Yes...The Old Testament Laws Still Apply - Page 2

thomastwo · 05-07-2011, 10:42 AM

Quote:

fiatlux wrote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.