Raving Atheists Forum

Raving Atheists Forum (http://ravingatheists.com/forum/index.php)
-   Atheist vs Theist (http://ravingatheists.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Yes...The Old Testament Laws Still Apply (http://ravingatheists.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16582)

West491 05-05-2011 07:08 PM

Yes...The Old Testament Laws Still Apply
 
Some Christians like to say that the Old Testament Laws don't apply anymore, and that they have a new covenant. This thread is just a place to post the scriptures (Old or New Testament) that contradict this viewpoint. Erm, yeah, this doesn't have to be a long thread but it could be a useful resource. I'll start it off with a couple.
Genesis 17:19
Then God said, “Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac.[a] I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.

Matthew 5:18-19
And Jesus said,...... "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."

Davin 05-06-2011 08:13 AM

But it also says that they'll only be the least in the kingdom of heaven, doesn't say anything about going to hell for breaking them.

West491 05-06-2011 08:25 AM

True. However, the point is that Jesus himself disapproves of people not obeying the laws in the Old Testament.

fiatlux 05-06-2011 08:32 AM

Here's a covenant from the god of the OT that contradicts a covenant from the same god of the OT. Sorry it's a little off topic, but it's another piece of ammo one could use when arguing these types of points.

Covenant with the descendants of Noah, purported to be the ancestors of all mankind:

Genesis 9:1-4 So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.”

Covenant with the Israelites, also the supposed descendants of Noah:

Leviticus 11

*41And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten.

*42Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination.

*43Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby.

*44For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

West491 05-06-2011 08:46 AM

Very nice observation, fiat. I never noticed that.

fiatlux 05-06-2011 09:01 AM

Quote:

West491 wrote (Post 635092)
Very nice observation, fiat. I never noticed that.

Thanks! I had never heard it before either, but your thread got me digging. I remembered that there was a covenant with Noah so I did a search and was shocked to find the verse about "every moving thing that lives" being up for grabs on the holy smorgasboard in my very first google search. If I weren't an atheist, it would be easy to believe that divine providence was guiding my mouse and typing fingers.

A simpler explanation would probably be that these kind of inconsistencies must be rampant throughout the not-so-good book, if even a computer klutz like me could stumble across one on his very first attempt.

lostsheep 05-06-2011 09:34 PM

So gawd hates those creepy crawlies...well, I for one can understand that.
We all have our things that make us recoil in fear and loathing!

thomastwo 05-06-2011 10:39 PM

Quote:

West491 wrote (Post 635043)
Some Christians like to say that the Old Testament Laws don't apply anymore, and that they have a new covenant. This thread is just a place to post the scriptures (Old or New Testament) that contradict this viewpoint. Erm, yeah, this doesn't have to be a long thread but it could be a useful resource. I'll start it off with a couple.
Genesis 17:19
Then God said, “Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac.[a] I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.



You also need to underline "for his descendants". Not a descendant? Then not an everlasting covenant.

Quote:

West491 wrote (Post 635043)
Matthew 5:18-19
And Jesus said,...... "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."

The claim of Christians is that Jesus did fulfil the law, and therefore removed the condition. And verse 17 appears to be a confirmation of that view?

thomastwo 05-06-2011 10:39 PM

Quote:

fiatlux wrote (Post 635090)
Here's a covenant from the god of the OT that contradicts a covenant from the same god of the OT. Sorry it's a little off topic, but it's another piece of ammo one could use when arguing these types of points.

Covenant with the descendants of Noah, purported to be the ancestors of all mankind:

Genesis 9:1-4 So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.”

Covenant with the Israelites, also the supposed descendants of Noah:

Leviticus 11

*41And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten.

*42Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination.

*43Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby.

*44For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

They are different covenants. Why should they be the same?

fiatlux 05-06-2011 10:54 PM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote (Post 635123)
They are different covenants. Why should they be the same?

Why would a god that once looked upon his creation and called it "good" later look upon parts of that same creation and call them an obomination?

fiatlux 05-06-2011 11:05 PM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote (Post 635122)
[/indent]
The claim of Christians is that Jesus did fulfil the law, and therefore removed the condition. And verse 17 appears to be a confirmation of that view?

Christians claim many things. But if Christ was all knowing and knew he was going to fulfill the law, why include all of the melodramatic verbiage about "til heaven and earth shall pass yada yada.just for effect, I suppose.

fiatlux 05-07-2011 01:54 AM

Abomination. That is. Heh.

thomastwo 05-07-2011 10:00 AM

Quote:

fiatlux wrote (Post 635124)
Why would a god that once looked upon his creation and called it "good" later look upon parts of that same creation and call them an obomination?

Garden of Eden and all that.

thomastwo 05-07-2011 10:01 AM

Quote:

fiatlux wrote (Post 635125)
Christians claim many things. But if Christ was all knowing and knew he was going to fulfill the law, why include all of the melodramatic verbiage about "til heaven and earth shall pass yada yada.just for effect, I suppose.

Yes, for effect. Matthew was writing to the Jewish community. Matt 5:17-20 is a summary of Jesus' attitude towards the Law.

fiatlux 05-07-2011 10:03 AM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote (Post 635146)
Garden of Eden and all that.

Never existed and all that.

Kinich Ahau 05-07-2011 10:37 AM

:thumbsup:

thomastwo 05-07-2011 10:42 AM

Quote:

fiatlux wrote (Post 635149)
Never existed and all that.

I agree that you are probably right. But it provides an answer to your question even if we are discussing myth and not history.

Kinich Ahau 05-07-2011 10:43 AM

Hey, don't let T2 derail the thread, This is how he gets his kicks and probably a few God-points.

fiatlux 05-07-2011 01:43 PM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote (Post 635155)
I agree that you are probably right. But it provides an answer to your question even if we are discussing myth and not history.

It provides a mythical answer to my real question, if that's what you mean.

I agree with Kinich that this thread is being derailed, so if you'd like to start a new thread to discuss this further then I'd be willing to throw down with you.

