but the question is, how do you keep them? if you continue reading, you will learn.

10/5/2009 5:07:53 PM

what translation is that? that's from the parable of the three stewards but i don't recognize it.

10/5/2009 5:13:55 PM

The reason why many people try to hold Christians to OT rules is because many Christians use the OT to justify their bigotry.

10/5/2009 6:29:09 PM

Quote :

"making people aware =/= converting"

Isn't the goal conversion, though? You're not making them aware so they can go on with their lives and not change anything. The idea is that they'll hear it, and be convinced.

Quote :

"dude, you were wrong. god changed the rules. the rest of your response is for a different point."

The rest of the response addresses the point. To state it again, clearly: Jesus "sacrificing" himself and dying, for whatever reason, made it so people would not be punished eternally for their sins. Are we in disagreement on that? That's what my church taught, and that has always been my interpretation of Christianity. If that statement is not true, go ahead and clarify.

I haven't seen verses, or heard an interpretation of modern day Christianity, that suggests we should throw out the old law entirely. And I don't just mean the mosaic law. There is plenty of immoral shit outside of mosaic law, too. I realize that Jesus supposedly died so we wouldn't go to hell for breaking those laws, but never does he say that they just straight up aren't right, or that they weren't sins. He should have, though, if he wanted to be taken seriously.

Quote :

"^^^ lol... I guess you're just one of those types that can't admit he's wrong. It's kind of like if I cracked open a physics text and excerpted paragraphs describing physical phenomena, such as Ohm's Law or the boiling point of water and then went around declaring physics to be false because of superconducters and altitude.... Or better yet, when someone pointed out the context of the quoted laws, I declare physics to be contradictory and therefore unworthy of belief. After all, it says in one chapter the boiling point of water is xx, but in this section, it says it is yy. This is getting tiresome, though... We've extended this discussion into the usual TWW bicker-fest wherein the incorrect party is reduced to weaker and more minute nitpicks in order to maintain the pretense of argument"

Wow, dude. You just compared a physics book to the bible. If a physics book had contradictions in it, I'm pretty sure it would be edited and the mistakes would be noted. And I'm the one being reduced to weak arguments. Why an atheist would make such poor arguments in defense of religion, I have no clue. It certainly isn't because you're a stickler for accuracy.

Quote :

"But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in Christ."

So, if I'm interpreting this verse right, everyone up to a certain point was unable to read the laws of the old testament correctly. They had a "veil" over their face that didn't allow them to interpret it. And now that Christ showed up, they could read it correctly? Is that the same as doing away with it? I could have misunderstood the verse entirely, so feel free to enlighten me.

Quote :

"It does say many times in the New Testament that they're doing away with the old laws and this is a pretty key belief the Christians have as opposed to Judaism. That and the messiah thing."

Maybe it does. I'm not convinced by the last verse that they were "doing away" with the old laws, but there could be another verse that says that. The distinction that has to be made is between doing away with the old laws, and Jesus "covering" for your sins.

Quote :

"his point, that he finally arrived at probably after seeing his glaring mistake"

I've yet to see my glaring mistake.

Quote :

"while the laws were set aside they are still sins"

That was my understanding.

Quote :

"but the laws he has problems with were only for a certain people at a certain time and never applied to anyone else. it has never been against the law for me to let my cattle graze with other kinds of cattle."

Oh, okay. So it was wrong for God's chosen people to break those laws, but not anyone else. I've always thought it was strange how God treated a specific group of people differently than the rest of the world, and that specific group of people happens to be the group that created the religion. And back to the point I was making before, if these laws were just 'administrative" or for the people of Israel, why is it included in all Christian bibles? It's just filler, isn't it?

Quote :

"when jesus was crucified the giant curtain that separated the temple attendees from the "inner sanctum" or something like that was torn in half.. That curtain had been MANDATED in the old testament.... Hmmm... seems like a pretty symbolic gesture on god's part to go out of his way to destroy something that had been mandated by the law at the very moment when Jesus died and thereby fulfilled the law, ushering in the "new law" of the new testament."

It does seem symbolic, but I don't know that it necessarily means that the old law was to be done away with. It could mean that the old law no longer has to be followed in order to go to heaven, but it doesn't mean that the old law was wrong. Leave it to God to rest the eternal fate of mankind on an obscure, symbolic gesture.

Quote :

"but the question is, how do you keep them? if you continue reading, you will learn."

