You Just Keep Sinning

[D'rok]

for all kin

Why am I not surprised? Like everyone else, you cherry-pick which pronouncements will govern your behavior.

What about, "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"?

Yes, I know. You interpret that one "in context" too.

When it comes to lawyering the Bible, I, as a raging atheist, don't actually have a problem with that one. All other considerations aside, it isn't a contradiction to say that OT laws no longer apply because they have been fulfilled in the person of Jesus. The laws haven't been abolished or changed, they've been completed. The OT laws had a purpose. They are the foundation - they paved the way for the messiah to incarnate, to immanentize.

It's a load of bollocks for all kinds of other reasons, but it isn't indefensible as a legal/textual interpretation.

 

[kuroyume0161]

for all kin

When it comes to lawyering the Bible, I, as a raging atheist, don't actually have a problem with that one. All other considerations aside, it isn't a contradiction to say that OT laws no longer apply because they have been fulfilled in the person of Jesus. The laws haven't been abolished or changed, they've been completed. The OT laws had a purpose. They are the foundation - they paved the way for the messiah to incarnate, to immanentize.

It's a load of bollocks for all kinds of other reasons, but it isn't indefensible as a legal/textual interpretation.

On the other hand...

There is also interpretation (using the same quote, by the way) that says that Jesus 'fulfilled' the OT laws. That is, he added to them but did not invalidate them. Jesus is made to say (sorry, no eyewitness verification of some guy Yeshua preaching about saying anything so I will use 'made to say') things which not only validate them but make them even more stringent:

"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment."
Matthew 5:21-22

"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Matthew 5:27-28

"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."
Mark 10:11-12

"He went on: 'What comes out of a man is what makes him "unclean." For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man "unclean."'"
Mark 7:20-23

The last one is great. The actual definition of 'thought crimes' - something that has only been imagined as the worst a human could inflict as a legal system.

To get back on topic, there really was quite a stir about whether christians were still under Mosaic laws or exempt from them from early on (Peter/Paul) - or exempt from certain laws (dietary laws, divorce laws, keeping of the Sabbath, etc.) but still under the 'ten commandments' (whichever set you choose). To some extent, there is still a bit of wrangling going on but mainly between sects and not so much within sects (though I'll still say that cherry-picking and 'when it suits us' are the suspect practices among them all).

I don't know but I'm somewhat certain that there are no (or very, very few) christian sects that actually observe the more esoteric Jewish laws such as the dietary laws or being forbidden to do work on the Sabbath. Yet many of them will dust off Leviticus to demonize homosexuality. So which is it?

 

[six7s]

I don't know but I'm somewhat certain that there are no (or very, very few) christian sects that actually observe the more esoteric Jewish laws such as the dietary laws or being forbidden to do work on the Sabbath. Yet many of them will dust off Leviticus to demonize homosexuality. So which is it?

Whilst the jury's still out on the pork and shellfish, the verdict is in on cherries; they may be picked at will
biblegateway.com - KJV - Acts 11

1 And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.

2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,

3 Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.

4 But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying,

5 I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me:

6 Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

7 And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat.

8 But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.

9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

10 And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven.

It seems that these hippy-trippy rantings sanction teh Jooz and teh Gentaisles to munch down on teh spare ribs and teh noisy oysters... Teh Peter ROCKS!!11!!

Kan we haz teh kittehz?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

for all kin

When it comes to lawyering the Bible, I, as a raging atheist, don't actually have a problem with that one. All other considerations aside, it isn't a contradiction to say that OT laws no longer apply because they have been fulfilled in the person of Jesus. The laws haven't been abolished or changed, they've been completed. The OT laws had a purpose. They are the foundation - they paved the way for the messiah to incarnate, to immanentize.

It's a load of bollocks for all kinds of other reasons, but it isn't indefensible as a legal/textual interpretation.

Actually: bollox

The wordplay of proclaiming that stuff fulfilled is illogical, and just because Paul does it, doesn't make it make sense. You can fulfill a prophecy, but you can't fulfill a law or rule to the extent where it stops applying. You can abolish a law, ammend a law, etc, but there is no such thing as fulfilling it.

E.g., a law that says basically "it's forbidden to park in front of a fire station" doesn't become fulfilled (and thus stop applying) after you've fined one guy for parking there.