That said, I can't help myself in making a parting response to your probability-based doubt that the garden of Eden ever existed. If you're skeptical of it, then why believe anything else in the bible? What makes parts of it history and parts of it myth? Do you pick and choose what you believe from the word of gawd? With what criteria? Because you like Jimmy Dean's pork products with your pancakes? Why be a christian at all if you're not sure what you can and can't believe in the bible? And why respond to this thread -- which is intended to be a resource for talking to Christians that are convinced that every jot and tittle of their holy book is historically accurate and straight from the big guy himself?

dogpet 05-07-2011 03:02 PM

Quite right. Thomas believes the bits that agree with him.

babrock 05-07-2011 03:23 PM

o.t. laws
 
I have yet to meet a theist who has any other response to Ex:21-21 or so, than that that rule was only for back then and not now. I am referring to the verse that explains under which circumstances it is ok to beat ones slave to death. The justification basicly is that the slave owner is already sufficiently punished by loss of property.

West491 05-08-2011 12:43 PM

Thanks everyone for your input. Mods, if you're not too busy, could you please redirect those off-topic threads.

thomastwo 05-09-2011 09:41 AM

Quote:

Kinich Ahau wrote (Post 635156)
Hey, don't let T2 derail the thread, This is how he gets his kicks and probably a few God-points.

What did I de-rail? The question was about the validity of the OT covenants and that is what I answered. Fiat had some questions about my answer and I answered those questions.

Where was the de-rail?

thomastwo 05-09-2011 09:56 AM

Quote:

babrock wrote (Post 635170)
I have yet to meet a theist who has any other response to Ex:21-21 or so, than that that rule was only for back then and not now. I am referring to the verse that explains under which circumstances it is ok to beat ones slave to death. The justification basicly is that the slave owner is already sufficiently punished by loss of property.

I've got another response for you. It doesn't say it's OK to beat your slave to death.

thomastwo 05-09-2011 10:05 AM

Quote:

fiatlux wrote (Post 635167)
I agree with Kinich that this thread is being derailed, so if you'd like to start a new thread to discuss this further then I'd be willing to throw down with you.

I'll see your 'de-rail' and raise it. Although I don't really consider this a de-rail. It's important to clarify meaning when discussing something.

Quote:

fiatlux wrote (Post 635167)
That said, I can't help myself in making a parting response to your probability-based doubt that the garden of Eden ever existed. If you're skeptical of it, then why believe anything else in the bible? What makes parts of it history and parts of it myth?

There are good reasons to believe that some of the Bible is historical fact. There are good reasons to believe that some of the Bible is myth, or poetry or some other form of literature. There are some parts of the Bible that may be myth or history and we don't have enough information to know for sure. You need to consider each section, sometimes each verse, separately. There is no reasonable, single opinion about the Bible being one or another type of literature.

Quote:

fiatlux wrote (Post 635167)
Do you pick and choose what you believe from the word of gawd? With what criteria? Because you like Jimmy Dean's pork products with your pancakes? Why be a christian at all if you're not sure what you can and can't believe in the bible?

There isn't a silver bullet method for interpreting the Bible. Only simple, rational consideration of the evidence.

Regardless of the status of individual parts of the Bible, I still choose to use it as the lens through which I choose to see everything else. The most obvious reason for why I choose to do that is that I was brought up in a Christian environment and so learnt to see the world that way.

Quote:

fiatlux wrote (Post 635167)
And why respond to this thread -- which is intended to be a resource for talking to Christians that are convinced that every jot and tittle of their holy book is historically accurate and straight from the big guy himself?

It wasn't clear to me that in the "atheist v theist" section of the forum that only certain types of theists were intended to respond. Perhaps, the section should be renamed 'atheist v strawman fundamentalist, american christians'?

thomastwo 05-09-2011 10:07 AM

Quote:

dogpet wrote (Post 635169)
Quite right. Thomas believes the bits that agree with him.

How did you draw that conclusion from what I posted? Or are you the one who is guilty of believing only the things that you agree with?

thomastwo 05-09-2011 10:08 AM

Quote:

West491 wrote (Post 635209)
Thanks everyone for your input. Mods, if you're not too busy, could you please redirect those off-topic threads.

Yeah, because you wouldn't want to have to actually deal with opinions you don't agree with would you? Perhaps if you responded to my on-topic response to your OP you would actually have a thread?

Smellyoldgit 05-09-2011 11:12 AM

Just remember that to be a Real Atheist(TM), one needs to develop skills in anal-ysing and debunking the claptrap in all holey books. Slippery T2 is probably well able to defend the contradictory nonsense in his own brand of woo - but I bet he'll struggle with the real heavy theo-illogicality of The New Klingon Version.

Irreligious 05-09-2011 11:16 AM

I wonder how this one thinks we are supposed to engage his particular brand of obstinate stupidity?

Does he seriously expect us to humor him, pretend to be as enamored of his dumb observations, non sequiturs and obfuscations as he is, and refrain from challenging him on any of them?

I suppose I need not wonder if he has ever considered extending the same courtesy that he expects here to outspoken atheists visiting his church.

fiatlux 05-09-2011 12:15 PM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote (Post 635246)

It wasn't clear to me that in the "atheist v theist" section of the forum that only certain types of theists were intended to respond. Perhaps, the section should be renamed 'atheist v strawman fundamentalist, american christians'?

I think West491 narrowly-defined the thread as a repository for verses that show Christians that the old testament laws still apply. I was the first to deviate from this by discussing other biblical inconsistencies, so, I am partially to blame for derailing the thread. That, and by carelessly taking the bait to respond to you. My bad. No disrespect intended to Westy or the rest of the forum.

Now, then, if you really wish to discuss why it's obvious that your reading and doctrinal interpretation of Matthew 5:17 is highly dubious within the context of the entire passage, and why West491's original assertion that Old Testament laws still apply to, not just the jews, but Christians, according to the red letter words of Jesus H. Christ himself (and not his wily stooges Peter and Paul), please feel free to start a new thread and I'll be happy to fill you in on all the juicy details.

thomastwo 05-09-2011 01:15 PM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 635255)
I wonder how this one thinks we are supposed to engage his particular brand of obstinate stupidity?

No need to respond to, or even read, what I wrote. It's your choice.

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 635255)
Does he seriously expect us to humor him, pretend to be as enamored of his dumb observations, non sequiturs and obfuscations as he is, and refrain from challenging him on any of them?