No, the question is "the commandments aren't OT law?" That's the one you need to answer.

10/5/2009 6:53:51 PM

This bizarre form of Christianity that you describe, which requires it adherants to follow OT law, is nothing more than a straw man. No other Christian in the entire world, for the entire history of Christianity has ever followed this form of Christianity.

So... I guess you win! The form of Christianity that you describe is certainly stupid/dumb/whatever... Probably because it was just invented by you in this fucking thread.

10/5/2009 7:20:28 PM

Christians appeal to the authority of the OT all the time in justifying various biases and bigotry. Where the fuck have you been?

10/5/2009 7:27:26 PM

Quote :

"If a physics book had contradictions in it, I'm pretty sure it would be edited and the mistakes would be noted. And I'm the one being reduced to weak arguments. Why an atheist would make such poor arguments in defense of religion, I have no clue. It certainly isn't because you're a stickler for accuracy."

My point is that you are taking isolated passages out of one section of the bible and using them out of context with no understanding of the overarching principles that govern their application. I need to understand the context of a particular steam table before I use it... You need to understand the context of a particular verse in the bible before you use it. And FYI... understanding biblical context requires a hell of a lot more effort than popping open bible.com and doing a text search for some keywords.


I have NEVER in my life heard of this concept that Christians are required to follow OT law... Seriously... Where in the hell did you get this idea anyway? Did you just make it up after reading some bible?? Have you actually talked to someone about this? God have mercy on your pastor... He should be shot at sunrise for obvious dereliction of duty, lol. I mean, this is sad... I do not have the words to describe my disbelief that someone who thinks themselves to be intelligent would insist that the Christian faith requires its followers to obey OT law!!!

I haven't really gotten this impression, but now I'm really starting to wonder if you really are just a troll after all... It can't possibly be that hard to understand the fundamental difference between judaism and christianity can it?

Do me a favor: describe in a few sentences what the major differences are between judaism and christianity, as you see it. Maybe then we'll be able to figure out what in the F your dysfunction is.

[Edited on October 5, 2009 at 7:40 PM. Reason : s]

10/5/2009 7:30:47 PM

Athiests, seriously. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersession

The idea that Christ replaces the Old Covenant with the New Covenant is one of the core things that make a Christian a Christian instead of a Jew. This is a really simple concept, backed up by many passages in the New Testament that leave little room for interpretation.

Jews think it is bullshit because in about 8000 places in the OT, it says repeatedly that the covenant cannot be broken, ever.

10/5/2009 7:38:55 PM

jesus christ would be spinning in his grave right now...



wait for it.....









wait....








ok.


if he hadn't resurrected!!!!1!!1~!11

10/5/2009 7:42:52 PM

Can either of you answer the question of why the old law, or the old testament, are part of the Christian bible? I'll respond to the rest of the post when you will answer that question for me. If it's simply there to be ignored, I don't understand why it's included.

10/5/2009 7:44:57 PM

Quote :

"That would certainly hurt the longevity of religion."

How so? More answers raises more questions. That seems to be the principle of scientific discovery. there are plenty of people who study religion for its historic and cultural relevance.

Quote :

"Everyone has known intelligent Christians, so there aren't many atheists that would say all theists are stupid. You're setting up a strawman with this statement, unless someone else in the thread actually did make the argument that all Christians are uneducated etc."

I wasn't, actually, I was responding to the attitude projected in this post and others that are similar

Quote :

"This is just a result of the dialogue in America now that the only "real Americans" are ones that don't do any of that fancy University "book learnin'," "Ivory tower liberal elitists," etc..."

Quote :

"I don't think my opinion needs reshaping, for one. If I did, I wouldn't try to convince others."

Oh c'mon man. you're a self proclaimed man of science. you reshape your opinion every time you make another discovery. this is just being stubborn. and this is what grates people such as myself. the projection of absolute certainty, whether from the religious or non religious, is irritating (to me at least). it declares a lack of respect for neighboring opinions and an unwillingness to hear someone out.

anyways, i'll make one last point on my mind, and then i'll bow out, because this conversation is exhaustive and pretty pointless. some people need numbers, facts, and concrete data to make an informed decision. that's fine. others read whatever religious canon they choose and interpret it however they may. that's fine too. but not everyone is the same. if you can't get over the obvious errors and details in a text written 2000+ years ago, then fine, religion isn't for you. but some people read the text, see the forest for the trees and find it inspiring, thought provoking, guiding, whatever. let them. as long as they aren't projecting their beliefs and trying to manipulate your life, i don't see what the harm could possibly be.

science books are re-written every day as we discover more about our world and our universe. i don't see why our understanding of a religious text can't evolve in a parallel manner.


that's it, i'm done.

