Author Topic: Are we sure these 50 are proofs?  (Read 4307 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2691
  • Darwins +114/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Are we sure these 50 are proofs?
« Reply #87 on: December 31, 2013, 11:51:17 AM »
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6623
  • Darwins +792/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Are we sure these 50 are proofs?
« Reply #88 on: December 31, 2013, 12:18:40 PM »
I will ask you again, as I did before - what makes it wrong if there are no absolute moral truths?  You guys get upset when you don't think I answer a question or you think I'm dodging.  I'm not upset, but you are dodging.

We humans make that decision. Sometimes well, sometimes poorly. But we are also influenced by our genetics. Which is why we are generally able to cooperate in groups. We are biologically predisposed to do that.

Genes are also why we are predisposed to kill things. And in less civilized times, that meant other people. (Not that we don't kill other people now, but for it to be acceptable we have to be able to culturally make up a reason, and hire our government to do it for us.)

What makes it wrong is people calling it wrong. We at times disagree, so it becomes a less than perfect method, but it is the only method we have. We used to call dueling 'right', and it was a pretty common hobby. If you and I were disagreeing like this in 1750 either one of us could demand a duel to the death and unless one of us apologized, we were both expected to go out and shoot at each other. That was morally acceptable. In Christian Europe and North America.

It stopped because it was abhorrent and people basically figured that out. There was no voice of a god coming out of the clouds telling people to stop. Common sense kicked in.

Sadly, it doesn't always, and that is why bad stuff still happens.

If morals were absolute, how would we violate them? Just because we're sinners? Wouldn't certain talents also be required? Like being able to know exactly what those absolutes are so that we could violate them? You god didn't make the list until long after he had drowned somewhere between one and forty billion people (like everything else, christians can't seem to agree on how many people lived on the planet when the flood hit, but lots of them are willing to make semi-educated guesses. I should also note that if there were forty billion people, then your god drowned close to 45 million babies, which means that even your absolutes aren't very absolute if we can't trust your god to follow them as well. Of course, since you conveniently have no expectation that your god will follow those same absolutes you believe in, the least you could do is call them "semi-absolutes".)

Life is real short of absolutes. We used to think that monarchs had absolute power, passed down by god. We've outgrown that. Well, most of us have. We've made up a few, like legal ones, and we use the word much more loosely in astronomy to define star brightness. But moral absolutes don't exist. Unless you want to count our biological imperatives, which are, by definition, not absolute, because our genes change over time, and so too may our biological components that help shape our moral values.

There isn't even an "absolute" definition of absolute when it comes to this issue. Philosophically, some consider it some sort of unconditional reality separate from gods, while others say the same thing but require gods. So there isn't even a clear definition of absolute morality, because even if you and I agreed on principal, we would be arguing about the source.

You are demanding an answer to a question that presupposes it is correct, and you are wanting me to dismiss it on your terms and your terms only. If there are indeed no moral absolutes (and I don't think that there are), are you telling me that, should I want to harm someone you love, you wouldn't be able to come up with a single reason for me not to do it? If I wanted to bop you over the head, are you saying you wouldn't be able to come up with a single reason for me not to do it?

Personal preferences aren't that irrelevant. Empathy is not beside the point. Being human is not a situation where we are mere robots, responding only to your God's programming. We're not UNIVAC computers with only 2k of memory and a need to share the only punch card reader in the room. We are wiser and complex biological creatures who are clearly capable of being civilized, at least most of the time. That not everyone shares my precise view of morality means that I'll be upset when others violate my sense of propriety. And it means I will upset others who have different standards. But we need neither absolutes not gods to write our rules for us. We, both biologically and consciously, are the source of morals.

Apparently, people puzzled about why humans aren't perfect felt an imperfect need to make stuff up about the problem. And you believe them. That doesn't automatically make it true.

If you still think I'm dodging, perhaps we should be discussing absolutes in terms of the meanings of words. Because if that's the case, we'll have to straighten that out first before we can talk about anything else.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2691
  • Darwins +114/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Are we sure these 50 are proofs?
« Reply #89 on: December 31, 2013, 12:54:35 PM »
PP, just to add - Chrisitians thought sleavery was fine - even Patrick Henry apparently. Yet after abolition Christians were agains slavery. if there are Absolute Moral values this could not be, could it?
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6623
  • Darwins +792/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Are we sure these 50 are proofs?
« Reply #90 on: December 31, 2013, 01:00:49 PM »
PP, just to add - Chrisitians thought sleavery was fine - even Patrick Henry apparently. Yet after abolition Christians were agains slavery. if there are Absolute Moral values this could not be, could it?

