oh boy am I bored at work. this gave me something to do.
On another forum there is a religious debate. Here is what happened so far
Christian: think God is more forgiving of which interpretation you choose and more insistent on living a life that is honorable, helpful, and worthwhile. Both religions push the same kind of living. The devil is in the details, but Jesus never pushed detail oriented religion, so I don't push it either.
The usual Christian attempt to ignore anything that they don’t like. It all becomes “details”. I’d have asked the Christian what “worthwhile” means to them. IF it means just being a decent person, then no religion is needed.
Atheist: yeah, details. shit that gets in the place of grand stories. details dont matter to the religious. its the bigger picture!
the end justifies the means = rape, pillage, be immoral, just as long as you repent before you die so that you can make it to heaven. What a crock of shit.
Christian: Nope, actually, that's the opposite of what Jesus meant. All the immoral is precisely what is important to abstain from, the exact beliefs that set up denominations are what is unimportant. That's why churches are so off base sometimes.
Here I’d ask for a definition of “immoral” and what the exact beliefs of Christians are. Each sect has a different idea and they all claim to be just as Christian as the next and each has no evidence to claim to be such.
Me jumping in: What about when Jesus said he came to uphold old testament law and not change it. Old Testament law includes, rape, beating slaves, murder, etc.
Matthew 5:17-18
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
Christian: You are translating those verses in a completely different manner. Depending on how you interpret those verses, they do not mean what you are implying.
Here we have the Christain insisting that their interpretation is the only “right” one. However, as one can tell from the bible, JC repeatedly says that his father’s laws are to be upheld. He *never* says to anyone to not follow them, only that the Pharisees are wrong in how they apply the laws. The earth and heavens are still here, so what does the Christian think was “really” meant? It is only after JC supposedly dies, that early Chrsitians have to come up with a way to excuse their new audience from bothering with the laws that the jewish messiah still said were in force.
But then another guy who actually is an atheist jumped in and said "I think turbo's reading of it is a little off.While nothing overrules the laws of heaven, it's not really his place to create anarchy by destroying the laws of man. basically, they'll be judged on their worth when dead anything, so all he can do is steer the laws as able. assist, not destroy"
This is an excuse for why god doesn’t do anything anymore. The Chrsitian God constantly interferes with humanity, if one is to believe it. Those laws that are in play are not man’s at all, they are indeed the laws of heaven, as Lucifer noted. I would have a hard time believing this person was an atheist with an excuse like that.
So now I am thinking of what to respond with I mean the christian I could pull out the magic decoder ring argument but what about the atheist? I always assumed Jesus meant he came to fulfill the old testament law and not the law of man. Any input or other ideas are appreciated. also are there any other verses where Jesus says he is upholding the old testament?
use the whole bit from Matthew 5
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.
Matthew 7: 9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Again, never said that the Law is to be ignored. Here it is only summed up.
Matthew 12 also discusses the law and has only that the Pharisees were misusing it, that the law still held but obeying God was still allowed. The priests could still be on duty, which still breaks the law, but they are also considered innocent. Just like JC could heal and still be doing God’s work. The divine law takes this into consideration and again, still applies.
Matthew 13: 52 He said to them, “Therefore every teacher of the law who has become a disciple in the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old.”
The law is the old treasure to be added to the new.
Matthew 22: 34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
IF the law was not in play,why did JC answer this question as he did? Why not say “The Law does not apply anymore.”?
Luke 10 and the parable of the good Samaritan has an expert in the divine law asking JC how he can get eternal life. JC asks him what he thinksk the law says, and gets a repeat of what JC thinks are the most important laws (the ones all others hang from). He affirms this to the expert, again confirming that the laws are to be followed.
there are others. The only instance that I can think of that seem to have JC directly contradicting a law from God is the story about the adultress, but that set of verses is largely thought to be a much later addition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery I suppose one could also argue that JC was doing what God wanted and again, has an out from the laws.