[Edited on October 5, 2009 at 8:02 PM. Reason : ]

10/5/2009 7:47:28 PM

^^ IMO, it provides context and validation to the New Testament. However, you're best served by asking an actual academic theologian these questions.

10/5/2009 7:50:28 PM

Quote :

"Can either of you answer the question of why the old law, or the old testament, are part of the Christian bible?"

Context.

10/5/2009 7:52:10 PM

Quote :

"Isn't the goal conversion, though?"

i guess, but its not my job to effect that change

Quote :

"Maybe it does. I'm not convinced by the last verse that they were "doing away" with the old laws, but there could be another verse that says that. The distinction that has to be made is between doing away with the old laws, and Jesus "covering" for your sins."

stop reading verses, read chapters. i've already given you a starting point- hebrews 8. jesus says straight out that he is throwing out the old laws and starting a new covenant. this is repeated in various places throughout the new testament. it's not ambiguous, its about as clear as it can get.

Quote :

"If that statement is not true, go ahead and clarify."

you said that people disregarded the OT laws because they were cherry picking. i even had you clarify that people are throwing out the mosaic laws because they don't fit our lives. THIS IS NOT THE CASE, JESUS THREW OUT THE LAWS AND ESTABLISHED A NEW COVENANT. it is a central issue with christianity. i even told you where you can read about it, but i don't understand how anyone with even a cursory understanding of christianity needs me to explain this again and again.

Quote :

"why is it included in all Christian bibles?"

you know that they started out as jewish texts right, and that the five books of moses make up the torah? The tanakh uses different divisions but its mostly the same stuff, they divide things into law and prophets. as others have said before-context.

Quote :

" No, the question is "the commandments aren't OT law?" That's the one you need to answer."

its still not cherry picking, except for observing the sabath all of the commandments are re-listed in the new covenant

Quote :

"Christians appeal to the authority of the OT all the time in justifying various biases and bigotry. Where the fuck have you been?"

this is true, they do it because they don't have a good understanding of things and read the bible a verse at a time

[Edited on October 5, 2009 at 7:55 PM. Reason : .]

10/5/2009 7:53:19 PM

Quote :

"they do it because they don't have a good understanding of things and read the bible a verse at a time"

Or they don't read the Bible at all and just go along with what their pastor says. Martin Luther would have a field day with that.

10/5/2009 8:05:04 PM

Quote :

"My point is that you are taking isolated passages out of one section of the bible and using them out of context with no understanding of the overarching principles that govern their application. I need to understand the context of a particular steam table before I use it... You need to understand the context of a particular verse in the bible before you use it. And FYI... understanding biblical context requires a hell of a lot more effort than popping open bible.com and doing a text search for some keywords."

Quote :

"stop reading verses, read chapters."

Quote :

"you know that they started out as jewish texts right, and that the five books of moses make up the torah? The tanakh uses different divisions but its mostly the same stuff, they divide things into law and prophets. as others have said before-context."

Quote :

"Context."

So I'm not allowed to cherry pick from the bible in criticizing the bible, but believers are allowed to cherry pick in defending it. The whole argument that "you have to know the context" is true to some extent, but you could just keep saying that until eventually it's "you have to read the entire thing to understand it." I'm not going to read the entire bible to gain "context." The book obviously contradicts itself in many places, so no amount of context is going to fix that problem.

I've read most of the New Testament. The gospels contradict each other in many places. I know the context of the verses I use. You guys are making the argument that it's an accepted tenet of Christianity that the Old Testament is thrown out. A lot of churches don't teach that. My church still took scripture from the old testament. I'm pretty sure most churches do. Not all Christians agree on this point. That's why there are so many denominations. If you want to argue that all churches that still use the Old Testament are wrong in doing so, alright. But plenty of Christians view the OT as still being valid.

Quote :

"Athiests, seriously. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersession The idea that Christ replaces the Old Covenant with the New Covenant is one of the core things that make a Christian a Christian instead of a Jew. This is a really simple concept, backed up by many passages in the New Testament that leave little room for interpretation. Jews think it is bullshit because in about 8000 places in the OT, it says repeatedly that the covenant cannot be broken, ever."