Christians cheat. They use "absolute" as a variable sometimes.  ;D
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12684
  • Darwins +335/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Are we sure these 50 are proofs?
« Reply #91 on: December 31, 2013, 01:09:37 PM »
PP, just to add - Chrisitians thought sleavery was fine - even Patrick Henry apparently. Yet after abolition Christians were agains slavery. if there are Absolute Moral values this could not be, could it?

Christians cheat. They use "absolute" as a variable sometimes.  ;D

Or, the ever popular: "They weren't True Christians™®".

;)

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2691
  • Darwins +114/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Are we sure these 50 are proofs?
« Reply #92 on: December 31, 2013, 01:15:42 PM »
PP, just to add - Chrisitians thought sleavery was fine - even Patrick Henry apparently. Yet after abolition Christians were agains slavery. if there are Absolute Moral values this could not be, could it?

Christians cheat. They use "absolute" as a variable sometimes.  ;D

Or, the ever popular: "They weren't True Christians™®".


;)

-Nam

True Christians?Huh! There is only One True Christiantm All the others are fakes.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12684
  • Darwins +335/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Are we sure these 50 are proofs?
« Reply #93 on: December 31, 2013, 01:35:20 PM »
PP, just to add - Chrisitians thought sleavery was fine - even Patrick Henry apparently. Yet after abolition Christians were agains slavery. if there are Absolute Moral values this could not be, could it?

Christians cheat. They use "absolute" as a variable sometimes.  ;D

Or, the ever popular: "They weren't True Christians™®".


;)

-Nam

True Christians?Huh! There is only One True Christiantm All the others are fakes.


I wonder who that is? Certainly wasn't Jesus; him being Jewish, and all. Perhaps Peter?

;)

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline gzusfreke

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 562
  • Darwins +7/-38
  • "Are you casting asparagus on my cooking?"-Curly
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Are we sure these 50 are proofs?
« Reply #94 on: December 31, 2013, 05:14:47 PM »
It is more than just a little hypocritical to complain that I'm ignoring your questions.  If I was not typing my smart phone right now I would cut and paste all the questions you have simply ignored in this thread. 
No, I have not studied middle eastern contract law.  Please explain how out applies to the timing of events I outlined above and why I need to be a middle eastern lawyer to understand God's holy word

Sorry for the sarcasm but, given your last post, I feel it was justified.

Pam, as I mentioned in an earlier post, most people (theists and atheists alike) tend to read their 21st century Western culture into writings, both biblical and non-biblical, that were written in another culture and time.  It helps to understand texts if we can leave out our culture when approaching them.  Even atheistic history scholars would tell you this, unless they are post-modernists, in which case they would tell you just the opposite.

The Mosaic Law was a contract.  The New Covenant is a contract.  Middle Eastern contracts.  It is helpful to know the culture and context of any contract when you are applying critical analysis to it.  That's very basic academic scholarship that any atheistic professor of antiquities, history, or eastern civilization would agree with.  How does this apply to the timing?  One contract (Mosaic Law) had to be completed by Jesus' living righteously.  Then it could be declared that the terms were completed. Then a new contact (the New Covenant) could be inacted.  Think of a contract with someone to cut your grass for a year.  The terms are strict and can't be changed.  So you have to wait until that contract has been fulfilled before you can create a new contract that includes trimming the hedges in addition to cutting the grass. 

Thank you for answering the question.  It is not easy to admit sometimes that we have areas where we are not subject matter experts.
A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

Offline gzusfreke

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 562
  • Darwins +7/-38
  • "Are you casting asparagus on my cooking?"-Curly
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Are we sure these 50 are proofs?
« Reply #95 on: December 31, 2013, 05:43:09 PM »
Jesus initiated the New Covenant in the Upper Room before His crucifixion.  He had fulfilled the Mosaic Law perfectly, so He could then say that the Mosaic Law was completed and He could initiate the new law.
So the Mosaic Law did not require His Crucifixion, and thus He could complete it at the Last Supper?  If this is so, then what point the Crucifixion?