I have very low expectations of you in particular. I expect you to evade arguments, misunderstood simple logic and resort to insults as soon as possible.

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 635255)
I suppose I need not wonder if he has ever considered extending the same courtesy that he expects here to outspoken atheists visiting his church.

If you were having a private meeting I wouldn't even think of interrupting you. But when you have a public internet forum with a section called atheist v theist I think that is a public space that invites comment.

You could close the membership of the forum to theists and then you would be able to create your own wonderful echo chamber where nobody disagrees with you.

Davin 05-09-2011 01:22 PM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote (Post 635261)
You could close the membership of the forum to theists and then you would be able to create your own wonderful echo chamber where nobody disagrees with you.

So I suppose you missed the whole argument between atheists that did not agree with eachother in the "No Morality in Christianity[...]" thread.

thomastwo 05-09-2011 01:29 PM

You're right Davin. There is disagreement between atheists on the forum. I was wrong about that.

Irreligious 05-09-2011 01:48 PM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote (Post 635261)
You could close the membership of the forum to theists and then you would be able to create your own wonderful echo chamber where nobody disagrees with you.

Or you could stop pretending to care what any atheist-- here, on this forum, or anywhere in the world-- actually thinks?

We have nothing to say to you that you would find valid. Not a thing. You know that. The only satisfaction we can offer you is to tell you that you make sense. Why do come here to demand that of any of us?

You don't make sense to us. We try to tell you why, but it obviously doesn't make sense to you.

Given that state of affairs, and after nearly 2,000 of your own postings, what else do want from the atheist posters here?

thomastwo 05-09-2011 02:09 PM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 635268)
Or you could stop pretending to care what any atheist-- here, on this forum, or anywhere in the world-- actually thinks?

I don't care

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 635268)
We have nothing to say to you that you would find valid. Not a thing. You know that. The only satisfaction we can offer you is to tell you that you make sense. Why do come here to demand that of any of us?

I'm not demanding anything from you.

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 635268)
You don't make sense to us. We try to tell you why, but it obviously doesn't make sense to you.

Some posts make sense. Just not yours.

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 635268)
Given that state of affairs, and after nearly 2,000 of your own postings, what else do want from the atheist posters here?

I don't want anything

Irreligious 05-09-2011 02:17 PM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote (Post 635270)
Some posts make sense. Just not yours.

Whose, in particular?

thomastwo 05-09-2011 02:27 PM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 635274)
Whose, in particular?

The record is open for examination. Go and see who I've agreed with. You might start with even this thread.

Demigod79 05-09-2011 05:00 PM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote (Post 635122)
The claim of Christians is that Jesus did fulfil the law, and therefore removed the condition. And verse 17 appears to be a confirmation of that view?

How exactly did Jesus fulfill the law? As far as we know, he never did establish God's Kingdom on earth (wars are still going on, people are still dying from disease and natural disasters, and the one true God is still not worshipped by everyone). Don't you think there's a reason why so many Christians are looking to Jesus' Second Coming? That is, they expect that everything will finally be fulfilled when Jesus comes back?

Irreligious 05-09-2011 05:04 PM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote (Post 635277)
The record is open for examination. Go and see who I've agreed with. You might start with even this thread.

I posed the question to you. If there is some atheist on this forum who makes sense to you, you should have no trouble pointing out who that is.

Why would you want to send me on a wild goose chase instead?

thomastwo 05-09-2011 05:22 PM

Quote:

Demigod79 wrote (Post 635294)
How exactly did Jesus fulfill the law?

I don't know exactly how, only that the plain text says that he will, and that almost all Christians agree that happened at the crucifixion. Different Christians disagree on which parts of the Law were abolished. Some say all of them were abolished. Others say the civil law and cleanliness laws only were abolished. You could look up dispensationalist and covenant theology if you want to know more.

Quote:

Demigod79 wrote (Post 635294)
As far as we know, he never did establish God's Kingdom on earth (wars are still going on, people are still dying from disease and natural disasters, and the one true God is still not worshipped by everyone).

Which is what he predicted would happen.

Quote:

Demigod79 wrote (Post 635294)
Don't you think there's a reason why so many Christians are looking to Jesus' Second Coming? That is, they expect that everything will finally be fulfilled when Jesus comes back?

I personally think that God's kingdom is both here and coming in the future. That is, Jesus' death provided the start of the coming of the kingdom. That's partly why Christians want to start helping to create just and fair societies now.

thomastwo 05-09-2011 05:25 PM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 635295)
I posed the question to you. If there is some atheist on this forum who makes sense to you, you should have no trouble pointing out who that is.

Well in this thread fiatlux and demigod have asked good questions. Davin made a good point to correct me.

You on the other hand have made no positive contribution other than to harass me.

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 635295)
Why would you want to send me on a wild goose chase instead?

Because your sniping is wearing and I thought it might distract you for a moment. Squirrel!

Irreligious 05-09-2011 05:41 PM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote (Post 635299)
Well in this thread fiatlux and demigod have asked good questions. Davin made a good point to correct me.

You on the other hand have made no positive contribution other than to harass me.

Aww. :( Have I been harrassing the sweet, widdle preacher man? I'm sorry I interrupted your sermon. Perhaps I should leave this little chapel you set up for yourself here and seek out a sanctuary of my own. Maybe I'll call it the Raving Atheists Forum.

Yep. I think I might do that. :rolleyes:

Quote:

thomastwo wrote
Because your sniping is wearing and I thought it might distract you for a moment. Squirrel!

But you are the squirrel. You still don't get that?

This is a really dumb squirrel. Just saying.

fiatlux 05-09-2011 05:53 PM

Quote:

Demigod79 wrote (Post 635294)
How exactly did Jesus fulfill the law? As far as we know, he never did establish God's Kingdom on earth (wars are still going on, people are still dying from disease and natural disasters, and the one true God is still not worshipped by everyone). Don't you think there's a reason why so many Christians are looking to Jesus' Second Coming? That is, they expect that everything will finally be fulfilled when Jesus comes back?

