Intelligent Design support letter to the editor

[PBTree]

I understand the point you are trying to make-yes. However, you
are mistaken. You can't cherry pick. Some things were applicable to ancient Israel and some are applicable to mankind in general. If you know which is which then you will avoid that cherry-picking mistake. Knowing which is which is a simple matter of becoming
familiar with the book one is using for guidence. One would know, for example, that the stoning you mention is no longer required just as circumcision is no longer required as well as the dietary laws. When they were, they were required of the Jews and not mankind in general.

That is pure assumption on your part.
There is nothing in the book that states "ok, after this date, people don't need to do this anymore. Just assuming that stoning is not needed for adulterers anymore is the same as saying, "I know exactly what god means". Bit arrogant methinks.

In truth, people stopped doing a lot of things that the book mentioned because they discovered it was plainly idiotic and based upon the ramblings of strange superstitious old men.

BTW
What does the theist question have to do with all this?

You mentioned satanists in your post. Curiousity on my part begged an answer as I can't see the difference between a satanist and a theist. They both believe in the bloke in the sky.

 

[Radrook]

That is pure assumption on your part.
There is nothing in the book that states "ok, after this date, people don't need to do this anymore. Just assuming that stoning is not needed for adulterers anymore is the same as saying, "I know exactly what god means". Bit arrogant methinks.

Sorry but you are mistaken. The book does tell us that after Christ's death for our sins the Mosaic Law was no longer in force. So it isn't arrogance, it is merely a listening to what the book says but which you say it doesn't say. Which to me indicates that you haven't read it. Which further raises the pertinent question of why someone who hasn't read a book is arrogantly presuming to know what the book says or doesn't say.

In truth, people stopped doing a lot of things that the book mentioned because they discovered it was plainly idiotic and based upon the ramblings of strange superstitious old men.

That's YOUR idea, not the Bible's. Of course you are fully entitled to your ideas and even to your rudeness in expressing your ideas as I am entitled not to have your rudeness present on mny computor screen.

You mentioned satanists in your post. Curiousity on my part begged an answer as I can't see the difference between a satanist and a theist. They both believe in the bloke in the sky.

Uhummm! But I'll pass on any further communication.

 

[PBTree]

Sorry but you are mistaken. The book does tell us that after Christ's death for our sins the Mosaic Law was no longer in force. So it isn't arrogance, it is merely a listening to what the book says but which you say it doesn't say. Which to me indicates that you haven't read it. Which further raises the pertinent question of why someone who hasn't read a book is arrogantly presuming to know what the book says or doesn't say.

Do you have a passage I can look at. I have never heard/seen that mentioned.

I would have to think that everytime someone mentions stonings (i'm assuming that's a part of the mosaic law) etc on this forum, that a passage such as that would be raised as a shining light for some sort of intelligence in the book.

 

[six7s]

The book does tell us that after Christ's death for our sins the Mosaic Law was no longer in force

Do you have a passage I can look at. I have never heard/seen that mentioned

Well... it depends bit you ummm... cherry pick... from

The Beatitudes

Matthew 5 (New International Version)

1. Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him,
2. and he began to teach them saying:
3. Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4. Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
5. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
6. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.
7. Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
8. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
9. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.
10. Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
12. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
    
    Salt and Light
    
    
13. You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.
14. You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden.
15. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.
16. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.
    
    The Fulfillment of the Law
    
    
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. 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.
19. 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.
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.

 

[SezMe]

Sorry but you are mistaken. The book does tell us that after Christ's death for our sins the Mosaic Law was no longer in force.

Woo-hoo. The ten commandments no longer apply and I can covet my neighbors wife.

Right?

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Sorry but you are mistaken. The book does tell us that after Christ's death for our sins the Mosaic Law was no longer in force.

Once again, which part of it? All? None? The parts that aren't repeated in the NT?

Uhummm! But I'll pass on any further communication.

Dodge.

 

[alfaniner]

Either the whole book is true or none of it is.
...

Not necessarily. (I think this might be the fallacy of the excluded middle?) You might phrase it as "Either the whole book is true or at least a part of it is not."