Additionally, that's not even what Paul was arguing. What was fulfilled in there were the prophecies of the OT, not the laws of the OT. Paul uses an equivocation and a bit of handwaving, to extend from the former to the latter. But that's illogical and makes no sense.

Let me illustrate it with a parable:

A lady owns a bar. Her rules for her bar include "no smoking." One day she makes a "prophecy" to a friend, namely, "just watch, in the next hour at least three drunks will try to hit on me. Men..." And lo and behold, it came to pass that three strangers did come and try to hit on her.​

So her prophecy was fulfilled. Does that mean the rules have also become "fulfilled"? Does it mean everyone can now start smoking in her bar?

I mean, seriously, WTH? How does it work for the OT then?

 

[Elizabeth I]

for all kin

When it comes to lawyering the Bible, I, as a raging atheist, don't actually have a problem with that one. All other considerations aside, it isn't a contradiction to say that OT laws no longer apply because they have been fulfilled in the person of Jesus. The laws haven't been abolished or changed, they've been completed. The OT laws had a purpose. They are the foundation - they paved the way for the messiah to incarnate, to immanentize.

It's a load of bollocks for all kinds of other reasons, but it isn't indefensible as a legal/textual interpretation.

I absolutely agree that that argument could be made. I also think it's a very convenient "interpretation in context" for people who want to handwave away things from the Bible that make them uncomfortable, or that they don't want to submit to. Such "interpretation" looks very much like cherry-picking.

 

[D'rok]

for all kin

What the hell was I saying here? Must've been a blip in typing "for all kinds of other reasons." I only had two glasses of sherry last night, honest.

 

[D'rok]

I absolutely agree that that argument could be made. I also think it's a very convenient "interpretation in context" for people who want to handwave away things from the Bible that make them uncomfortable, or that they don't want to submit to. Such "interpretation" looks very much like cherry-picking.

Yup. But I'd rather have the cherry-pickers than the hellfire and damnation crowd. I think most of us cherry-pick our ethics anyways, even when the sources are purely social and secular rather than biblical and religious.

 

[D'rok]

Actually: bollox

The wordplay of proclaiming that stuff fulfilled is illogical, and just because Paul does it, doesn't make it make sense. You can fulfill a prophecy, but you can't fulfill a law or rule to the extent where it stops applying. You can abolish a law, ammend a law, etc, but there is no such thing as fulfilling it.

E.g., a law that says basically "it's forbidden to park in front of a fire station" doesn't become fulfilled (and thus stop applying) after you've fined one guy for parking there.

Additionally, that's not even what Paul was arguing. What was fulfilled in there were the prophecies of the OT, not the laws of the OT. Paul uses an equivocation and a bit of handwaving, to extend from the former to the latter. But that's illogical and makes no sense.

Let me illustrate it with a parable:

A lady owns a bar. Her rules for her bar include "no smoking." One day she makes a "prophecy" to a friend, namely, "just watch, in the next hour at least three drunks will try to hit on me. Men..." And lo and behold, it came to pass that three strangers did come and try to hit on her.​

So her prophecy was fulfilled. Does that mean the rules have also become "fulfilled"? Does it mean everyone can now start smoking in her bar?

I mean, seriously, WTH? How does it work for the OT then?

Well, you've just illustrated how the comparison of revealed law to secular law breaks down. Try this version of your parable:

A lady manages a bar. God owns it. God's rules for the bar, which he has revealed in his holy bar manual, include "no smoking." One day, God gives her a vision and she makes a "prophecy" to a friend, namely, "just watch, in the next hour one shall arrive who takes all of our smoking sins unto himself." And lo and behold, it came to pass that Marlboro the Christ came into the bar and performed all sorts of miracles. Teeth were whitened, coughs were cured, and verily there was much lung capacity. Henceforth, the patrons of the bar took the good news to all the nations of the earth. God has sent his only begotten son to take all your smoking sins unto himself. Your smoking is forgiven if you believe in him!

Or something like that. I dunno. My parable-fu sucks this morning.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Yup. But I'd rather have the cherry-pickers than the hellfire and damnation crowd. I think most of us cherry-pick our ethics anyways, even when the sources are purely social and secular rather than biblical and religious.

