It's so frustrating...

[Civilized Worm]

Let's agree for the moment that Jesus did want to replace all of the nasty old laws, why do you think a loving god gave such morally reprehensible commandments in the first place?

 

[Jon.]

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?

Why would one have a position on what Jesus said about how people should live? Beats me. Let's go have a beer and some popcorn shrimp.

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

You took the line about "not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law" literally, to mean that we would always have a written record of it, rather than metaphorically, to mean that we are still commanded to follow it. That suggests to me that you are uncomfortable with this metaphorical interpretation of the passage.

What does - do what you teach - mean?

Read the verse again: "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."

On the one hand, we have those who break the commandments (even the least of them) and teach others to do the same (ie. also to break the commandments). They are not hypocrites; there is no inconsistency between what they teach and what they do. They will be scorned.

On the other hand, we have those who both practice and teach the commandments. They are not hypocrites either. They will be exalted.

Nowhere does that passage discuss hypocrites.

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

Seems the most reasonable interpretation, given the "not one jot or tittle" bit. (Sorry that I keep shifting between NIV and KJV on that; I'm sure you can follow.)

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

Yes it is, in the sense that a law against assault is consistent with a law against murder: there is no contradiction between the two.

The OT laws said "don't kill, don't sleep with the other guy's wife". Jesus says, "also, don't even get angry and don't look at women with lust in your heart - that's just as bad." Not inconsistent.

Inconsistent would have been if the OT had said "don't sleep with the other guy's wife" and Jesus had said "it's okay to sleep with the other guy's wife if she's really hot."

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Why would one have a position on what Jesus said about how people should live? Beats me. Let's go have a beer and some popcorn shrimp.

Why would a non-Christian have a position and then insist theirs was correct?

You took the line about "not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law" literally, to mean that we would always have a written record of it, rather than metaphorically, to mean that we are still commanded to follow it.

Why do you think that?

By the way - there's also another way of looking at it.

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.

What do you think the "everything is accomplished" to be? It could be what He accomplished (through his life, death, and ressurecation) - in which case the Old Law is not what His followers are follow.

Read the verse again: "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."

On the one hand, we have those who break the commandments (even the least of them) and teach others to do the same (ie. also to break the commandments). They are not hypocrites; there is no inconsistency between what they teach and what they do. They will be scorned.

On the other hand, we have those who both practice and teach the commandments. They are not hypocrites either. They will be exalted.

Nowhere does that passage discuss hypocrites.

OK - if you don't think saying "Do what you preach" isn't another way of saying "Don't be a hypocrite" what do you think it means?

Yes it is, in the sense that a law against assault is consistent with a law against murder: there is no contradiction between the two.

The OT laws said "don't kill, don't sleep with the other guy's wife". Jesus says, "also, don't even get angry and don't look at women with lust in your heart - that's just as bad." Not inconsistent.

Inconsistent would have been if the OT had said "don't sleep with the other guy's wife" and Jesus had said "it's okay to sleep with the other guy's wife if she's really hot."

Again - I never said the teaching was inconsistent. I said it's inconsistent with the insistence that He's saying follow the OT laws literally. Why? Because He himself didn't - and he showed this in the following teachings.

 

[Jon.]

Why would a non-Christian have a position and then insist theirs was correct?

I can have a position on all sorts of fictional issues, like whether Harry Potter did not die when cursed by Voldemort because Voldemort had a part of Harry's soul inside him or because Harry was the rightful owner of all three of the Deathly Hallows. I can also enjoy arguing for or against various propositions. That doesn't mean I believe these things really happened.

Why do you think that?

Context - you know, the thing you were telling atheists to look for when examining the Bible? The line comes in the midst of a speech about how to live, not a report on the need to build libraries in Judea.

By the way - there's also another way of looking at it.

See, this is what I hate about arguing with theists. Far too often, they will say "That's not what it means" or "there's another way of looking at it" without explaining what that is.

What do you think the "everything is accomplished" to be? It could be what He accomplished (through his life, death, and ressurecation) - in which case the Old Law is not what His followers are follow.

It could be. It could be otherwise, too. Which leaves us using our reason and intellect to determine which is the best path to follow. Hmm... Yeah, I like that idea.

OK - if you don't think saying "Do what you preach" isn't another way of saying "Don't be a hypocrite" what do you think it means?

Please explain how the quoted passage said "Do what you preach". I don't think it did, and I have already explained why.

Again - I never said the teaching was inconsistent. I said it's inconsistent with the insistence that He's saying follow the OT laws literally. Why? Because He himself didn't - and he showed this in the following teachings.

No, those teachings were not inconsistent with taking the OT laws literally. I have already explained why.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

See, this is what I hate about arguing with theists.