Reflect on this - on what basis would the Mosaic law require Jesus' crucifixion?  If Jesus was sinless, then where would the demand for His life come?  And the Mosaic Law never calls for crucifixion as the punishment for any crime or sin.  Crucifixion was a form of punishment practiced by the Romans and likely acquired from the Assyrians.

But getting back to just what did require Jesus' death.  The Mosaic Law had many sacrifices.  These sacrifices were to be "unblemished," meaning they were to be spotless, faultless, healthy.  No lame, blind, weak lambs, goats, or cows were to be offered up.  There were other criteria such as age, but we won't get into that, just wanted you to be aware if you weren't already.  The point is, these "unblemished" offerings were a type, or picture, or foreshadowing, of Jesus.  Jesus was unblemished in that He was righteous and sinless.  No fault or sin could be found in Him. Even at His trial before Pontius Pilate, Pilate said he could not find any fault with Jesus in regards to the trumped-up charges against Him. 

So why did Jesus have to die?  The Bible says that the person who sins shall die (Ezekiel 18:20).  It also says the wage of sin is death (Romans 3:23). Death is the penalty that all men owe to God for their sins.  But Jesus came as the "last Adam." He came as a representative of mankind.  Where Adam failed, Jesus succeeded.

Romans 5:17-19 (ESV)
For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.


I Corinthians 15:21-22
For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

Jesus said that no one took His life from Him, that He laid it down willingly (John 10:18). He laid his life down, or substituted Himself in place of every sinner.  He could do this because He was sinless, and because He was sinless, death could not hold Him (Acts 2:24), so He resurrected Himself.  The resurrection authenticated Jesus' sinless life, His acceptance as the substitutionary sacrifice in the place of sinners, and His deity.

The point of the crucifixion is several points, but without a crucifixion you can't get to a resurrection.

Again, this is just my sharing with you the mainstream Christian belief and trying to answer your questions, I'm not preaching or trying to convert you. I'll answer you other questions or reply to your other points in a separate post.

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

Offline gzusfreke

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 562
  • Darwins +7/-38
  • "Are you casting asparagus on my cooking?"-Curly
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Are we sure these 50 are proofs?
« Reply #96 on: December 31, 2013, 06:03:22 PM »
Quote
There is no contradiction with Jesus saying the Old Covenant, not abolished, not altered, not changed, was now being replaced with the New Covenant.
Wouldn't he have to repeal the old covenant to avoid confusion? Or were parts of the Old still in place?

I used the idea of a lawn care contract with Butter Flavored Pam, so I'll stick to that.  If you draw up a contract with someone to cut your grass for a year, and the contract is very strict in that it can't be amended, altered, or cancelled, then you would need to wait until the year was up and the contract was fulfilled on both sides - the other person cut your grass and you paid them according the terms of the contract for the time period specified - then you could initiate a new contract with that person for additional services, less services, different pricing structure, or you could just find someone new altogether to contract with.  So a repeal of the contract wasn't necessary or even allowable.  God would not repeal the contract from His side even though the Jews actually broke the contract on their side many times over.

At some point in Jesus' life, it was determined that He had fulfilled the Law - that He had completed from the human/Jewish side.  I can't tell you exactly what day that was, because it isn't told to us in the Bible, but apparently He had fulfilled it when He declared all foods clean (from the deity side).  Jesus' fulfillment of the Law was in how He lived.

The writer of Hebrews uses the term "obsolete" (Hebrews 8:13 "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.") Just like when you have a contract with someone, like an installment plan to purchase a TV, once you pay all the payments and interest, your contract is fulfilled and it is also obsolete.  You can't get another TV with that contract and you don't owe any more payments either.


Quote
At what exact point did this "New Covenant" actually start to have effect? Crucifixion, temporary death, the "missing days", the empty tomb, His reappearance, His ascent to heaven?

I will give you my opinion, but I would like to know why the "when" is important to you.  Is it just to find another place to split hairs, or is there a real significance to you?

And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves. For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. (Luke 22:14-20, ESV)

If this is to be taken literally, then when Jesus poured the wine into the cup, it ushered in the New Covenant.  But there are clues that would lead me to believe that the cup is symbolic of His death.  The bread that they broke is not literally His body and the wine that they drank is not literally His blood, but symbolic of His death.  So I would say that the New Covenant becomes active at the cross, when His body was literally broken and His blood literally poured out to pay for your and my sins.