Like I said, that isn't nearly as "accepted" as you make it out to be. Many people choose to cherry pick the verses in the NT that validate the OT. That's the problem with having a religious book with with so many contradictions. You can make it mean whatever you want it to mean.

Quote :

"jesus says straight out that he is throwing out the old laws and starting a new covenant. this is repeated in various places throughout the new testament. it's not ambiguous, its about as clear as it can get."

And he also says the exact opposite in other places. Again, he never actually says that the old laws were wrong. Why not? I read Hebrews 8. It basically says that the old covenant wasn't followed, so a new one was created. That doesn't solve the problem of why God made those immoral decrees in the first place. Unless it wasn't really God making the decrees, in which case...wait, why is the OT included in the bible, again? Oh yeah...because without it, Jesus is just another guy, and the prophecy would have meant nothing.

Quote :

"Oh c'mon man. you're a self proclaimed man of science. you reshape your opinion every time you make another discovery. this is just being stubborn. and this is what grates people such as myself. the projection of absolute certainty, whether from the religious or non religious, is irritating (to me at least). it declares a lack of respect for neighboring opinions and an unwillingness to hear someone out."

I don't think I'm wrong. That doesn't mean I'm not wrong, I just don't think I am. I am pretty sure I'm totally justified in rejecting Christianity and the bible, though. There's no reason to believe it has credibility, but feel free to demonstrate that it does.

Quote :

"you said that people disregarded the OT laws because they were cherry picking. i even had you clarify that people are throwing out the mosaic laws because they don't fit our lives. THIS IS NOT THE CASE, JESUS THREW OUT THE LAWS AND ESTABLISHED A NEW COVENANT. it is a central issue with christianity. i even told you where you can read about it, but i don't understand how anyone with even a cursory understanding of christianity needs me to explain this again and again."

Does it mean anything to you that the New Testament says in multiple places that the old laws are still valid? Yeah, okay, there are parts where it says there is a new covenant. No where does it say the old laws were immoral, or that they were invalid at the time. They were - slavery has never been, and will never be, an acceptable practice, and God should have made laws against it to begin with. There are plenty of Christians, and denominations, that still view the OT as part of God's inerrant word, but also reject things like slavery and killing homosexuals. They're the ones throwing out the old law in favor of updated morals. They've interpreted the bible in that way, so to say that your interpretation of the bible is the "consensus interpretation" just isn't accurate.

Quote :

"you know that they started out as jewish texts right, and that the five books of moses make up the torah? The tanakh uses different divisions but its mostly the same stuff, they divide things into law and prophets. as others have said before-context."

That doesn't answer my question. You know the answer, though, I think. Without the old testament, the new testament is bullshit.

Quote :

"its still not cherry picking, except for observing the sabath all of the commandments are re-listed in the new covenant "

Then why not use the commandments as they are re-listed in the new covenant? God discarded the old law, there shouldn't be any use for it. It's a waste of paper.

[Edited on October 5, 2009 at 8:37 PM. Reason : ]

10/5/2009 8:34:23 PM

oh jesus christ, you're an idiot

10/5/2009 8:37:01 PM

Quote :

"oh jesus christ, you're an idiot"

Yeah, man. If only I could just understand God's plan and your circular logic. I guess I'll just have to stay an idiot.

[Edited on October 5, 2009 at 8:41 PM. Reason : ]

10/5/2009 8:41:07 PM

there's a reason that all of the athiests in this thread who usually masturbate to telling christians how wrong they are have been abnormally quiet... you're wrong about this. you are either too stubborn or too full of yourself to see where you made a mistake.

10/5/2009 8:46:34 PM

Definitely trolling.

10/5/2009 8:50:38 PM

It probably has to do with the fact that you make the same points over and over again, and it's time consuming to reply to all of them. You've pointed to verses that say the Old Testament no longer has to be followed. I've pointed to verses that say it should be followed. You refuse to acknowledge that the New Testament takes both positions. But, for some reason, the position you have arrived at (through cherry picking the verses that support your preconceived conclusion, probably with the assistance of whatever denomination you've chosen) is the accepted, 100% correct interpretation, that every Christian agrees on, and is a simple matter of fact.