 

[DrBaltar]

I understand the point you are trying to make-yes. Knowing which is which is a simple matter of becoming
familiar with the book one is using for guidence. One would know, for example, that the stoning you mention is no longer required
just as circumcision is no longer required as well as the dietary laws. When they were, they were required of the Jews and not mankind in general.

Why are these things no longer required?

 

[DrBaltar]

I think it's time for a Bible For Dummies that takes out all the stuff that is known to be incorrect (such as Genesis), out dated information (such as the Mosaic Laws), and gives a proper translation so there are no mix-ups like 1 day=1000 years or created means revealed. Then all the Judeo-Christian religions would say "silly me, THAT's what that means". And people growing up, and reading the Bible For Dummies book wouldn't get confused and get distracted by science and logic. No longer would there be these awkward moments where religious teachers try and explain what the Bible "really" means.

 

[bokonon]

Sure, people shouldn't cherry pick, but, unless you live under a rock, you can't have failed to notice that people can, and do!

I think cherry picking is a more rational approach to a book which is so obviously error-ridden and fable-strewn as the bible, so I have no problem with the practice.

Everybody has an idea of what's right and what's wrong. For the most part, those ideas don't really originate in the bible. People like Radrook like to quote scripture to bolster their existing prejudices, and to shut off discussions of correct and incorrect on certain topics. So what if they cherry-pick and interpret and masticate a text until it's a pasty pulp fiction in order to justify the position they adopted in the first place? We all have the right to adopt positions on issues. If you can convince a bible-thumping man that a position is not correct, believe me, he'll find a way to square it with scripture somehow.

So the real issue is not cherry picking for me, it's how can I show somebody that this position is mistaken. While it's annoying to be confronted by a smug "It's not me saying it, it's GAWD saying it," I try not to focus on the holey sock puppet aspect of the debate. Most arguments from true believers are rationalizations propping up lies supporting ideas that are nonsensical to begin with, and you can wear yourself out trying to dismantle the defenses one slimy layer at a time and still be no closer to the core concept. I think often the tactic is deliberate.

How many posts has it been since the topic of intelligent design was discussed in this thread, for instance?

 

[NobbyNobbs]

I think cherry picking is a more rational approach to a book which is so obviously error-ridden and fable-strewn as the bible, so I have no problem with the practice.

Everybody has an idea of what's right and what's wrong. For the most part, those ideas don't really originate in the bible. People like Radrook like to quote scripture to bolster their existing prejudices, and to shut off discussions of correct and incorrect on certain topics. So what if they cherry-pick and interpret and masticate a text until it's a pasty pulp fiction in order to justify the position they adopted in the first place? We all have the right to adopt positions on issues. If you can convince a bible-thumping man that a position is not correct, believe me, he'll find a way to square it with scripture somehow.

So the real issue is not cherry picking for me, it's how can I show somebody that this position is mistaken. While it's annoying to be confronted by a smug "It's not me saying it, it's GAWD saying it," I try not to focus on the holey sock puppet aspect of the debate. Most arguments from true believers are rationalizations propping up lies supporting ideas that are nonsensical to begin with, and you can wear yourself out trying to dismantle the defenses one slimy layer at a time and still be no closer to the core concept. I think often the tactic is deliberate.

How many posts has it been since the topic of intelligent design was discussed in this thread, for instance?

It's one thing to use Bible quotes to support a position you already have taken. It's an entirely different matter when you take a position simply because the Bible has a quote about it. This is the problem I have with many people who are against gay rights. When it comes down to it, most of their reasons are along the lines of "Well, the Bible says it's wrong." They let that book do their thinking for them.

 

[RobRoy]

It's one thing to use Bible quotes to support a position you already have taken. It's an entirely different matter when you take a position simply because the Bible has a quote about it. This is the problem I have with many people who are against gay rights. When it comes down to it, most of their reasons are along the lines of "Well, the Bible says it's wrong." They let that book do their thinking for them.

The Biblical quotes against gays always makes me laugh. I used to keep a list of Biblical quotes that advocated all kinds of fun stuff like rape, slavery, murder, brutality, etc. Tried to find it, but must be on my other computer. I do remember that eating certain birds, wearing certain clothes, even doing certain things at certain times, could mean the loss of a hand, or a daughter or your own life.