A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

Offline gzusfreke

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 562
  • Darwins +7/-38
  • "Are you casting asparagus on my cooking?"-Curly
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Are we sure these 50 are proofs?
« Reply #97 on: December 31, 2013, 06:05:27 PM »

What did Jesus say about clam chowder?

Even Buttered Flavored Pam (is she kosher) knows that Jesus declared all foods clean. All foods would include clam chowder, but imho only New England style, not Manhattan style.
A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

Offline gzusfreke

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 562
  • Darwins +7/-38
  • "Are you casting asparagus on my cooking?"-Curly
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Are we sure these 50 are proofs?
« Reply #98 on: December 31, 2013, 06:08:54 PM »
I will ask you again, as I did before - what makes it wrong if there are no absolute moral truths?  You guys get upset when you don't think I answer a question or you think I'm dodging.  I'm not upset, but you are dodging.

We humans make that decision. Sometimes well, sometimes poorly. But we are also influenced by our genetics. Which is why we are generally able to cooperate in groups. We are biologically predisposed to do that.

Genes are also why we are predisposed to kill things. And in less civilized times, that meant other people. (Not that we don't kill other people now, but for it to be acceptable we have to be able to culturally make up a reason, and hire our government to do it for us.)

What makes it wrong is people calling it wrong. We at times disagree, so it becomes a less than perfect method, but it is the only method we have. We used to call dueling 'right', and it was a pretty common hobby. If you and I were disagreeing like this in 1750 either one of us could demand a duel to the death and unless one of us apologized, we were both expected to go out and shoot at each other. That was morally acceptable. In Christian Europe and North America.

It stopped because it was abhorrent and people basically figured that out. There was no voice of a god coming out of the clouds telling people to stop. Common sense kicked in.

Sadly, it doesn't always, and that is why bad stuff still happens.

If morals were absolute, how would we violate them? Just because we're sinners? Wouldn't certain talents also be required? Like being able to know exactly what those absolutes are so that we could violate them? You god didn't make the list until long after he had drowned somewhere between one and forty billion people (like everything else, christians can't seem to agree on how many people lived on the planet when the flood hit, but lots of them are willing to make semi-educated guesses. I should also note that if there were forty billion people, then your god drowned close to 45 million babies, which means that even your absolutes aren't very absolute if we can't trust your god to follow them as well. Of course, since you conveniently have no expectation that your god will follow those same absolutes you believe in, the least you could do is call them "semi-absolutes".)

Life is real short of absolutes. We used to think that monarchs had absolute power, passed down by god. We've outgrown that. Well, most of us have. We've made up a few, like legal ones, and we use the word much more loosely in astronomy to define star brightness. But moral absolutes don't exist. Unless you want to count our biological imperatives, which are, by definition, not absolute, because our genes change over time, and so too may our biological components that help shape our moral values.

There isn't even an "absolute" definition of absolute when it comes to this issue. Philosophically, some consider it some sort of unconditional reality separate from gods, while others say the same thing but require gods. So there isn't even a clear definition of absolute morality, because even if you and I agreed on principal, we would be arguing about the source.

You are demanding an answer to a question that presupposes it is correct, and you are wanting me to dismiss it on your terms and your terms only. If there are indeed no moral absolutes (and I don't think that there are), are you telling me that, should I want to harm someone you love, you wouldn't be able to come up with a single reason for me not to do it? If I wanted to bop you over the head, are you saying you wouldn't be able to come up with a single reason for me not to do it?

Personal preferences aren't that irrelevant. Empathy is not beside the point. Being human is not a situation where we are mere robots, responding only to your God's programming. We're not UNIVAC computers with only 2k of memory and a need to share the only punch card reader in the room. We are wiser and complex biological creatures who are clearly capable of being civilized, at least most of the time. That not everyone shares my precise view of morality means that I'll be upset when others violate my sense of propriety. And it means I will upset others who have different standards. But we need neither absolutes not gods to write our rules for us. We, both biologically and consciously, are the source of morals.

Apparently, people puzzled about why humans aren't perfect felt an imperfect need to make stuff up about the problem. And you believe them. That doesn't automatically make it true.

If you still think I'm dodging, perhaps we should be discussing absolutes in terms of the meanings of words. Because if that's the case, we'll have to straighten that out first before we can talk about anything else.

