently moral and a distinction can be made as to the situation itself and rules on how to conduct oneself within that situation. For example, I can give someone rules as to how to deal with being kidnapped, but that doesn't mean I am endorsing kidnapping.

Every one of your relationships to man and to nature must be a definite expression of your real, individual life corresponding to the object of your will. -Erich Fromm


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
reason_passion wrote:This is

reason_passion wrote:
This is a prime example of how absolutist thinking does not require to be cloaked in religious ideology.

No, it's a prime example of how you toss vague, unjustified generic insults when the actual points before you go over your head.

You've not demonstrated any absolutist thinking in my posts... you're just asserting it, because otherwise, you have no response.

You need to stop these personal attacks, and deal with the actual arguments before you.

todangst wrote:
We know the standard ad hoc dodges, if that is what you mean.

This is a fine example of ad hocism. They are declared not 'synonomous' BECAUSE of their immoral aspects, as a way to dodge their moral problems!

How can you be so obtuse, is it deliberate? The point before you is whether these passages endorse slavery, and they do! The passage says, point blank, that slaves should obey their masters! This is a clear endorsement of slavery!

Providing details as to how to keep slaves is endorsement of slavery, particularly when the passage states, point blank, that slaves should obey their master.

Quote:

It's nice to see that you've studied philosophy and feel yourself capable of throwing around terms like ad hoc, but using it so much really isn't helping you out.

In other words, you're not able to follow the points, and you're reducted to personal attacks.

Just concede that you didn't even get the point. There's no problem in admitting that. I can go over it for you.

Quote:

This is because the only reason you think the religious arguments are ad hoc ones is due to your bias in thinking that one, you know how to interpret the bible correctly and two, that the way you interpret must therefore be the only way.

No, and there's nothing in my posts that speaks to that, and anyway, you didn't even make the attempt to demonstrate such a claim. You're just tossing insults out of desparation and hoping that one will stick somehow....

Here's what is really going on: I've demonstrated that the claims are ad hoc through demonstrating internal inconsistency that follows. Ad hoc responses are stop-gap answers that are drvien by bias. For this reason, and because they are not well thought out responses, they tend to lead to contradictions with other parts of the system.

So, to demonstrate this, it is required to show how one such response leads to a contradiction elsewhere. This is a logical proof of my point, a logical proof open for your critical analysis. To reject my claim, you can show offer some apologetic. Tossing insults won't cut it.

Here is where I offer up such a logical argument:

one of my arguments

Quote:

Within the religious ideology, it is perfectly reasonable to participate in historical and biblical theology so as to understand the scriptures more thoroughly.

For the 100th time, I've TOLD YOU about the difference between ad hocism and rational exegesis (i.e. what you refer to here). I'm now convinced that you don't know what that word means either.

Quote:

Thus, while to you the answers seem ad hoc, that's because you've already decided what's going on from within your own ideological structure. Sorry, but that doesn't work, at least it doesn't if you take intellectual honesty seriously.

Again, I'll try one more time. I am not asserting that they are ad hoc, I am demonstrating that they are ad hoc by illustrating internal inconsistency in logical arguments. Theproper way to respond is to argue contra my points, not just assert that I am biased, without even attempting to demonstrate why... let alone actually deal with the arguments!

Do you see how your response is actually the one that 'doesn't work'? And do you see how I actually give reasons why this is so?

Quote:

To put it a bit more obviously, you are engaging the religious thinker from your own perspective and thus am missing what is actually being said.

To put it a bit more obviously, I am demosntrating the ad hoc nature of the interpretations by showing internal inconsistency and you are just ignoring that, and in a horrible case of intellectual laziness, just asserting "bias!".

Do you see? Or is it easier for you to just go ahead and re-assert the same already refuted point in your response? I'm guessing that's what I'll see... please surprise me.

Quote:

The arguments that I presented work great FROM WITHIN THE CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE and that is precisely the point.

First, I've demonstrated that even within that framework, internal inconsistency arises. Second, as far as the claims 'working within the framework' the only 'framework' you given us so far is that christians can take it on faith that there is internal consistencey!

So this isn't a 'framework' at all, but the admission that there isn't one.... If you do wish to actually present a real argument rather than a series of personal attacks, why not present how this framework actually 'works' rationally, logically, if you can...

If you can't, that's fine. But please stop pretending that attacking me personally is presenting a framework.

Quote:

You haven't actually touched that perspective.

How ironic. I've done nothing but touch upon it over and over. You just don't seem capable of recognzing that, so you have to turn to a generic "you're biased" response that you don't even attempt to demonstrate... you just assert it.

