It's so frustrating...

[Foster Zygote]

It doesn't, but they were supposed to kill them and people justify this by saying that the kids would automatically go to heaven. Of course, the adults would go to hell, so it nullifies the whole argument.

Ah, I see what you're saying now: They use the apologetic that it was acceptable for them to slaughter children, toddlers, babies and infants because as innocents they would go to Heaven. Somewhere in that community must have been some pregnant women, so I can only assume that all-loving God was kind enough to send the unborn babies' souls to Heaven prior to sending their heathen mothers to the eternal damnation they deserved.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Hi,

I think people are getting confused to the context of your example. Is this what you meant:

You asked someone about Deuteronomy 2:34 and the answer they gave was that "killing the children was a good thing, because they'll go straight to heaven." Is that correct?

By the way - if you're interested in being a Christian you might want to first stick with Jesus teachings first since He's the founder and Teacher - his teachings, for Christians, supersede and reinterpret the Old Testament teachings. (Well - actually, He put the intention of many of the laws back in line to their original purpose). Just my two cents.

So God stopped being evil after Jesus came? Or is God the father still evil but God the son is good?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Okay, most of the arguments I had against Christianity have been reconciled by Christians. I've been reading the bible and I'm almost finished Deuteronomy.

There is much more to go, I'd hold off on any decision until you finish the book.

So, now that Christians have patched up the holes in their beliefs, I'm getting really frustrated and depressed because I'm starting to wonder if Christianity isn't true...

If it's true for you, good. If not, also good. You can't lose.

I've gotten on my knees and seriously begged God for understanding... Begged him to give me the spiritual fortitude to want to change... To want to follow his laws...

More practical to learn them, then try to apply them, then ask for help. Given your reading statement, you don't even know what the rules are.

Read the whole book, then reconsider.

I'm seriously trying to give God the benifit of a doubt.

That doubtless pleases Him no end.

I don't want to be a Christian, but I don't want to go to hell either.

If you don't want to be Christian, nobody can make you be one. As for Hell, that's being apart from God. If you don't care for God, I am not sure there's an issue here.

Whenever I try to think of a way that their arguments don't work, I get this feeling that I'm just making excuses not to believe...

Is that any better than making excuses to believe, without having read the entire menu?

I've been trying my damnedest to seek God and the truth, whatever that might be, but it just feels like I loose no matter what I do.

That makes you human. See above. Read the whole book, then ask a Christian whom you trust for a next step. Discussing this with agnostics, atheists, and the indifferent will hardly answer the mail, though it may lead you to another path altogether.
I note you have stumbled across Pascal's wager. Look it up. Hell, read Pascal's writings.

If I don't believe and it's true, then I go to hell. Really? IF I DO believe and it's not true, then I waste the only life I have for pleasure by deleting my hentai collection and and giving up my possessions. And if I DO believe and it IS true, then I've still lost because I just end up becoming this...zombie in heaven where my personality is completely destroyed and all I ever care about is God. I never get to have kids or experience sex, and in this life, I have to go through the agony of knowing that there will be people who are deprived of these joys who will go into one of 2 categories: Eternal torture in hell, or being a mindless blob in heaven.

Yeah, and? If this was easy, would it be worth anything?

Whenever I say that I don't want to be obsessed with God, I.E., Heaven, There's always this irritating feeling that's telling me that I'm being selfish and wicked or that it's "Satan talking".

Well, how about you not put the cart before the horse?

But the thing is, all I want is to be left alone in peace without the looming threat of hell over my head.

THEN STOP DWELLING ON IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I just want to be able to fantasize about being a ninja or a wizard without feeling guilty about it.

THEN DROP THE SELF INFLICTED GUILT TRIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I want to be able to look at women without feeling shame. I want to be able to enjoy sexual pleasure. But then it's almost like there's a voice in the back of my head saying "It's now about what you want!"

Welcome to learning about the tension between the flesh, and the spirit. You are not alone.

It just makes me wonder why Yahweh, if he exists, would be so cruel as to put us in such a situation...

He's got a fine sense of humor, don't you think?

Could someone help?

Yeah, finish reading the Bible, then come back for more. Where you are now is half baked.

Oh, and quit dwelling on Hell. Your actions will tend to follow your thoughts.