Just sit there for a minute and attempt to comprehend that paragraph. The last sentence, especially. From my perspective, I'm making sense. I don't see the flaw in what I'm saying...I really don't. I'm not trolling, I'm being entirely serious. If the book says two contradicting things, how can you make the case that one side of the coin is the only correct position? Because your reading of it supports that opinion? Did you just read over the parts that you didn't like? If your only rebuttal to those verses is that I don't understand the context...I don't know what to say. It's not like it says "Obey the commandments...jk lol, don't obey them."

Oh yeah. On the thing about the differences between Judaism and Christianity, I can really only talk about the basics. I know that Judaism doesn't use the New Testament, or believe the whole messiah thing. I have a very limited knowledge of Judaism, and have no desire to waste brain power on understanding it, because it's just another dumb religion.

10/5/2009 9:14:51 PM

well, kids, he's not a troll by his own admission. So... sadly, that leaves only one other classification for him

10/5/2009 9:18:14 PM

the only thing i've seen you post to the fact that the old testament is still law actually means exactly the opposite of what you want it to when you read the rest of the chapter and the preceeding chapter.

10/5/2009 9:21:58 PM

Quote :

"hen why not use the commandments as they are re-listed in the new covenant? God discarded the old law, there shouldn't be any use for it. It's a waste of paper."

For the same reason that when you look up the us constitution you get the original text + ammendments not the most current version as defined by the amendments.

When you read the constitution you read Amendment XVIII. As you keep reading, you read Amendment XXI which repeals Amendment XVIII. Why then should we continue to include Amendment XVIII with the constitution?

[Edited on October 5, 2009 at 9:28 PM. Reason : asdf]

10/5/2009 9:25:10 PM

Did you even read the wikipedia article on supersessionism? It is what defines Christianity (plus Messiah).

Quote :

"But, for some reason, the position you have arrived at (through cherry picking the verses that support your preconceived conclusion, probably with the assistance of whatever denomination you've chosen) is the accepted, 100% correct interpretation, that every Christian agrees on, and is a simple matter of fact"

You're correct... Only it doesn't matter which denomination we pick, because ALL christian denominations (protestant or catholic) have one thing in common which defines them as christian, and that is.... SUPERSESSIONISM!!!

Here's a picture that will help you understand how well you comprehend the christian faith:

Quote :

"When you read the constitution you read Amendment XVIII. As you keep reading, you read Amendment XXI which repeals Amendment XVIII. Why then should we continue to include Amendment XVIII with the constitution?"

Well, it gives us context... Helps us understand the history of our nation and the thought processes that went into the creation of our constitution. It gives us an appreciation for the significance of the freedoms that we currently enjoy and an understanding of what our forefathers fought for and against.



[Edited on October 5, 2009 at 9:47 PM. Reason : s]

10/5/2009 9:26:53 PM

Quote :

"well, kids, he's not a troll by his own admission. So... sadly, that leaves only one other classification for him "

I'm making an honest effort to get at the truth. I'm not saving face, I'm making points that I believe are valid. What are you doing? Calling me an idiot? Great, dude.

Quote :

"the only thing i've seen you post to the fact that the old testament is still law actually means exactly the opposite of what you want it to when you read the rest of the chapter and the preceeding chapter."

I just read Matthew 4, 5, and 6 in their entirety. I suggest you read it too. I saw nothing in it that changed the meaning of Matthew 5: 17-20:

"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. I tell you the truth, 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. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same 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. 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."

The message seems clear. Jesus doesn't add a qualifier or anything. He says that he hasn't come to abolish the law or the prophets. Either that is true, or it is not true. I've failed to gather anything from the context that would suggest otherwise. No, he's not telling the Pharisees that the law is invalid or anything of that nature. How am I misinterpreting this part?

Quote :

"For the same reason that when you look up the us constitution you get the original text + ammendments not the most current version as defined by the amendments. When you read the constitution you read Amendment XVIII. As you keep reading, you read Amendment XXI which repeals Amendment XVIII. Why then should we continue to include Amendment XVIII with the constitution?"

The constitution was written by men, for men...and no one is really saying that it's divinely inspired. It isn't the ultimate source of morality. That's exactly what the bible is supposed to be, though. Yet it changes positions throughout the book. If there is an objective morality, and it seems like there should be if there is a perfect God that is determining morality, the bible doesn't support that.

Quote :

"You're correct... Only it doesn't matter which denomination we pick, because ALL christian denominations (protestant or catholic) have one thing in common which defines them as christian, and that is.... SUPERSESSIONISM!!!"