Again, even within the framework of the christiany worldview, ad hoc responses lead to internal contradictions, as I have demonstrated for you. Take at look at my posts in the other thread I've given you. In addition, so far, the only means that you have offered for 'internal consistency' is taking it on faith that the position is internally consistent!

Seriously, you need to respond to the arguments and stop attacking the person with unjustified generic assertions.

Quote:

Your absolutist mindset concerning the validity of your own assumptions,

You're just wrong here. I'm giving you logical arguments that demonstrate internal inconsistencies, and all you can do is attack me personally with vague generalities that you haven't even attempted to demonstrate,

Read up my friend, and try responding to the arguments, and stop attacking the person.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
This is my problem with RP.

This is my problem with RP. He has his heart in the right place but is too intellectually lazy to understand or comprehend why certain things are the way they are. He claimed elsewhere erroneously that theologians had solved the majority of contradictions in the Bible...way to pat yourself on the back and ignoring the issue that as long as a contradiction remains....it is not solved.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote:This is

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
This is my problem with RP. He has his heart in the right place but is too intellectually lazy to understand or comprehend why certain things are the way they are.

Yes, even with the attacks I don't get too many negative vibes from him... but seriously, it's very lazy to just assert 'bias!" when someone is actually giving you an argument... at least attempt to demonstrate the bias! Or better yet, deal with the argument.

I think the real confusion however is that he didn't understand what I meant when I said that some interpretations are ad hoc, as opposed to some being the result of rational exegesis... it's a matter of eisegesis vs exegesis....

Quote:

He claimed elsewhere erroneously that theologians had solved the majority of contradictions in the Bible...way to pat yourself on the back and ignoring the issue that as long as a contradiction remains....it is not solved.

Worse than that, his main argument is that the basis for the putative internal consistency for the christian worldview is faith... which is actually the concession that there is no basis for internal consistency, but simply a dogheaded denial of inconsistency.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Crazybassist03
Crazybassist03's picture
Posts: 22
Joined: 2006-07-16
User is offlineOffline
Your ass was just handed to

HowietheChristian wrote:
Do you consider yourself to be a good person?

Your ass was just handed to you, and you come back with this. Just admit you're wrong.
Yes, the Bible does not require the taking of slaves, which I think you were trying to explain. But it does tell you how to deal with slaves, and tells slaves to respect their masters. This means that it did not condemn slavery or else it would not say these things.
Think about someone saying the things you interpret from the Bible..."I don't support slavery but I want to make sure that all current and future slaves remain slaves."
Does that make sense?


BarkAtTheMoon
Rational VIP!
BarkAtTheMoon's picture
Posts: 85
Joined: 2006-02-22
User is offlineOffline
reason_passion wrote:Sorry,

reason_passion wrote:
Sorry, but that doesn't work, at least it doesn't if you take intellectual honesty seriously. Quite frankly, science engages in numerous ad hoc arguments, constantly changing their schemas when new information is found out that disproves their previous theories.

Is that meant to be ironic? The capability and willingness of science to change and evolve as new information is discovered is its greatest strength, and there's nothing ad hoc about that. In contrast, the total unwillingness of most religions to accept new information, change dogma, and claw its way out from the bronze and middle ages is its greatest weakness.

So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth;
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth!
- Eric Idle, from The Galaxy Song


pchen
Posts: 4
Joined: 2010-12-08
User is offlineOffline
newb confusion

Hey,

 

I asked a Christian friend about Matthew 5:17 -20 and he said that since Jesus fulfilled the law, which means we no longer have to obey to the letter, and that the purpose of Paul's teachings were to show that no one can be saved by his own merit. 

 

I didn't really know what to say.  My knowledge of the Bible is admittedly very poor, as is my knowledge of theology and philosophy...

 

However, this same friend has said in the past that Jesus didn't come to change the law, but to make additions to it...


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
pchen wrote:Hey, I asked a

pchen wrote:

Hey,

 

I asked a Christian friend about Matthew 5:17 -20 and he said that since Jesus fulfilled the law, which means we no longer have to obey to the letter, and that the purpose of Paul's teachings were to show that no one can be saved by his own merit. 

 

I didn't really know what to say.  My knowledge of the Bible is admittedly very poor, as is my knowledge of theology and philosophy...

 

However, this same friend has said in the past that Jesus didn't come to change the law, but to make additions to it...

There are two parties in the Christian doctrine concerning the Old Testament.  Most clergy (seminary trained) follow Paul that Christ was the fulfillment of the law.  They see the OT as prophecy and history.  In 2 Corintians 3:1ff Paul's view was that the Old Covenant ( Testament) was replaced by one of Spirit ( probably through baptism).  The other group of typically fundamentalist go to various degrees of keeping the OT. The Seven Day Adventist, 7 Day baptists, etc. do not meet on Sunday. Rather they meet on the Jewish Sabbath.  In conservative protestant churches many will say the 10 commandments are in effect with the Sabbath moved to Sunday.  They get around stoning children and stuff by cherry picking what has been replaced by the New Testament (Covenant ).  So you have about 30-40 flavours of Christians to debate.