Ok, I no longer think that you are dodging, and I believe you truly believe you have answered the question, but you haven't.  If individuals choose what is good and what is bad, then you can say something (child rape) is good and I can say it is bad but that doesn't get us anywhere in the discussion. But Graybeard started another thread for this, so we work on this there if that is agreeable.
A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

Offline gzusfreke

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 562
  • Darwins +7/-38
  • "Are you casting asparagus on my cooking?"-Curly
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Are we sure these 50 are proofs?
« Reply #99 on: December 31, 2013, 06:09:45 PM »
PP, just to add - Chrisitians thought sleavery was fine - even Patrick Henry apparently. Yet after abolition Christians were agains slavery. if there are Absolute Moral values this could not be, could it?

No, not all Christians.  Ever hear of William Wilberforce or John Newton?
A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6623
  • Darwins +792/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Are we sure these 50 are proofs?
« Reply #100 on: December 31, 2013, 06:36:36 PM »

Ok, I no longer think that you are dodging, and I believe you truly believe you have answered the question, but you haven't.  If individuals choose what is good and what is bad, then you can say something (child rape) is good and I can say it is bad but that doesn't get us anywhere in the discussion. But Graybeard started another thread for this, so we work on this there if that is agreeable.

That's fine. We can continue this discussion there 
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4658
  • Darwins +106/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Are we sure these 50 are proofs?
« Reply #101 on: December 31, 2013, 07:13:40 PM »
PP, just to add - Chrisitians thought sleavery was fine - even Patrick Henry apparently. Yet after abolition Christians were agains slavery. if there are Absolute Moral values this could not be, could it?

No, not all Christians.  Ever hear of William Wilberforce or John Newton?
2 examples,what about Americans of the south(Christians) who thought it was still a god given right to own slaves.

 Racial hatred is still alive and we'll today
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline gzusfreke

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 562
  • Darwins +7/-38
  • "Are you casting asparagus on my cooking?"-Curly
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Are we sure these 50 are proofs?
« Reply #102 on: December 31, 2013, 08:55:58 PM »
PP, just to add - Chrisitians thought sleavery was fine - even Patrick Henry apparently. Yet after abolition Christians were agains slavery. if there are Absolute Moral values this could not be, could it?

No, not all Christians.  Ever hear of William Wilberforce or John Newton?
2 examples,what about Americans of the south(Christians) who thought it was still a god given right to own slaves.

The Americans in the North and the South, whether they were Christian, Deists, or atheists, who thought it was their god given right to own slaves were wrong.

 
Quote
Racial hatred is still alive and we'll today

Unfortunately.  There are examples in all parts of the USA that show that is true.  How do you combat racism when you encounter it in life outside of the forum?
A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

Offline ButterFlavoredPam

Re: Are we sure these 50 are proofs?
« Reply #103 on: January 01, 2014, 11:07:54 AM »
Thank you for answering the question.  It is not easy to admit sometimes that we have areas where we are not subject matter experts.

It must be harder to admit that you've wasted a significant amount of time defending your make-believe friend.  :)

Sorry, couldn't resist

The Mosaic Law was a contract.  The New Covenant is a contract.  Middle Eastern contracts.  It is helpful to know the culture and context of any contract when you are applying critical analysis to it.  That's very basic academic scholarship that any atheistic professor of antiquities, history, or eastern civilization would agree with.  How does this apply to the timing?  One contract (Mosaic Law) had to be completed by Jesus' living righteously.  Then it could be declared that the terms were completed. Then a new contact (the New Covenant) could be inacted.  Think of a contract with someone to cut your grass for a year.  The terms are strict and can't be changed.  So you have to wait until that contract has been fulfilled before you can create a new contract that includes trimming the hedges in addition to cutting the grass.

Now, before I get to your analogy, I'd like to point out the problem with any of your responses to me.  You seem to have a hard time answering a direct question with a direct answer.  Instead, you hedge.  You offer flawed analogies (like this one).  You leave doors open so you always leave a little wiggle room when the reality disagrees with you interpretation of "The Word".  One of the few straight answers I got was that Jesus was under Mosaic Law.  Except now, he really wasn't?

Your grass cutting contract analogy is flawed because, the be a contract like the Mosaic Law, I would have had to been forced into the contract at birth.  The contract would also have to be so stringent (each blade of grass cut to exactly 2.567867354566cm) that there would be now way for me to ever meet the terms.  Then, the person who forced the contract on me would have the right to punish me eternally for not being able to meet the terms of the contract I never agreed to. 