You are correct demigod. The NIV makes it clear:

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Hence the "til heaven and earth disappear" verbiage isn't just for dramatic effect, as T2 believes. Any believer without indoctrination and with a brain would read this as the second coming, messianic 1000 year reign, Satan bound in hell, yada yada.

Demigod79 05-09-2011 08:27 PM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote (Post 635298)
I don't know exactly how, only that the plain text says that he will, and that almost all Christians agree that happened at the crucifixion. Different Christians disagree on which parts of the Law were abolished. Some say all of them were abolished. Others say the civil law and cleanliness laws only were abolished. You could look up dispensationalist and covenant theology if you want to know more.

I don't see anything in the OT prophecies and laws that indicate that someone must die a sacrificial death to fulfill the law. I think this is just later Christian interpretation.

Quote:

thomastwo wrote (Post 635298)
I personally think that God's kingdom is both here and coming in the future. That is, Jesus' death provided the start of the coming of the kingdom. That's partly why Christians want to start helping to create just and fair societies now.

That's quite a kingdom then. In the past century alone there were two world wars, various economic crises, an earthquake big enough to tilt the earth's axis, etc. If Jesus died to bring about this world then his life was clearly wasted. I would not call this paradise on earth, would you?

Quote:

fiatlux wrote (Post 635303)
You are correct demigod. The NIV makes it clear:

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Hence the "til heaven and earth disappear" verbiage isn't just for dramatic effect, as T2 believes. Any believer without indoctrination and with a brain would read this as the second coming, messianic 1000 year reign, Satan bound in hell, yada yada.

I think it's also telling that Jesus indicated very clearly that only those who adhere to the law will inherit the kingdom. I think T2 and others are reading into the passage, putting words into Jesus' mouth (this is not something that even an atheist like myself would do!).

thomastwo 05-09-2011 10:38 PM

Quote:

fiatlux wrote (Post 635303)
You are correct demigod. The NIV makes it clear:

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Hence the "til heaven and earth disappear" verbiage isn't just for dramatic effect, as T2 believes. Any believer without indoctrination and with a brain would read this as the second coming, messianic 1000 year reign, Satan bound in hell, yada yada.

But everything was accomplished.

Quote:

Jesus wrote
it is finished


thomastwo 05-09-2011 10:44 PM

Quote:

Demigod79 wrote (Post 635310)
I don't see anything in the OT prophecies and laws that indicate that someone must die a sacrificial death to fulfill the law. I think this is just later Christian interpretation.

I think the system of animal sacrifice foreshadows the purpose of the perfect sacrificial death to absolve sin.

Quote:

Demigod79 wrote (Post 635310)
That's quite a kingdom then. In the past century alone there were two world wars, various economic crises, an earthquake big enough to tilt the earth's axis, etc. If Jesus died to bring about this world then his life was clearly wasted. I would not call this paradise on earth, would you?

Like I said, Jesus specifically predicted continued turmoil. But the death of Jesus started an era of Grace that starts off the Kingdom. Individuals can find heaven on earth right now, and work to extend it. Apologies for the preaching. But you did ask.

Quote:

Demigod79 wrote (Post 635310)
I think it's also telling that Jesus indicated very clearly that only those who adhere to the law will inherit the kingdom. I think T2 and others are reading into the passage, putting words into Jesus' mouth (this is not something that even an atheist like myself would do!).

So, from your "plain" reading what did Jesus mean when he said he would fulfil the law. How do you know that your reading is correct?

thomastwo 05-09-2011 10:47 PM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 635301)
Aww. :( Have I been harrassing the sweet, widdle preacher man? I'm sorry I interrupted your sermon. Perhaps I should leave this little chapel you set up for yourself here and seek out a sanctuary of my own. Maybe I'll call it the Raving Atheists Forum.

Yep. I think I might do that. :rolleyes:

Don't be stupid. You are the one who is demanding to discuss this topic of who thinks what of others. I'm just playing along by answering your questions.

Again I see that you are backing off your claims in the face of evidence. Evidence that was obvious to anybody with a fair, unbiased mind.

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 635301)
But you are the squirrel. You still don't get that?

This is a really dumb squirrel. Just saying.

I don't think you understood the reference.

Demigod79 05-10-2011 04:48 AM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote (Post 635316)
I think the system of animal sacrifice foreshadows the purpose of the perfect sacrificial death to absolve sin.

Again, interpretation. There was nothing in the OT that indicated that the system of animal sacrifices was to end.

Quote:

thomastwo wrote (Post 635316)
Like I said, Jesus specifically predicted continued turmoil. But the death of Jesus started an era of Grace that starts off the Kingdom. Individuals can find heaven on earth right now, and work to extend it. Apologies for the preaching. But you did ask.

No, Jesus predicted that turmoil would preceed the coming of the kingdom. There was no indication that turmoil would continue after the kingdom was established (in which case, what's the point of the kingdom?).

Your comment about heaven being right now makes me question the whole point of your religion. Stuff like that suggests that your definition of heaven and fulfillment are entirely subjective. Let me ask you, if you were living in the poorest region of Africa, slowly dying of starvation and disease, would you consider the kingdom of God to have arrived? Aren't you being a little bit ethno-centric and selfish in saying the kingdom of God is here just because you happen to be in the minority of people who (thanks largely to science) have a decent standard of living?

Quote:

thomastwo wrote (Post 635316)
So, from your "plain" reading what did Jesus mean when he said he would fulfil the law. How do you know that your reading is correct?

Are you blind? It says right there in the text! By "everything is fulfilled" Jesus meant the end of the world as we know it and the establishment of God's kingdom on earth (where the dead will be raised and judgment will be handed down). And yet, the world goes on the same as before. Jesus predicted some amazing things before the end (e.g., stars will fall down, moon will not give its light, etc.) but none of that happened (unless you think all of that is symbolic or metaphorical as well -- in which case, what did Jesus actually predict?).

Smellyoldgit 05-10-2011 05:01 AM

How long before 'Mysterious Ways' makes an appearance?

Irreligious 05-10-2011 05:01 AM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote (Post 635317)
Don't be stupid. You are the one who is demanding to discuss this topic of who thinks what of others. I'm just playing along by answering your questions.