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I STILL do not get just WTF

I STILL do not get just WTF they mean by 'fulfilled the Law'. It makes no sense to me.

Laws can be obeyed, complied with, or disobeyed. They can be overturned, ie declared to be no longer in force. Or withdrawn, or changed, if judged to be unjust, invalid, or no no longer justified, or necessary.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Druidfire1 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
End of the law

Hi Bob TGBaker. The idea  of the fulfillment of the law means the END of the law, the closing of, the replacement of the old testament law by the the Gospel of Holy Spirit. The author ofMatthew would disagree. This is not a unified doctrine in the new testament. It is Paul's hobby horse. Hey I stuck in the hospital. I can't remember my passwaord. I've tried change passwords but it says DENIED. Is it possible for some moderator to email me a new login.


pchen
Posts: 4
Joined: 2010-12-08
User is offlineOffline
My friend explained this to

My friend explained this to me through his view:  Jesus was sent because people cannot be sinless (thus being unfit for God's approval or for heaven) on their own merit.  He "fulfilled" the law by being completely sinless while on Earth and thus meeting God's standards...and somehow if you believe all this was so, you can be forgiven for your constant sins.  Of course this explanation doesn't really make any sense at all and I have a headache from trying to remember the line of thought he used.

 

I don't understand how he can claim that Jesus was sinless while in the same breath claim that Jesus was constantly breaking the law...I suppose he was sinless because of who he was, not because of what he did.  *eyeroll*

 

 


greek goddess
Rational VIP!Science Freak
greek goddess's picture
Posts: 361
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
pchen wrote:My friend

pchen wrote:

My friend explained this to me through his view:  Jesus was sent because people cannot be sinless (thus being unfit for God's approval or for heaven) on their own merit.  He "fulfilled" the law by being completely sinless while on Earth and thus meeting God's standards...and somehow if you believe all this was so, you can be forgiven for your constant sins.  Of course this explanation doesn't really make any sense at all and I have a headache from trying to remember the line of thought he used.

I suppose that makes sense... sort of. Seems like God is constantly battling our sinful nature. You'd think since he made us, he would have just made us sinless, but I supposed that would have been too easy. 

pchen wrote:

I don't understand how he can claim that Jesus was sinless while in the same breath claim that Jesus was constantly breaking the law...I suppose he was sinless because of who he was, not because of what he did.  *eyeroll*

Oh, it's not breaking the law when God tells you to do it. Like all those Old Testament killings and rapes he commanded. Breakin' the law for God!


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The word "fullfilled" still

The word "fullfilled" still makes absolutely no sense to me as applied to Laws.

Ok, just say we're changing the 'legislation', or that law has been rescinded, withdrawn, replaced, reformed, whatever.

I guess the writers didn't want it to sound like the boss changed his mind, or was actually admitting he got it wrong the first time, even if that would be a more accurate and honest way of describing it. The writers could see that the OT 'laws' had a lot of really bad stuff in them, even by the still flawed standards of the time of writing the NT, and they really needed to be cleaned up.

But they couldn't just admit that. "Fullfilled" is vague enough, and sounds positive, so yeah, we'll use that, even if it still doesn't quite make sense. After all, there's plenty of even more confusing and mixed-up ideas in there that the followers have been prepared to accept. 

IOW, it's what we would call these days a 'weasel' word - it sounds better than an honest description of what happened.

Dan Dennett reckons that touch of mystery, ideas which don't quite make sense on the surface, is part of the appeal of a religious doctrine.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Yeah well it works like this

greek goddess wrote:

 

I suppose that makes sense... sort of. Seems like God is constantly battling our sinful nature. You'd think since he made us, he would have just made us sinless, but I supposed that would have been too easy. 

 

 

we are made with freewill because the lord needs real friends to play with in his sandbox, not robots. Trouble is, should these creatures deploy any independent thought whatsoever, the lord (he's an only child, remember) has a screaming tanty and slaughters them all down the 5000th generation.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
This is valuable point

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

Dan Dennett reckons that touch of mystery, ideas which don't quite make sense on the surface, is part of the appeal of a religious doctrine.

 

 

People respect what they don't understand and a doctrine with just the right amount of blur in it would certainly appeal to people seeking magic. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Y'know, someone really ought

Y'know, someone really ought to 'fulfill' the laws against murder and intellectual property rights. I have this list I people I think should... give up their right to livelyhood.

 

There's also the usual rant about IP law being perverted from it's original purpose.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)