Supersessionism doesn't mean that the old law was entirely thrown out. According to wikipedia, it can mean that the New Testament replaces or completes the old law. Replaces *or* completes. That doesn't mean throws out, or renders invalid.

[Edited on October 5, 2009 at 9:50 PM. Reason : ]

10/5/2009 9:49:09 PM

F it... I'm no sunday school teacher. Anyway, you made the right call by leaving christianity. Unfortunately, you did it for about as stupid a reason as they come... So... Congratulations? idiot.

[Edited on October 5, 2009 at 9:53 PM. Reason : s]

10/5/2009 9:52:18 PM

Nothing confirms my position more than the onslaught of personal attacks you guys have to use against me. I don't have to resort to that. That's the beauty of being right.

10/5/2009 10:03:15 PM

Everybody's right on the internet!

10/5/2009 10:07:42 PM

^^ You don't have to resort to that? What happened to...

Quote :

"The discussion went on, and I pretty much unleashed my entire arsenal"

Quote :

"I'd say one group is more deserving of ridicule than the other."

Quote :

"My mom started crying"

Quote :

"Parents, friends, or girlfriends, despite how much you may love them, can be deserving of ridicule."

Quote :

"No, I mean ridicule."

Quote :

"they deserve to be made fun of"

These quotes all taken out of context, because... well, you know why. Context would alter the meaning of what it looks like you said in those quotes.

[Edited on October 5, 2009 at 10:11 PM. Reason : s]

10/5/2009 10:10:28 PM

"until everything is accomplished" is the part that you are missing, it is talking about christs death and resurrection. upon his death everything is accomplished and the old laws disappear. he then goes on to develop and describe his new covenant as i have said before.

remember that the sermon on the mount was before his death.

make sense?

[Edited on October 5, 2009 at 10:19 PM. Reason : .]

10/5/2009 10:18:35 PM

It must be noted that almost all of the passages that suggest this concept are not in the Gospels, so the very idea of Supersession comes from Paul, rather than Jesus. (which most of the stupidity of Christianity comes from Paul, rather than Jesus in my opinion.

Luke 16:16
The law and the prophets were until John [the Baptist]: since that time the kingdom of heaven is preached.
Romans 6:14
Ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Romans 7:4, 6
Ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ .... We are delivered from the law, that being dead.
Romans 10:4
Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
2 Corinthians 3:14
But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in Christ.
Galatians 3:13
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law.
Galatians 3:24-25
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Galatians 5:18
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Ephesians 2:15
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances.
Colossians 2:14
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances ... nailing it to his cross.

You really need to get over the OT being part of the Bible. It contains way more than the covenant. It has the (what Jews and Christians believe to be) history of the world, the origin of man, and the histories of the Jewish people, the first Christians. The fulfillment of the covenant is a very core concept of Christianity, what makes them Christian instead of Jews.

Quote :

"Supersessionism doesn't mean that the old law was entirely thrown out. According to wikipedia, it can mean that the New Testament replaces or completes the old law. Replaces *or* completes. That doesn't mean throws out, or renders invalid."

You're really undermining your position with your lack of understanding on what Christians believe.

In the OT, breaking the commandments was unforgivable, you go to Hell. With the new covenant, it is still a sin, but you still get to go to Heaven though Christ.

Christians in the thread: are the previous statements congruent with your beliefs regarding the concept of Supersessionism?

[Edited on October 5, 2009 at 10:27 PM. Reason : .]

10/5/2009 10:26:07 PM

Quote :

"which most of the stupidity of Christianity comes from Paul"

i love talking about Paul with a feminist

10/5/2009 10:27:55 PM

Does it go something like, "put your hat on and shut up, woman"?

I can't remember the passage, and I don't feel like looking it up, but my favorite is where it says that man is to woman as jesus is to man. I heard it at a wedding and I was jabbing my wife in the ribs the whole time.

10/5/2009 10:30:39 PM

Quote :

"It isn't the ultimate source of morality. That's exactly what the bible is supposed to be, though."

No. Many churches may preach it as such, but the bible is not supposed to be the ultimate source of morality.

But that's beside the point. You asked why keep old outdated information within a holy book if new information supersedes the old. I answered, because it provides context and history.