Think more positively, whether you choose to follow Christ or not.

DR

 

[Gurdur]

Christ, that makes two threads now where I have agreed with every single word Darth Rotor said today, the other thread being the Burma one.

Let me just add one thing here: becoming a Christian again won't help much. Christians very often suffer from "crises of faith" and "pangs of doubt", and have just as many problems coping with life as anyone else does, just like any atheist. Unfortunately, too many Christians go in for short-term emotional compensation as an answer (just like some atheists, my oh my, can it be because we're all bloody humans?), and short-term emotional compensation makes for bloody bad theology, bloody bad philosophy and bloody bad counter-productive answers.

Becoming a Christian again won't help you; neither in this situation will suppressing doubts and becoming a rigid atheist help you. I suggest strongly you adopt the following attitudes:

1) If a God exists (highly doubtful, but say), then he/she is either a worthwhile God or a scumbag.

2) If he/she is a worthwhile God and you actively did your best to be a decent human in this life, you're going to be OK in the afterlife, and maybe there will even be (consensual) sex there, you can always hope, eh? eh?

3) If God is a scumbag, get a spine and look upon the afterlife as a great chance to give the big A, the finger, to God in person, and to tell him/her at great length all about his/her stupidities, including the bit about banning any eating of lobsters. And why no cheese allowed on your hamburger??? (milchig/fleischig, unkosher) Bugger that for a bad joke.

4) If God doesn't exist, ç'est la vie, or more accurately, that was life, and you won't have any problems getting over it, since you'll be dead. Dead people commonly have no problems. Or at least none have reported any.

5) Therefore do your best to be a decent person and be helpful to those weaker than you, and do your utmost to actually enjoy life, you only get one crack at doing life with no second chances at all, and have some bloody fun.

And don't give a second's thought to any possible afterlife; see steps 1 to 4.

By the way, being an atheist does not mean you have to be uptight and an aggro arse; you can simply be a life-loving, tolerant atheist, and live and let live.

Cheers,
~ Gurdur, a humanist atheist, and occasional poster, and just another human.

 

[Civilized Worm]

Ah yes, the atheists' favorite bible verse.

Used like the old GOTO statement in BASIC.

And how often do christians refer back to "love your neighbor" as if it somehow makes all the nasty stuff OK?

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

And how often do christians refer back to "love your neighbor" as if it somehow makes all the nasty stuff OK?

I don't know. I've never seen anyone do that. I've seen plenty of people say if people would "love their neighbor" there would be less nasty stuff.

 

[JonathanClement]

Do you have children?

No, why?

 

[Freethinker]

Ah yes, the atheists' favorite bible verse.

Used like the old GOTO statement in BASIC.

Is there an argument there, or just an ad hom and a detour into discussing programming? I post a bible reference that refutes what you say, your response is an ad hom.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Is there an argument there, or just an ad hom and a detour into discussing programming? I post a bible reference that refutes what you say, your response is an ad hom.

I don't think it's an Ad Hom - but I may be mistaken.

You've decided that verse means "Christians must take the Old Testament laws literally".

And you're using it like a GOTO statement.

LINE 500 Follow Jesus teaching - read more
LINE 501 Follow Jesus teaching - read more
LINE 502 Mark 5:18-19 GOTO LINE 101 Deutoronomy
LINE 101 Follow Deuteronomy Law - read more
LINE 102 Follow Detureonomy Law - read more

 

[Freethinker]

I don't think it's an Ad Hom - but I may be mistaken.

You've decided that verse means "Christians must take the Old Testament laws literally".

And you're using it like a GOTO statement.

LINE 500 Follow Jesus teaching - read more
LINE 501 Follow Jesus teaching - read more
LINE 502 Mark 5:18-19 GOTO LINE 101 Deutoronomy
LINE 101 Follow Deuteronomy Law - read more
LINE 102 Follow Detureonomy Law - read more

In other words.

You can't resolve it, so you ignore it and use other parts of the bible that say what you want. Exactly the same cherry-picking you accuse atheists of doing. Bottom line is the bible isn't evidence of anything but the fears and superstitions of ancient Middle-Eastern people. You pick and choose which parts you want to use, but criticize others who want to use different parts. The rape, slavery and genocide are all there. They don't make the good things any less good, but when one examines the documents as a whole, they are quite different from the popular understanding.