Well, that's mighty generous of you to play along. You're very good at answering questions. I can hardly wait for more of your in depth explanations of how an alleged Jesus completely fullfilled Mosaic law and how heaven on Earth now exists for those who can find it.

Quote:

thomastwo wrote
Again I see that you are backing off your claims in the face of evidence. Evidence that was obvious to anybody with a fair, unbiased mind.

And which of my many claims would that be? My claim to know the alleged mind of the alleged creator of the universe?

Quote:

thomastwo wrote
I don't think you understood the reference.

Of course not. It was such a sophisticated reference. :rolleyes:

Irreligious 05-10-2011 05:09 AM

Quote:

Smellyoldgit wrote (Post 635327)
How long before 'Mysterious Ways' makes an appearance?

Let's not spoil T2's enjoyment of this forum. You know the Raving Atheists forum was created specifically for him to come here and preach, unfettered by atheistic cynicism.

Irreligious 05-10-2011 05:24 AM

And Demigod, don't expect anything approaching a linear argument from T2.

If he deigns to answer your question about how heaven on Earth exists for those who are being starved, raped and killed in Darfur, it will either be something dismissive or completely unrelated to what you asked.

That's just how our boy rolls. Like the goddamned Energizer Bunny.

Smellyoldgit 05-10-2011 06:33 AM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 635331)
If he deigns to answer your question about how heaven on Earth exists for those who are being starved, raped and killed in Darfur, it will either be something dismissive or completely unrelated to what you asked.

I tells ya, it's Mysterious Ways and we ain't meant to understand or question! :rolleyes:

Irreligious 05-10-2011 06:45 AM

Quote:

Smellyoldgit wrote (Post 635333)
I tells ya, it's Mysterious Ways and we ain't meant to understand or question! :rolleyes:

The mystery is why idiots, like T2 and the unlamentably departed Lily, come here to spew this drivel as if they're accomplishing something. They willfully ignore everything that's said to them, except the most vile insults.

fiatlux 05-10-2011 06:47 AM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote (Post 635314)
But everything was accomplished.

"It is finished" could be interpreted as anything. Or maybe it was just for dramatic effect. Try again.

Kate 05-10-2011 06:55 AM

Dramatic jeebus iz teh dramatic.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5131/...9b253720e7.jpg

Smellyoldgit 05-10-2011 07:04 AM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 635334)
The mystery is why idiots, like T2 and the unlamentably departed Lily, come here to spew this drivel as if they're accomplishing something. They willfully ignore everything that's said to them, except the most vile insults.

I suspect that deep down in the bowels of their theisty brain compartment, they do realise their faith is indeed nothing more that wishful thinking, a big cuddly bunny that nicely explains our origins and softens the spectre of death. They can twist and interpret anything they choose into the supporting ‘scriptures’ and to try and reason with them on anything vaguely related to their faith is futile. I do feel quite sorry for the sad bastards.
Perhaps they do take things away and have an occasional honest reappraisal of their bullshit, but I doubt it.
This is a nice video from a couple who did have the fortitude to do just that.
Honest Folk

Who was it who said people rarely change their minds in public?

fiatlux 05-10-2011 07:08 AM

Quote:

Kate wrote (Post 635336)

:rock:

Irreligious 05-10-2011 07:24 AM

Wow. That was an inspiring video, Smelly.

At first, I was very worried for this couple, but then I considered that they already come from wildly different backgrounds -- him being white and Pentecostal, and she being black, Haitian and Roman Catholic-- and have already overcome an awful lot.

Perhaps, they can also withstand the intense backlash from those who fear and hate atheists.

thomastwo 05-10-2011 09:33 AM

Quote:

Demigod79 wrote (Post 635326)
Again, interpretation. There was nothing in the OT that indicated that the system of animal sacrifices was to end.

Daniel 9:26-27 predicts the end of animal sacrifice. Jesus linked this prophecy to the destruction of the temple in AD70.

Quote:

Demigod79 wrote (Post 635326)
No, Jesus predicted that turmoil would preceed the coming of the kingdom. There was no indication that turmoil would continue after the kingdom was established (in which case, what's the point of the kingdom?).

Matthew 24:6-7 predicts wars and rumors of wars with the rider "but the end is not yet"

Quote:

Demigod79 wrote (Post 635326)
Your comment about heaven being right now makes me question the whole point of your religion. Stuff like that suggests that your definition of heaven and fulfillment are entirely subjective. Let me ask you, if you were living in the poorest region of Africa, slowly dying of starvation and disease, would you consider the kingdom of God to have arrived? Aren't you being a little bit ethno-centric and selfish in saying the kingdom of God is here just because you happen to be in the minority of people who (thanks largely to science) have a decent standard of living?

Are you blind? It says right there in the text! By "everything is fulfilled" Jesus meant the end of the world as we know it and the establishment of God's kingdom on earth (where the dead will be raised and judgment will be handed down). And yet, the world goes on the same as before. Jesus predicted some amazing things before the end (e.g., stars will fall down, moon will not give its light, etc.) but none of that happened (unless you think all of that is symbolic or metaphorical as well -- in which case, what did Jesus actually predict?).

Luke 17:20-21 - Jesus says that the Kingdom of God has already arrived.

thomastwo 05-10-2011 09:35 AM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 635328)
Well, that's mighty generous of you to play along. You're very good at answering questions. I can hardly wait for more of your in depth explanations of how an alleged Jesus completely fullfilled Mosaic law and how heaven on Earth now exists for those who can find it.

Cool

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 635328)
And which of my many claims would that be? My claim to know the alleged mind of the alleged creator of the universe?

No, the claim that I had no positive interactions with folks here.

thomastwo 05-10-2011 09:35 AM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 635329)
Let's not spoil T2's enjoyment of this forum. You know the Raving Atheists forum was created specifically for him to come here and preach, unfettered by atheistic cynicism.

When did I preach?

Irreligious 05-10-2011 09:43 AM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote (Post 635359)
No, the claim that I had no positive interactions with folks here.

Ah! Well, I am so glad to see that you and Demigod, and you and fiatlux have come to such an amicable meeting of the minds. Long may it last. :thumbsup:

So the best way to get along with you is to pretend to not notice that you consistently evade direct questions and copiously indulge in non sequiturs?