I highly suggest you read (if you can handle the dryness) Isaac Asimov's guides to the bible. The provide much insight into just how much more beyond simple preaching is contained in these books. And you can be safe in knowing that as a Jew turned Agnostic, he has no agenda in pushing the bible as gospel truth.

10/5/2009 10:50:18 PM

Quote :

""It isn't the ultimate source of morality. That's exactly what the bible is supposed to be, though.""

i missed this. any churches that subscribe to the wesleyan tradition do not teach this. (even the pentecostal churches, i.e. the crazy evangelicals) john wesley did a good job discussing this issue in his works and establishes a framework for the 4 truths that i mentioned earlier

10/5/2009 11:01:15 PM

Quote :

"the bible is not supposed to be the ultimate source of morality. "

Who says? And if so, then what is?

Quote :

"You asked why keep old outdated information within a holy book if new information supersedes the old. I answered, because it provides context and history."

Except that christians use it for things other than context and history.

10/5/2009 11:02:35 PM

Quote :

"Who says? And if so, then what is? "

good discussion here:
http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txc/wesleyan.htm

[Edited on October 5, 2009 at 11:05 PM. Reason : .]

10/5/2009 11:04:05 PM

Quote :

"Who says? And if so, then what is? "

Clearly the answer to that is god. Look don't get me wrong, I distrust organized religion greatly, but if you're going to discuss the merits or lack thereof of a belief in a god, you need to make the distinction between believing in god and subscribing to the teachings of a sect.

Quote :

"Except that christians use it for things other than context and history."

And scientists and politicians use science for things other than the betterment of humanity, that doesn't make science wrong or useless. Again we need to make the distinction between belief in a god, and the teachings of a sect.

10/5/2009 11:07:16 PM

^^I'm not going to read through all that to get my answer.

[Edited on October 5, 2009 at 11:09 PM. Reason : .]

10/5/2009 11:08:11 PM

from a response of mine earlier:

Quote :

" there are 4 truths, scripture, reason, tradition, and experience. without reason and experience we can not understand scripture. in the presbyterian church we say "listen now for the word of god" and not "listen now to the word of god" before scripture readings; this is an important distinction. the bible was written by man, it is divinely inspired but it was written and assembled by man and to the agreement of many religious scholars contains parts that shouldn't have even been included. the word of god is not the text on the page but the holy spirit speaking through you as you read and rely on your reason and experience to understand his calling. "

10/5/2009 11:12:32 PM

Quote :

"And scientists and politicians use science for things other than the betterment of humanity, that doesn't make science wrong or useless. "

My point is not that the older parts of the bible are wrong or useless, its that chrisitans use it for things other than context and history. They use it to justify their bigotry and hate.

10/5/2009 11:27:44 PM

yeah, some people are idiots

10/5/2009 11:28:34 PM

Quote :

""until everything is accomplished" is the part that you are missing, it is talking about christs death and resurrection. upon his death everything is accomplished and the old laws disappear. he then goes on to develop and describe his new covenant as i have said before. remember that the sermon on the mount was before his death. make sense?"

So it was morally okay, with Jesus I might add, to kill homosexuals - until he died. Then, it became bad. Err, well...not really, because Jesus never denounced it per se, but he probably meant to, right!?

I did miss the meaning of the "until it is completed" part. As in, until he's dead. It still doesn't solve the problem that he endorsed the current laws as acceptable, in any context...which they aren't. He's essentially saying, "Oh yeah, for now, stoning homosexuals is fine. Go nuts. In fact, you guys are going to hell for not following these immoral laws. But, once I die, you can follow this new set of rules, and not go to hell." Jesus, in effect, admits that morality is relative over time. I see why people only take the first part of the passage. It's the simple fact that he endorses the old law, in any time period, or any context. The rest of the passage doesn't matter. I don't care that he plans to get rid of it...he's the one that put it there in the first place.

Quote :

"You really need to get over the OT being part of the Bible. It contains way more than the covenant. It has the (what Jews and Christians believe to be) history of the world, the origin of man, and the histories of the Jewish people, the first Christians. The fulfillment of the covenant is a very core concept of Christianity, what makes them Christian instead of Jews."

Quote :

"You're really undermining your position with your lack of understanding on what Christians believe. In the OT, breaking the commandments was unforgivable, you go to Hell. With the new covenant, it is still a sin, but you still get to go to Heaven though Christ."