 

[Robin]

You've decided that verse means "Christians must take the Old Testament laws literally".

I assume you mean Matthew 5:17-18. That is what it seems to mean.

Certainly the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church and the Evangelicals regard at least some of the old laws as binding.

And you're using it like a GOTO statement.

We are treating it as a statement that was apparently spoken for some reason.

How do you suggest we treat it? As a joke? As a slip of the tongue?

At the very least it suggests approval of the Old Testament laws - that is bad enough.

The thing is that Leviticus and Deuteronomy were supposed to be taken as literal. I don't see how else you could read them - they are clearly not allegories.

Like many Christians you get defensive and hostile when these things are brought up, but you are so vague about your attitudes to them.

God is depicted as - literally - commanding the slaughter of unbelievers - he is commanded as commanding the slaughter of children. Would you at least agree that this is morally indefensible?

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

You can't resolve it, so you ignore it and use other parts of the bible that say what you want.

What this tells me is that you read that verse Matthew 5:17-18, but don't read the verses after that or ignore the verses after that. Because, if you did you'd know what that verse did not mean, even if you don't know what it does mean.

 

[bokonon]

If this was easy, would it be worth anything?

Is the air you breathe worth anything?

Does it seem probable that there is a loving all-powerful being which wants everyone to spend eternity in bliss, and devises tests ("believe in a specific account of me") which some (e.g., infants killed by tsunamis) have no hope of passing, that arbitrarily cull whole hemispheres and eras of human existence?

If the stakes were really as high as Christians claim, and the judge was really as just as Christians claim, meeting the standard would be as easy as breathing. It wouldn't be necessary to find and finish a long self-contradictory piece of literature, filled with mind-numbing lists of begattitudes, forbidden foods and garments, and ancient genocidal battles. If you accept the initial premise (that there is a loving all-powerful being which wants everyone to spend eternity in bliss), that should be your first clue that the Bible isn't the only way to win the prize.

If you don't accept the initial premise, you need to decide first what sort of god makes sense to you. What sort of god seems likely in the light of your personal experience and knowledge of the way the world works? Many of us have concluded that it's no god at all, or at most a deistic god which sketched a scaffold of principles upon which the body of creation is hung, and lets those principles play themselves out without "divine intervention" today.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

I assume you mean Matthew 5:17-18. That is what it seems to mean.

Yeah - I grabbed the wrong verse from his post.

We are treating it as a statement that was apparently spoken for some reason.

You might, but most atheists who use that verse do not simply say "this was spoken for some reason". They interpret it as meaning you need to follow Old Testament laws literally. They then say "You eat shellfish, you're a hyporcrite, not-a-Christian, or even less faithfull".

How do you suggest we treat it? As a joke? As a slip of the tongue?

First, I'm not really sure why you should even treat it as anything - but if you are I'd suggest reading the chapter before and after and all the verses before and after and using your critical thinking skills that you'd use for literature other than Christian literature.

Unless you've already came to some conclusions and have reasons for wanting to insist on those conclusions.

Like many Christians you get defensive and hostile when these things are brought up, but you are so vague about your attitudes to them.

I don't think I've been hostile - sarcastic maybe, maybe even cynical.

 

[Jon.]

You might, but most atheists who use that verse do not simply say "this was spoken for some reason". They interpret it as meaning you need to follow Old Testament laws literally. They then say "You eat shellfish, you're a hyporcrite, not-a-Christian, or even less faithfull".

First, I'm not really sure why you should even treat it as anything - but if you are I'd suggest reading the chapter before and after and all the verses before and after and using your critical thinking skills that you'd use for literature other than Christian literature.

Unless you've already came to some conclusions and have reasons for wanting to insist on those conclusions.

Okay, the question is begging to be asked. What do these verses mean?

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.

18I 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.

19Anyone 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.

20For 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.

To me, they mean that, according to Jesus, a person who wishes to enter the kingdom of heaven has to surpass the Pharisees and teachers of law in righteousness (which might not have been difficult); that the Law (which I take to refer to the rules set out in the first five books of the OT, and in particular Leviticus and Deuteronomy) remains in force; and that those who break it will be scorned and rejected while those who follow and teach it will be exalted.

What do they mean to you?