Got it.

Irreligious 05-10-2011 09:49 AM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote (Post 635360)
When did I preach?

That's all you do here, T2. And to be fair, that's all any theist who comes here ever does.

However, I can believe that you don't realize that that is what you do. You never actually consider any argument made by the atheist posters here. You're just here to defend you religion. At all costs.

If we had more Muslim interlopers on this forum, they would, no doubt, be doing the same. I also have little doubt that the same could be said of Voodoo practioners and Scientologists if they were invested enough to come here and offer apologias for their belief systems. And nothing that we would have to say would penetrate either.

thomastwo 05-10-2011 09:58 AM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 635363)
That's all you do here, T2. And to be fair, that's all any theist who comes here ever does.

However, I can believe that you don't realize that that is what you do. You never actually consider any argument made by the atheist posters here. You're just here to defend you religion. At all costs.

If we had more Muslim interlopers on this forum, they would, no doubt, be doing the same. I also have little doubt that the same could be said of Voodoo practioners and Scientologists if they were invested enough to come here and offer apologias for their belief systems. And nothing that we would have to say would penetrate either.

So, representing my opinion is preaching?

Irreligious 05-10-2011 10:04 AM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote (Post 635365)
So, representing my opinion is preaching?

When you ignore the merits of what others are saying in response to your opinions, yes.

thomastwo 05-10-2011 10:24 AM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 635366)
When you ignore the merits of what others are saying in response to your opinions, yes.

You can see examples in this thread of where I have acknowledged the correctness of others arguments, and acknowledged my errors.

Just because I don't think your arguments have any merit doesn't mean you can project that onto others. Especially when the evidence points the other way. That would be, according to your definition, intellectually dishonest.

babrock 05-10-2011 10:45 AM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote (Post 635244)
I've got another response for you. It doesn't say it's OK to beat your slave to death.


I did forget theists other response-to deny it says what it says.

Exodus 21:20-21*(King James Version)
*20And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
*21Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

How is 21:21 anything but permission to beat ones slave to death? One obviously was allowed back then to beat their slave with a rod, but if this slave manages to hang on for "a day or two, he (the owner) shall not be punished: for he is his own money."

Does "not be punished" not equate to permission in your mind? And just for good measure this verse even gives a rational for it being permisable. It is that it is viewed that the owner is the injured party in this affair being as he has suffered such a property loss and all.

thomastwo 05-10-2011 11:08 AM

Quote:

babrock wrote (Post 635377)
I did forget theists other response-to deny it says what it says.

Exodus 21:20-21*(King James Version)
*20And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
*21Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

How is 21:21 anything but permission to beat ones slave to death? One obviously was allowed back then to beat their slave with a rod, but if this slave manages to hang on for "a day or two, he (the owner) shall not be punished: for he is his own money."

Does "not be punished" not equate to permission in your mind? And just for good measure this verse even gives a rational for it being permisable. It is that it is viewed that the owner is the injured party in this affair being as he has suffered such a property loss and all.

The way I read it is that if the owner kills the slave deliberately then he is to be punished. This is in no way permission to kill a slave. If however the slave dies a couple of days later, which I take to be an unintended consequence (i.e. manslaughter), then the punishment is the loss of the value of the slave. In neither instance is there no punishment for the act. And in neither instance is there any sense of permission being given.

Irreligious 05-10-2011 11:22 AM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote (Post 635373)
You can see examples in this thread of where I have acknowledged the correctness of others arguments, and acknowledged my errors.

Just because I don't think your arguments have any merit doesn't mean you can project that onto others. Especially when the evidence points the other way. That would be, according to your definition, intellectually dishonest.

OK T2. I'll go searhing for all the mutliple instances of where you have acknowledged the correctness of other atheists' arguments on this forum and all those many, many occasions where you've acknowledged your own errors in reasoning.

That ought to keep me busy, like forever. :rolleyes:

fiatlux 05-10-2011 11:29 AM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote (Post 635358)
Daniel 9:26-27 predicts the end of animal sacrifice. Jesus linked this prophecy to the destruction of the temple in AD70.

Hence, "everything is not yet accomplished" by christ saying "it is finished on the cross." Because, obviously, the temple hadn't been destroyed yet.

Quote:

thomastwo wrote (Post 635358)
Matthew 24:6-7 predicts wars and rumors of wars with the rider "but the end is not yet"

Hence, "everything is not yet accomplished"

Quote:

thomastwo wrote (Post 635358)
Luke 17:20-21 - Jesus says that the Kingdom of God has already arrived.

Yet later in the same passage he goes into detail about how the "day of the son of man" is still coming.

Hence, everything is not yet accomplished.

Plus, this was before he said "it is finished." Which you cited as proof of everything being accomplished. Gaping continuity error in your little movie.

It's really pretty simple to understand. Yet you have too twist yourself into a pretzel or grasp at straws to arrive at your doctrine.

Face it. Jesus looks down on you for not following the Jewish law. And cries like a little baby girl, every time you eat a bacon bit.

Kate 05-10-2011 11:35 AM

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile...2189_396_n.jpg

thomastwo 05-10-2011 11:45 AM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 635386)
OK T2. I'll go searhing for all the mutliple instances of where you have acknowledged the correctness of other atheists' arguments on this forum and all those many, many occasions where you've acknowledged your own errors in reasoning.

That ought to keep me busy, like forever. :rolleyes:

Try post #17 and post #33 in this thread.

thomastwo 05-10-2011 11:59 AM

Quote:

fiatlux wrote (Post 635387)
Hence, "everything is not yet accomplished" by christ saying "it is finished on the cross." Because, obviously, the temple hadn't been destroyed yet.

Hence, "everything is not yet accomplished"

Yet later in the same passage he goes into detail about how the "day of the son of man" is still coming.

Hence, everything is not yet accomplished.

Plus, this was before he said "it is finished." Which you cited as proof of everything being accomplished. Gaping continuity error in your little movie.

It's really pretty simple to understand. Yet you have too twist yourself into a pretzel or grasp at straws to arrive at your doctrine.

Face it. Jesus looks down on you for not following the Jewish law. And cries like a little baby girl, every time you eat a bacon bit.