So if you're going to use the Bible to support homophobic tendencies, then at least have the good grace not to wear mixed-cloth, which will earn you a stoning in the Bible.

 

[bokonon]

It's one thing to use Bible quotes to support a position you already have taken. It's an entirely different matter when you take a position simply because the Bible has a quote about it. This is the problem I have with many people who are against gay rights. When it comes down to it, most of their reasons are along the lines of "Well, the Bible says it's wrong." They let that book do their thinking for them.

That's just the thing. I think the gay bashing bible thumpers are using bible quotes to justify positions they have already taken, rather than letting the book do their thinking for them. The bible says people should sell all they have and follow Jesus, but nobody does it, because they don't want to. The bible says it's better to stay single and celibate than get married and raise a family, but most Christians who can find a suitable partner get married anyway. Only a handful of crazies in the bible belt subscribe to the "drink poison and handle serpents" passages.

They use god as a sock puppet, to try to make their bigotry look like selfless service to the almighty. That's the nature of this cherry picking. When they cite scripture to support their bigotry, they aren't letting the bible do their thinking for them, they're letting it do their talking for them.

 

[PBTree]

How many posts has it been since the topic of intelligent design was discussed in this thread, for instance?

I believe that we have been discussing it all along. ID believers use the book as their reference point. If we can't agree if the book is true (en toto) or not, then how can either side discuss it rationally?

If the book is true, then ID'ers win but if the book is a total crock as most of us on this forum think, then we win and sanity returns to the world.

We really need the author to return (holding breath at this time) and explain what he/she meant with all of those obtuse statements made in his/her book. I suppose if you are an illiterate fisherman (Peter etc), then comprehending what the big guy has just said in a booming voice and then trying to put pen to paper, might have been a struggle. This would account for all the non-sensical sentences.

 

[bigred]

Page Not Found
Sorry, the page you requested could not be found.


I don't see anything redeeming about this article whatsoever.

 

[godofpie]

[ but most Christians who can find a suitable partner get married anyway. Only a handful of crazies in the bible belt subscribe to the "drink poison and handle serpents" passages."


Hey now! You're talkin' 'bout my neighbors. At least they are committed to the literal view. Strychnine is an acquired taste, but it doesn't go with pizza.

 

[Radrook]

Woo-hoo. The ten commandments no longer apply and I can covet my neighbors wife.

Right?

Sigh! If you were familiar with the NT you would never say that. In any case, let me clarify. The ceremonial law with it's sacrificial and dietary requirements, along with its observations of Sabbaths and other such things is no longer in force. The punishments for violations of moral laws are no longer in force although the moral principles are still binding upon Christians minus the punishments and sacrifical requirements. That's why Christ died, so that the law could give way to grace or forgiveness based on his sacrifice.

Romans 10:4
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.


If that explanation is still unclear please feel free to ask for further clarification.

 

[Radrook]

Once again, which part of it? All? None? The parts that aren't repeated in the NT?

I respond to that question in a post above. Please refer to it for the answer.

dodge

Yep! I dodge the irrelevant, the unnecessarily rude, and the otherwise annoying. To me of course. On the other hand I am quite willing to invest a considerablre portion of
my very limited time in calmly discussing issues and providing answers to genuine questions.

 

[six7s]

Sorry but you are mistaken. The book does tell us that after Christ's death for our sins the Mosaic Law was no longer in force

@Radrook: How do you (without cherry-picking) tally your statement with Matthew 5:17-18 (New International Version)?

• 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 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.

If the old laws are no longer "in force", why would Christ aim to fulfill them, down to the last letter?

 

[DrBaltar]

The ceremonial law with it's sacrificial and dietary requirements, along with its observations of Sabbaths and other such things is no longer in force. The punishments for violations of moral laws are no longer in force although the moral principles are still binding upon Christians minus the punishments and sacrifical requirements. That's why Christ died, so that the law could give way to grace or forgiveness based on his sacrifice.

Romans 10:4
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.


If that explanation is still unclear please feel free to ask for further clarification.

Sounds like God is a hard-ass and Jesus is keeping his anger in check. Yay Jesus!