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Okay, the question is begging to be asked. What do these verses mean?


What do they mean to you?

Not a whole lot. What follows after is more significant to me.

But here's a quick take on what it might mean. I'm not sure what other Christians think.

Originally Posted by Matthew 5 (NIV)
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.

Jesus fulfills the intent of both the Law and the prophets.

18I 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.

Apaprently, the Law will still be around. To me it appears that it is - both in written form and by some people trying to follow them.

19Anyone 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.

Don't breaks God's commandments and teach others to do the same. If you teach people the commandments make sure you're also following them. In other words - don't be a hypocrite.

(By the way - it appears to me when he says commandments he very well might be talking about the commandments He gives that follow this introduction)

20For 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.

Ouch - I bet the Pharisees loved being called hypocrites.

 

[Jon.]

Not a whole lot. What follows after is more significant to me.

Gee, it seems like a pretty important passage to someone looking for instructions on how to live - do we keep following the OT laws, or do we not? Seems to me that Jesus doesn't make any other pronouncements on the issue, so shouldn't this passage be significant?

But here's a quick take on what it might mean. I'm not sure what other Christians think.

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.

Jesus fulfills the intent of both the Law and the prophets.

What does that mean? The "intent" of a law is that people follow it. How can the appearance of a person "fulfill" that intent? Clearly, it does not cause everyone (or even every Jew) to follow the law.

If Jesus had meant to say "Now that I have come, you don't need to follow all those rules any more", could he not have said so much more clearly?

18I 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.

Apaprently, the Law will still be around. To me it appears that it is - both in written form and by some people trying to follow them.

Now you seem to be taking things too literally. Surely "not one jot or tittle shall pass from the Law" (KJV, which is much more poetic) is not to be taken as "we will still have copies around"? Jesus is talking about how people should act, not about whether there will be libraries in the future.

Remember that if you want to insist that the Bible sometimes speaks in metaphors, you have to accept even those metaphors that make you uncomfortable.

19Anyone 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.

Don't breaks God's commandments and teach others to do the same. If you teach people the commandments make sure you're also following them. In other words - don't be a hypocrite.

Sorry, I don't see this one as being about hypocrisy. In the first part, he talks of those who break commandments and teach others to break commandments, while in the second part he talks of those who both teach and follow the law.

(By the way - it appears to me when he says commandments he very well might be talking about the commandments He gives that follow this introduction)

That does not seem to fit with the "not one jot or tittle" part, at least as I read it.

20For 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.

Ouch - I bet the Pharisees loved being called hypocrites.

And elsewhere, I think they were, but not here. All it says is that, in order to enter the kingdom of heaven, a person must be more righteous than the Pharisees and law teachers. Whether they are being held up as a standard to strive for, or whether Jesus was being snarky is difficult to say 2000 years later, without the benefit of tone of voice. (If only the Bible had used emoticons!)

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Gee, it seems like a pretty important passage to someone looking for instructions on how to live - do we keep following the OT laws, or do we not? Seems to me that Jesus doesn't make any other pronouncements on the issue, so shouldn't this passage be significant?

Are you a Christian? If so, I doubt this is the place for you to get instruction on your faith. Especially with quick answers from all sorts of people. I could keep giving you my opinions - but why should you care what I think?

Are you not a Christian? Then what do you care?

Are you thinking about becoming a Christian? Then seek out a friend who's a Christian and do a bible study with them. And read the rest of those verses.

What does that mean? The "intent" of a law is that people follow it. How can the appearance of a person "fulfill" that intent? Clearly, it does not cause everyone (or even every Jew) to follow the law.

If Jesus had meant to say "Now that I have come, you don't need to follow all those rules any more", could he not have said so much more clearly?

Well he did summarize the entire law into two commandments ...

Now you seem to be taking things too literally. Surely "not one jot or tittle shall pass from the Law" (KJV, which is much more poetic) is not to be taken as "we will still have copies around"? Jesus is talking about how people should act, not about whether there will be libraries in the future.

Really?

Remember that if you want to insist that the Bible sometimes speaks in metaphors, you have to accept even those metaphors that make you uncomfortable.

Which metaphor?

Sorry, I don't see this one as being about hypocrisy. In the first part, he talks of those who break commandments and teach others to break commandments, while in the second part he talks of those who both teach and follow the law.