I understand why you explain in analogies and half thoughts.  I'll give you one of my own.  You explanations are like pudding (I'm being nice).  In some places you can lay it on thick and it almost seems solid.  In other places, the pudding has to be spread so thin as to be almost completely transparent.  For example, this gem . . .

At some point in Jesus' life, it was determined that He had fulfilled the Law - that He had completed from the human/Jewish side.  I can't tell you exactly what day that was, because it isn't told to us in the Bible, but apparently He had fulfilled it when He declared all foods clean (from the deity side).  Jesus' fulfillment of the Law was in how He lived.

 . . . you simply made up.  Conjured it out of thin air and then presented it as established fact.

Then, of course, you get to declare people wrong  . . .


The Americans in the North and the South, whether they were Christian, Deists, or atheists, who thought it was their god given right to own slaves were wrong.

 . . . when the reading of the Bible at that time supported their beliefs.  I would imagine (just my opinion.  not fact) that in 200 years Christianity will look very little like the religion you practice today and equally sure "scholars" will declare your beliefs wrong.

Who will be right then?  How will anyone every know?
 
« Last Edit: January 01, 2014, 12:14:46 PM by ButterFlavoredPam »
“In dark ages people are best guided by religion, as in a pitch-black night a blind man is the best guide; he knows the roads and paths better than a man who can see. When daylight comes, however, it is foolish to use blind, old men as guides.”
 Heinrich Heine

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4658
  • Darwins +106/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Are we sure these 50 are proofs?
« Reply #104 on: January 01, 2014, 05:36:28 PM »
It is more than just a little hypocritical to complain that I'm ignoring your questions.  If I was not typing my smart phone right now I would cut and paste all the questions you have simply ignored in this thread. 
No, I have not studied middle eastern contract law.  Please explain how out applies to the timing of events I outlined above and why I need to be a middle eastern lawyer to understand God's holy word

Sorry for the sarcasm but, given your last post, I feel it was justified.

Pam, as I mentioned in an earlier post, most people (theists and atheists alike) tend to read their 21st century Western culture into writings, both biblical and non-biblical, that were written in another culture and time.  It helps to understand texts if we can leave out our culture when approaching them.  Even atheistic history scholars would tell you this, unless they are post-modernists, in which case they would tell you just the opposite.

The Mosaic Law was a contract.  The New Covenant is a contract.  Middle Eastern contracts.  It is helpful to know the culture and context of any contract when you are applying critical analysis to it.  That's very basic academic scholarship that any atheistic professor of antiquities, history, or eastern civilization would agree with.  How does this apply to the timing?  One contract (Mosaic Law) had to be completed by Jesus' living righteously.  Then it could be declared that the terms were completed. Then a new contact (the New Covenant) could be inacted.  Think of a contract with someone to cut your grass for a year.  The terms are strict and can't be changed.  So you have to wait until that contract has been fulfilled before you can create a new contract that includes trimming the hedges in addition to cutting the grass. 

Thank you for answering the question.  It is not easy to admit sometimes that we have areas where we are not subject matter experts.
Our culture and morals are far superior to those of the times you speak of,slavery,rape,stoning among other barbaric acts have been abandoned ....yet were endorsed by your God
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4658
  • Darwins +106/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Are we sure these 50 are proofs?
« Reply #105 on: January 01, 2014, 05:40:45 PM »
PP, just to add - Chrisitians thought sleavery was fine - even Patrick Henry apparently. Yet after abolition Christians were agains slavery. if there are Absolute Moral values this could not be, could it?

No, not all Christians.  Ever hear of William Wilberforce or John Newton?
2 examples,what about Americans of the south(Christians) who thought it was still a god given right to own slaves.

The Americans in the North and the South, whether they were Christian, Deists, or atheists, who thought it was their god given right to own slaves were wrong.

 
Quote
Racial hatred is still alive and we'll today

Unfortunately.  There are examples in all parts of the USA that show that is true.  How do you combat racism when you encounter it in life outside of the forum?
Slavery was endorsed by God,is he wrong to endorse it,he also lays the blame on the rape victim and makes them marry the rapist for a small cost to the father

 As far as racism in the real world,,,I try to ignore it,my uncles and father taught me well
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)