Yes, but fulfillment of the covenant, and a "switch" of the rules, is not the equivalent of throwing out the old laws. It's throwing them out as rules that have to followed for later people in order to go to heaven, but it's not throwing them out as moral absolutes. The fact that they're still considered sins is the problem. That Jesus would even give credence to those old laws is the issue, for me. I understand that a core concept of Christianity is "it doesn't really matter what you do, because if you accept Jesus, you're not going to be tortured in hell for all eternity!"

That's probably the reason Christianity is so popular now. You don't have to be a good person, just accept Jesus and you're promised heaven (though, I know plenty of Christians that don't believe this). It doesn't hurt that the punishment for not accepting him is...you know.

Quote :

"i missed this. any churches that subscribe to the wesleyan tradition do not teach this. (even the pentecostal churches, i.e. the crazy evangelicals) john wesley did a good job discussing this issue in his works and establishes a framework for the 4 truths that i mentioned earlier"

Yes, and the "truth" that Wesley assumes is that scripture is divinely inspired. That's what I see as the invalid premise of Christianity. There's no reason to believe that it is divinely inspired, that I've heard of. The fact that it claims to be divinely inspired isn't really good enough for me. I guess Wesley's point is that you should read it and let the holy spirit guide you, or whatever, but I don't think there is a holy spirit. What it ends up being in practice is people apply whatever morals they have to their interpretation of the bible, allowing for an extremely broad take on it. I find that to be totally useless. Those people could simply reflect on what they feel is important, and right or wrong, without the bible. But, if the teachings of the bible are to apply to each person in a different way, Christians are in no position to ever tell anyone what they should believe, since any "truth" gleaned from the bible is specific to them.

[Edited on October 5, 2009 at 11:46 PM. Reason : ]

10/5/2009 11:46:06 PM

Some people are idiots, huh? That's all you have to say?

There are huge numbers of christians out there who use the bible as an encyclopaedia, a moral authority, etc. to justify their false beliefs and spread hate and ignorance. And this is not some powerless fringe of people. These people are politicians and board members who get elected by like-minded people.

The bible and the entire christian faith encourages magical thinking and belief in a supernatural being, and it discourages critical thinking, which together fosters this behavior, particularly among the less educated.

And this is not limited to christianity, it applies to other major theistic religions.

I can't believe you would just brush this off as "people are just idiots." Clearly you just aren't aware.

10/5/2009 11:49:37 PM

[Edited on October 5, 2009 at 11:53 PM. Reason : bh]

10/5/2009 11:53:21 PM

Quote :

"I can't believe you would just brush this off as "people are just idiots." Clearly you just aren't aware."

there are a whole lot more christians who do not use the old testament laws to teach bigotry than there are to the contrary. secondly any person that says that they love god and doesn't love their fellow man is a liar. but yes, people that teach hate are idiots. and i don't brush them off, i call them on it when i see it.

Quote :

"So it was morally okay, with Jesus I might add, to kill homosexuals - until he died."

jesus criticized the pharisees and scribes for their interpretations. for example when the pharisees brought an adulterous woman to jesus to be stoned in accordance to the law he said the he did not condemn her and criticized the pharisees.

Quote :

"There's no reason to believe that it is divinely inspired, that I've heard of."

and no christian will ever be able to "win" that point, religion is based on faith.

[Edited on October 6, 2009 at 12:16 AM. Reason : .]

10/6/2009 12:13:53 AM

Quote :

"there are a whole lot more christians who do not use the old testament laws to teach bigotry than there are to the contrary."

I don't really care if there are more "good" christians than "bad" ones. The bad ones are destructive enough and I cannot ignore them. And I'm not talking just about bigotry.

10/6/2009 12:28:16 AM

you can't disprove something on the basis that people are using it wrong, people use science for horrible things too but you criticize them, not the scientific method. maybe I should start pulling out some stevenumbers posts about how blacks are inferior because of various reasons and post examples of his shitty science as an example of how horrible science is. no, that would be silly.

10/6/2009 7:04:33 AM

Quote :

"I don't really care if there are more "good" christians than "bad" ones. The bad ones are destructive enough and I cannot ignore them. And I'm not talking just about bigotry."

And I'm sure you think all Muslims are terrorists. The people with the "god hates fags" signs are outliers, nothing more.

Out of curiosity, what can you not ignore? I personally am a fan of freedom of religion, and that people can choose to believe what they wish. It's only when they start trying to spend my tax dollars on religion when my feathers get ruffled.

10/6/2009 7:24:50 AM