And someone who teaches the commandments and commands but doesn't do it themself is called a .... _________________

That does not seem to fit with the "not one jot or tittle" part, at least as I read it.

At the beginning he's talking about The Laws (singular - capitalized)
Here he's talking about commands and commandments. He then follows this sections with a whole bunch of examples from the Old Testament where he then does not take them literally. He expands and expounds on them. He could have meant both for all I know.

And elsewhere, I think they were, but not here. All it says is that, in order to enter the kingdom of heaven, a person must be more righteous than the Pharisees and law teachers. Whether they are being held up as a standard to strive for, or whether Jesus was being snarky is difficult to say 2000 years later, without the benefit of tone of voice. (If only the Bible had used emoticons!)

My votes snarky.

 

[Jon.]

Are you a Christian? If so, I doubt this is the place for you to get instruction on your faith. Especially with quick answers from all sorts of people. I could keep giving you my opinions - but why should you care what I think?

Are you not a Christian? Then what do you care?

Are you thinking about becoming a Christian? Then seek out a friend who's a Christian and do a bible study with them. And read the rest of those verses.

I am not a Christian, nor do I have any wish to become one. I do have an interest in all religions and what people believe in. Call it a hobby.

However, this misses the point entirely. Matthew 5:18-19 was brought up by an earlier poster. You criticised the interpretation of that verse by the other poster. So, quite reasonably I thought, I asked you what you thought it meant.

Well he did summarize the entire law into two commandments ...

I thought it was one - love your neighbour as yourself. But that seems to contradict other passages, such as the one we are discussing. If you wish to assert that it does not, then we will ask you to defend that assertion.

Really?

Really.

Which metaphor?

Hmmm... where to begin... I'm sure Jesus spoke in metaphors somewhere, where was it? Oh yeah, all through the Gospels!

In case sarcasm wasn't a good enough answer, there's the metaphor of the Good Samaritan, the metaphor of the owner of the vineyard, the metaphor of the pearl of great price, the metaphor of the sower of seed, Peter as a rock (unless you think he was really a silicon-based lifeform)...

And someone who teaches the commandments and commands but doesn't do it themself is called a .... _________________

Hypocrite. What does that have to do with the verse?

At the beginning he's talking about The Laws (singular - capitalized)
Here he's talking about commands and commandments. He then follows this sections with a whole bunch of examples from the Old Testament where he then does not take them literally. He expands and expounds on them. He could have meant both for all I know.

Both what?

Yes, he expands and expounds on the commandments; in fact, he makes them even more stringent and almost impossible to follow. Which is consistent with the "jot or tittle" passage meaning that the Law is still in force.

My votes snarky.

Mine, too, for what it's worth.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

I am not a Christian, nor do I have any wish to become one. I do have an interest in all religions and what people believe in. Call it a hobby.

However, this misses the point entirely. Matthew 5:18-19 was brought up by an earlier poster. You criticised the interpretation of that verse by the other poster. So, quite reasonably I thought, I asked you what you thought it meant.

And I told you and apparently you also know what it means.

I thought it was one - love your neighbour as yourself.

Nope - there are two.

But that seems to contradict other passages, such as the one we are discussing. If you wish to assert that it does not, then we will ask you to defend that assertion.

Not sure why you'd even care for me to defend any assertion? Why would you even have a position on such a topic anyway?

Hmmm... where to begin... I'm sure Jesus spoke in metaphors somewhere, where was it? Oh yeah, all through the Gospels!

In case sarcasm wasn't a good enough answer, there's the metaphor of the Good Samaritan, the metaphor of the owner of the vineyard, the metaphor of the pearl of great price, the metaphor of the sower of seed, Peter as a rock (unless you think he was really a silicon-based lifeform)...

Right - but where is the metaphor you're referencing in these verses we're talking about that you think I'm uncomfortable with?

Hypocrite. What does that have to do with the verse?

What does - do what you teach - mean?

Both what?

I meant he may have been referring to the Law as a whole and the commandments that followed.

Yes, he expands and expounds on the commandments; in fact, he makes them even more stringent and almost impossible to follow. Which is consistent with the "jot or tittle" passage meaning that the Law is still in force.

It's not consistent with the insistence that He means take the OT laws literally.