But when it's social ethics that isn't really a problem, because societal ethics doesn't claim to be absolute and from the mouth of the creator of the universe.

 

[Darth Rotor]

If your question is whether or not atheist belief itself is a sin, I don't think so, no. Perhaps it is a sin against God; no Scriptures are coming to mind that indicate this.

Possible scripture source of sin on that score:
First Commandment, (I am the Lord thy god, etc) and the reiteration of "the two greatest commandments" Thou shalt love God with all they heart, and they neighbor as thyself" etc.

A reasonable atheist response is:
"Look, if I don't believe in you, I can't honestly love you! YOu want me to lie about this? That's a sin! "
So is not believing a sin? Tough call.

Likewise, God says: "Thou shalt have other no God before me"
Atheist: "Well, I don't have any God at all, so we're are good on that! Care for a pint?"

Sin has to be a conscious choice to be a sin.

Ah, so if you are consciously not believing in God, you are making a choice to not follow the above (which is basis for mortal sin, as I understand it) and are likely sinning by default?

I think that you can find in the sheep and the goats parable some language that calls for acceptance of God if one does not want to be a Goat, don't recall off the top of my head.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Please, do provide an example of a book in 'the New Testament focused on reminding Christians that they are not bound to follow Jewish law', perhaps citing a particularly pertinent chapter and verse

TYIA

YOu recall the conversation with the Pharisees over working on the Sabbath, when he healed someone on the Sabbath? That's NT.

You recall the story about Scribes JAQ about divorce, and he points out that Mosaic law had been allowed due to the hardness of men's hearts, and the real (kilt wearing) virtuous person does not set his wife aside.

Two examples for you. IIRC, you are familiar enough with the Bible to know the chapter and verse.

DR

 

[AvalonXQ]

I absolutely agree that that argument could be made. I also think it's a very convenient "interpretation in context" for people who want to handwave away things from the Bible that make them uncomfortable, or that they don't want to submit to. Such "interpretation" looks very much like cherry-picking.

John isn't the last book in the Bible. And because Hebrews, First Corinthians, and Romans (among others) state this explicitly, following the Bible means accepting that Christians are not under the Old Law.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

That's certainly your option. Personally, I find your lack of love and respect for the Existor to be pretty despicable. Then again, I also don't see why you have such an issue with a creator justifiably taking back the life he gave his creations.
The truth is, you cannot accept Christian morality without also accepting the nature of God; the two go hand in hand.

What God?

 

[commandlinegamer]

I like to think sin is just a mistranslation with a crucial consonant missing.

 

[kuroyume0161]

I like to think sin is just a mistranslation with a crucial consonant missing.

I was thinking more like sin and cos. When you sine, it is a sin. When you co-sine, you aren't held responsible. (cue up the bah-dah-bum).

 

[I Ratant]

I was thinking more like sin and cos. When you sine, it is a sin. When you co-sine, you aren't held responsible. (cue up the bah-dah-bum).

.
Cosining with a dead beat can lead to financial problems for you!
.
OTOH, there is apparently a vast gap as to responsibility between a sin and a crime.
I've observed that confessing a sin to a properly authorized receptor of confessions can place a penance on the confessee, but there is no requirement that the sin, if there is a parallel crime in secular jurisprudence, be made known to the secular side as a crime.
A couple rosaries, a novena, light a few candles, the sin is forgiven. End of story.
The victim of the sin, well, tough cookies.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

The mindless attacks are neither useful nor interesting, but they are disheartening. Please contribute or don't post.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for civility

 

[Elizabeth I]

John isn't the last book in the Bible. And because Hebrews, First Corinthians, and Romans (among others) state this explicitly, following the Bible means accepting that Christians are not under the Old Law.

Weren't those all supposedly written by Paul? The one who never met Jesus, and certainly wasn't there when He was making pronouncements? How does Paul get to say what Jesus meant?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Being a good person in the Christian religion means you worship a horrible god. Being a good person in terms of how you interact with other humans is not relevant. Only god worship is relevant.

 

[six7s]

Being a good person in the Christian religion means you worship a horrible god.

True

Being a good person in terms of how you interact with other humans is not relevant. Only god worship is relevant.

Bollocks