I guess this question was too difficult.

Don't forget also that Jesus said he came to change "not one jot or tittle (whatever the fuck a jot or tittle are!) of the old law."

You guys should just start a list. Like the theist list, but for christians. Who wants to take on the Quran?

Yes, there's a theist in your midst. My only response to your post is that your basic assumption is not correct, so your conclusion is irrelevant.

You will find that your basic assumption is true for some individuals, but not a pre-requisite to be a Christian....

You are saying that this is not true? I never said it was a pre-requisite, but most Xian's I talk to assert this. One of two possibilites exist (in the mythical world of the Xian): 1. We are under the law of the O.T.
2. We are not under the law of the O.T.

Which is Xian's? If it is answer number 1, then I can see why they would think we should have these 10C displays at courthouses. If it is number 2, then it is no longer relevant i.e.-our laws are not based on the O.T. Care to give it a shot not-bob?

Since there aren't many responses to this and probably for the reason that they don't want to be mocked, I'll go ahead and answer the question.

First, a small sidenote to mattshizzle's point, Jesus's statement about not doing away with the Law can be, and has been, interpreted in many ways. There is nothing there that necessitates that the Law is done away with, only that it has been fulfilled. Typically, the answer to this point is that Jesus's sacrifice is the fulfillment of the Law, being that the Law served as a testament to man's sinful nature and the requirement for a sacrifice.

Second, as to the 10 Commandments being put up, they are repeated in the so-called New Testament, along with many other statutes that God supposedly has decreed we abide by. Simply because we are under grace in no way does away, necessarily, every aspect of the Law. For those who actually have studied theology, the answer to this is that we are no longer under the Law for the sole reason that the Law does not provide salvation, whereas now, it is grace that does so. This in no way means that the Law is obsolete or meaningless or not to be considered.

resaon_passion,
Your position is that we are under the 10 commandments but not the other laws of the OT?

My real position is that christian morality is an oxy-moron, but what I am playing devil's advocate for is that the 10 Commandments are a singular aspect of the entire Law. Whether we are under the specific 10 or others is a difficult question to answer and largely depends on one's theological paradigm. Most apologists for christianity see the Law as still valid in the sense that it points out humanity's complete inability to live up to God's standard. Thus it was that Jesus' death fulfilled the Law's requirement as the ultimate and eternal sacrifice.

First, you didn't ask me originally where a blood sacrifice is called for. Second, your question isn't exactly something that can or should be answered in a simple sentence or two. The complexity of theological debate is not something easily disseminated without going into a lot of background and ways of wording things that are not typical to those not having been in it.

Clearly the so-called 10 Commandments don't call for a blood sacrifice, but the Law does (read Leviticus and Deuteronomy). The "10" are simply one aspect of the entire Law, which is often broken down into two sections: the moral and the social. The "10" belong to the moral section.

It's unfortunate that you don't seem capable of engaging in serious debate that is maturely handled, but I'll refrain from engaging in the same spouting of ignorance.

Are you really saying that you never say something that means more than what it looks like at face value? I highly doubt that. That's the reason why they're called cliches. And also why asking questions, instead of simply assuming you know what is going on, is a good idea.

As to your paradox point, it's yet another sign of sophomoric philosophical training. You, like so many, throw around the term "paradox" as if simply using the term makes it actually true. Paradox and contradiction are notoriously difficult to prove, especially when considered in the light of the ideological underpinnings of what you are discussing. There is no contradiction in the believers' ability to pick and choose verses because that is precisely the means by which scripture has always been handled and there are various tools and methods that have been created to orchestrate just how it is done.

Your example isn't a serious one and isn't even accurate, since I highly doubt that you'll find a verse discussing blow-jobs.

And referring to rabbinical technique as "cherry picking" simply shows your ignorance concerning the practice and also a mindset that doesn't seem to treat seriously any opinion except your own. Such arrogance speaks more to your own ideology.

No, it's an argument to biased motivations, read on...

By calling their interpreations 'ad hoc', I am implying that the interpretations are driven solely by pre-set motivations to make them fit into one's beliefs and not a more rational exegesis. So yes, all interpretations are after the writing is done (in other news, the sky is blue) but the point of calling a set of interpretations 'ad hoc' is to stress their biased, self serving nature, revealed by their inconsistent logic.

That's a nice way of saying it....but the reality is that they are driven by their own secular sense of morality to reject immoral aspects of the bible. Of course they'd they'd 'find a means' of justifying this biblically - they'd find this justification whether it existed or not... they are driven by dogma, and all a dogmatist needs to thrive is his dogma and a work with some level of vagueness. The bible provides both in abundance.

The problem with the 'spirit of the law defense' is that it relies on people being capable of being moral agents, independent of the bible.... This defense therefore treats dandruff by decapitation... it helps solve some of the problems of the OT, but only by rejecting the concept that the bible is required for making moral judgements! In fact, one is holding that people are superior moral judges than the bible!

Yet the very same OT is held to be prophetic of jesus... so on the one hand, it's a miraculous work able to predict the future, and yet, on the other, it's utterly incapable of making even the most basic of moral judgements concerning the most vital of human needs.

So the theist who uses this argument again treats dandruff by decapitation....

And this is precisely the sort of outcome that follows from ad hoc arguments... since ad hoc arguments are driven solely by a need to 'solve the current problem' they often rely on practices that are inconsistent with the overall system... i.e. they lead to contradictions.

Actually, it is not internally consistent...and that's the real problem, ironically enough....

While I agree with this to a point, it yet again misses the issue. Pointing out "pre-set motivations" is not an argument against christians, at least not in this context. There isn't an apologist out there who wouldn't admit that biases and so on creep into interpretation. In fact, that's why the entire subfield of theology, called biblical theology, was created, so as to address how the original text was meant within the cultural context of the time.

In addition, pointing out interpretive problems isn't going to effect the knowledgeable believer. This is due to interpretations being man-made and thus capable of being revised. The core point for the believer is that they are trying to understand the Word of God and thus in the sin-state in which they find themselves in and in the fallen world in which interpretation takes place, of course there are going to be problems, but this does not take away from what is true, i.e. the transcendent message of God's attempt at redemption of humanity.

Unfortunately, this doesn't work either. The believer is under no obligation to adhere to the position that man is incapable of moral reasoning. Even the fervent Calvinist doesn't believe this. This brings up the theological position regarding conscience, that being God's internal gift to man, to show his inability to live consistently and thus his need for a source outside of himself for salvation.

In addition, while I personally see the point you're making, the way out for the believer is to simply postulate the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, a doctrinal point that has long been used to justify man's ability to make correct moral choices.

I'm not saying any of this is right, I'm only pointing out that once you implicitly agree that a thing called "the bible" truly exists, you're at a disadvantage in the argumentation.

Not sure where you got the point of the OT being incapable of making "the most basic of moral judgments" other than from your own position. Course, even then, the OT isn't completely filled with morally objectionable parts. Also, this ignores the distinction that I've pointed out previously between the so-called "social law" and the "moral law." And in fact, on logic alone, there is no necessity for the Bible to be perfect in every aspect. It is quite possible to see that prophecy is accurate and leave the moral issues either up for further study or chalk it up to not understanding everything God has done. Within the christian ideology, this is perfectly acceptable.

And not to belabor the point, but the qualification I made as to "particular theological framework" DOES make the thinking internally consistent, but again, only if certain things are accepted on the basis of faith. Quite frankly, all ideologies are like that. The point is to begin question the foundational principles, not go after the branches.