He says that he has come to fulfil it. He doesn't say that he is coming back to fulfil it. The natural reading of "it is finished" is that he has done what he came to do. One of those things is to fulfil the law.

Kate 05-10-2011 12:04 PM

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_hu-8Sx8iGz...%252C+2006.jpg

fiatlux 05-10-2011 12:31 PM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote (Post 635393)
He says that he has come to fulfil it. He doesn't say that he is coming back to fulfil it. The natural reading of "it is finished" is that he has done what he came to do. One of those things is to fulfil the law.

WTF is a natural reading? Actually, your reading of that scripture is a supernatural reading.

The natural reading, if that's what you want to call it, of "it is finished" means "my suffering on the cross is finished 'cause I'm damn near dead." Like one would find in a Shakespearean tragedy. Or maybe "I'm just being dramatic."

Yet, obviously it's not finished at this point, right? Christ hasn't accomplished everything yet, right? Don't christians believe in a little thing called the resurrection as a requirement for all this new covenant mumbo-jumbo-presto-chango? I thought they did.

Hence, whatever "it is finished' means, it is not a proclamation of the end of Jewish law. Because the Jewish law isn't over until "everything is accomplished." And everything ain't accomplished yet.

And it's not even over with the resurrection. There is a lot that the king of the jews has yet to accomplish in the rest of the bible, no? Still lots of seals to open, horns to blow and baddies to slaughter.

And it ain't over 'til its over.

Kate 05-10-2011 12:42 PM

http://hiscrivener.files.wordpress.c...ng-warning.jpg

babrock 05-10-2011 01:36 PM

Well I can't argue with that. If you "read it" to mean this, and if you "take it" to mean that, then you seem to me to be making it say whatever you want.

Yes words and phrases, especially the English of the King James, have some latitude and flexibility. You, however, have gone beyond this to "read it" to mean something about as far from its initial meaning as possible.

"(H)e shall not be punished" is about as clear a statement can be to mean it is not prohibited. Not prohibited means allowed/permisable.

At no point were the landowners motives alluded to and I see no reason whatsoever to read unintended into the landowners motives. It says smite. That is as deliberate as it gets.

If instead of taking it to mean what it says, we are allowed to give consideration to what we"read" into it, I read into it that not even the smallest amount of concern was given to whatever human being had the misfortune it bring the slave here. It is entirely about the owner.

You say "In neither instance was there no punishment for the act". I say, that is just slapping the slaveowner on the wrist for murder and calling it "even Stevens".

I like the idea it not excluding theists from our site. So I am not giving you grief for posting here. But you are going to have to do better than to "read" wrong as right, call that a response, and expect to get much more of my attention.

Demigod79 05-10-2011 02:26 PM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote (Post 635358)
Matthew 24:6-7 predicts wars and rumors of wars with the rider "but the end is not yet"

Yes, it says such things will happen before the end times has come, which supports my idea that the end has not arrived yet and the kingdom of God is not yet here.

Quote:

thomastwo wrote (Post 635358)
Luke 17:20-21 - Jesus says that the Kingdom of God has already arrived.

Again, if the famed kingdom of God that Jesus promised is this world then Christianity is a pointless religion. If this world is the best that Jesus could produce then he is not worth worshipping. Honestly, you're not really doing much credit to your religion by posting stuff like this.

Demigod79 05-10-2011 06:59 PM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote (Post 635358)
Luke 17:20-21 - Jesus says that the Kingdom of God has already arrived.

BTW, as a side note, doesn't that passage sound suspiciously... gnostic?

Irreligious 05-10-2011 09:46 PM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote (Post 635390)
Try post #17 and post #33 in this thread.

OK. Let's see. Hmm:

Quote:

thomastwo wrote (Post 635266)
You're right Davin. There is disagreement between atheists on the forum. I was wrong about that.

--Posted in reply to Davin’s observation about an ongoing disagreement between several atheist posters that T2 initiated in the "No Morality in Christianity” thread and continues to be actively engaged in.

And:
Quote:

thomastwo wrote (Post 635155)
I agree that you are probably right. But it provides an answer to your question even if we are discussing myth and not history.

--An equivocal acknowledgement, posted in reply to Davin's observation that a literal Garden of Eden did not exist.

Why, you concilatory son of a gun, you! You actually have been listening to what atheist posters here have to say to you, and you've agreed two (actually 1 1/2) whole times with their (actually just one poster's) penetrating and insightful observations about consequential matters.

Keep it up and pretty soon you'll be playing on our team. :rolleyes:

Kinich Ahau 05-11-2011 12:13 AM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote (Post 635423)
Keep it up and pretty soon you'll be playing on our team. :rolleyes:

He'll be warming the bench!

Kinich Ahau 05-11-2011 01:06 AM

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/...nch_warmer.jpg

Smellyoldgit 05-11-2011 02:27 AM

An article from The Times - 2005
 
Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.

The document is timely, coming as it does amid the rise of the religious Right, in particular in the US.

Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing “intelligent design” to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.

But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”.

The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system. Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible.

In the document, the bishops acknowledge their debt to biblical scholars. They say the Bible must be approached in the knowledge that it is “God’s word expressed in human language” and that proper acknowledgement should be given both to the word of God and its human dimensions.

They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways “appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries”.

The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but continue: “We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.”

They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach.

“Such an approach is dangerous, for example, when people of one nation or group see in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority, and even consider themselves permitted by the Bible to use violence against others.”

Of the notorious anti-Jewish curse in Matthew 27:25, “His blood be on us and on our children”, a passage used to justify centuries of anti-Semitism, the bishops say these and other words must never be used again as a pretext to treat Jewish people with contempt. Describing this passage as an example of dramatic exaggeration, the bishops say they have had “tragic consequences” in encouraging hatred and persecution. “The attitudes and language of first-century quarrels between Jews and Jewish Christians should never again be emulated in relations between Jews and Christians.”

As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing.

Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation, the last book of the Christian Bible, in which the writer describes the work of the risen Jesus, the death of the Beast and the wedding feast of Christ the Lamb.

The bishops say: “Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally. We should not expect to discover in this book details about the end of the world, about how many will be saved and about when the end will come.”

In their foreword to the teaching document, the two most senior Catholics of the land, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, and Cardinal Keith O’Brien, Archbishop of St Andrew’s and Edinburgh, explain its context.

They say people today are searching for what is worthwhile, what has real value, what can be trusted and what is really true.

The new teaching has been issued as part of the 40th anniversary celebrations of Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council document explaining the place of Scripture in revelation. In the past 40 years, Catholics have learnt more than ever before to cherish the Bible. “We have rediscovered the Bible as a precious treasure, both ancient and ever new.”

A Christian charity is sending a film about the Christmas story to every primary school in Britain after hearing of a young boy who asked his teacher why Mary and Joseph had named their baby after a swear word. The Breakout Trust raised £200,000 to make the 30-minute animated film, It’s a Boy. Steve Legg, head of the charity, said: “There are over 12 million children in the UK and only 756,000 of them go to church regularly.

That leaves a staggering number who are probably not receiving basic Christian teaching.”

babrock 05-11-2011 03:51 AM

And if the Catholic church can agree that those parts that they have decided on are "not actually true" , then how about extending that to also include the part between Gen.1:1 and the last bit of Revelations?

Smellyoldgit 05-11-2011 04:54 AM

I'll wager that the majority of catlicker folk with an IQ slightly above that of an amoeba, take fuck all notice of the opinions of the dress wearing wankers heading up their sham of a church.

maxbjork 06-20-2011 02:25 PM

Quote:

West491 wrote (Post 635043)

Matthew 5:18-19
And Jesus said,...... "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." [/indent]

I wish I remembered this quote when discussing how immoral the OT was with this one Christian. She was one of those people that claimed the OT didn't apply anymore because of Jesus... or whatever she tried to tell her self.

West491 06-21-2011 11:11 AM

That faulty argument is so commonly used that it was yelling for some attention. Hence, my creation of this thread. And I've used this as a rebuttal so many times, I have it memorized.

lostsheep 06-21-2011 09:30 PM

Quote:

maxbjork wrote (Post 637012)
I wish I remembered this quote when discussing how immoral the OT was with this one Christian. She was one of those people that claimed the OT didn't apply anymore because of Jesus... or whatever she tried to tell her self.

Yes indeedy. I remember hearing this explanation from my Sunday school teacher: it was "explained" that god made a new covenant with humans because we were just too wretched to keep up with the commandments, so he had to send his son to die to make up for our wretchedness. I remember thinking that God should have realized we weren't going to keep those commandments anymore than we weren't going to eat that apple.

Also I wondered how his son's death made up for our sins. And why god wanted sacrfices to attone for bad acts in the first place, especially the sacrifice (murder) of innocent things that didn't have anything to do with anything. This shit probably doesn't make sense to any child to whom it is force-fed, but over time Christians are indoctrinated (and also indoctrinate themselves) to believe this non-sensical manure. I wonder if Orwell was thinking of religion when he wrote 1984.

West491 06-22-2011 10:41 AM

Quote:

lostsheep wrote (Post 637023)
I wonder if Orwell was thinking of religion when he wrote 1984.

Just finished reading Animal Farm. One hell of a book.

lostsheep 06-22-2011 10:03 PM

A depressing read!

dogpet 06-29-2011 02:26 PM

Quote:

lostsheep wrote (Post 637023)
Yes indeedy. I remember hearing this explanation from my Sunday school teacher: it was "explained" that god made a new covenant with humans because we were just too wretched to keep up with the commandments, so he had to send his son to die to make up for our wretchedness. I remember thinking that God should have realized we weren't going to keep those commandments anymore than we weren't going to eat that apple.

Also I wondered how his son's death made up for our sins. And why god wanted sacrfices to attone for bad acts in the first place, especially the sacrifice (murder) of innocent things that didn't have anything to do with anything. This shit probably doesn't make sense to any child to whom it is force-fed, but over time Christians are indoctrinated (and also indoctrinate themselves) to believe this non-sensical manure. I wonder if Orwell was thinking of religion when he wrote 1984.

From Notes on Nationalism:

"One prod to the nerve of nationalism, and the intellectual decencies can vanish, the past can be altered, and the plainest facts can be denied."
&
"An intelligent man may half-succumb to a belief which he knows to be absurd, and he may keep it out of his mind for long periods, only reverting to it in moments of anger or sentimentality,"

zdave 07-15-2011 07:58 PM

I'm loving that quote in Genesis: "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you."

:(

Smellyoldgit 12-05-2012 06:17 AM

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...52197988_n.jpg

Davin 12-05-2012 08:12 AM

I'm so glad that they can clear it all up without any room for confusion.

Hobotronic2037 06-16-2018 11:07 PM

I reread this thread tonight. Highly recommended. This was from back when I posted as fiatlux — I lost the password and email address associated with it. Long story. Anyway. Good times.

Sinfidel 06-17-2018 10:53 AM

Quote:

zdave wrote (Post 637861)
I'm loving that quote in Genesis: "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you."

:(


https://pics.me.me/any-last-requests...gs-4987848.png

Noodle 06-17-2018 01:57 PM

No surprise this Thomas2 or whatever was slippery.

Is that you in your old account's profile picture? Nice beard.

Hobotronic2037 06-17-2018 04:46 PM

Quote:

Noodle wrote (Post 694491)
No surprise this Thomas2 or whatever was slippery.

Is that you in your old account's profile picture? Nice beard.

Thanks! :-) I am glad you dig it.

Yes these days my beard is quite a lot longer, even. And grayer for sure. Lol.

After reading through this thread I realized a couple of things. I miss actual debate with theists who are smarter than the Andy/JJ variety. And I’ve gotten way dumber than I used to be due to lack of intelligent engagement. Need to get my mad skillz back in shape.

I am a little sad that Thomas2 never came back for more. I am glad Andy sexpest hasn’t returned yet tho.

Noodle 06-17-2018 10:07 PM

JJ is clearly just a troll. But he is right that his thread is usually the only place where anything is happening. If I denied it, I would be just as delusional and/or dishonest as he is.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:57 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000-2013, Raving Atheists [dot] com. All rights reserved.