Oh, I see. And I thought you wanted to exchange opinions.

 

[Jon.]

Oh, I see. And I thought you wanted to exchange opinions.

"I came in here for a good argument!"

"No, you didn't. You came in here for an argument."

Seriously, though, I consider a good exchange of opinions and a good argument to be one and the same, and good fun. If you don't, I'm sorry for you.

By the way, the part of my post you replied to was the part where I was asking you to provide, rather than just allude to, your opinion.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

"I came in here for a good argument!"

"No, you didn't. You came in here for an argument."

Seriously, though, I consider a good exchange of opinions and a good argument to be one and the same, and good fun. If you don't, I'm sorry for you.

By the way, the part of my post you replied to was the part where I was asking you to provide, rather than just allude to, your opinion.

I didn't just allude to anything.

I said there's another way to look at it. I then posted the verse and followed up with another way to look at it.

I understand why you'd like to see these verse the way you do. It only reinforces the point I was making on why atheists like their interpretation of that verse.

I shared you a few other ways to look at it. Feel free to keep your existing beliefs about it though.

ETA:
By the way - you've just inspired my next thread. Keep a look out for it.

 

[Jon.]

I didn't just allude to anything.

I said there's another way to look at it. I then posted the verse and followed up with another way to look at it.

Ah. I see now. I did not understand the following point, including and after the quote, to be an illustration of the other way to look at it. A colon, rather than a period, might have helped.

I understand why you'd like to see these verse the way you do. It only reinforces the point I was making on why atheists like their interpretation of that verse.

I shared you a few other ways to look at it. Feel free to keep your existing beliefs about it though.

I have no preference for one reading over the other, except insofar as it makes for a more interesting argument (or exchange of opinions, if you prefer).

ETA:
By the way - you've just inspired my next thread. Keep a look out for it.

Will do. I should get some work done, though, so I reserve the right not to participate.

 

[I Ratant]

Let's agree for the moment that Jesus did want to replace all of the nasty old laws, why do you think a loving god gave such morally reprehensible commandments in the first place?

.
It is just that that makes those laws all too human, for their source.
Nasty minded old men venting their spleen because they have authority.
There really is no other interpretation.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Jonathan- There is no easy solution to your dilemma regarding the truth or otherwise of religion, because we lack the necessary evidence.
If what Moses (or whoever) encountered in the wilderness was the voice of god speaking from a bush, then we must accept that gods are...well, a bit damn wierd. If what he saw was a natural gas seep (they happen in the middle east), ignited by lightning or a bushfire, well, that's neat.
If the bible is the word of god, then god is a very poor communicator who badly needs an editor- but hey, mysterious ways and all that.

But don't commit the sceptic's sin of false dichotomy by supposing it's either / or. There's a third way. You can choose to cherry pick the good stuff in what some believe to be Christ's divine message. Love others as yourself. Be a decent person. File the rest of that very odd book under " possibly true but unprovable", "historical mishmash and hokum" or "Simply irrelevant". Live your life by what you take to be decent moral standards, doing no more harm than you must.
At the end of your life you will die. At that time, either you will cease to exist (my own supposition) or you will not. If the latter, then either you will find one of humanity's many beliefs is true, or you will not. You may be in Valhalla, heaven or hell, or somewhere far worse than any. But you will still have your integrity.

 

[Fiona]

Jonathan- There is no easy solution to your dilemma regarding the truth or otherwise of religion, because we lack the necessary evidence.
If what Moses (or whoever) encountered in the wilderness was the voice of god speaking from a bush, then we must accept that gods are...well, a bit damn wierd. If what he saw was a natural gas seep (they happen in the middle east), ignited by lightning or a bushfire, well, that's neat.
If the bible is the word of god, then god is a very poor communicator who badly needs an editor- but hey, mysterious ways and all that.

But don't commit the sceptic's sin of false dichotomy by supposing it's either / or. There's a third way. You can choose to cherry pick the good stuff in what some believe to be Christ's divine message. Love others as yourself. Be a decent person. File the rest of that very odd book under " possibly true but unprovable", "historical mishmash and hokum" or "Simply irrelevant". Live your life by what you take to be decent moral standards, doing no more harm than you must.
At the end of your life you will die. At that time, either you will cease to exist (my own supposition) or you will not. If the latter, then either you will find one of humanity's many beliefs is true, or you will not. You may be in Valhalla, heaven or hell, or somewhere far worse than any. But you will still have your integrity.

 

[Robin]

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.

That is what it means, isn't it? What else could it mean?

First, I'm not really sure why you should even treat it as anything -

You are right. I mean after all they are only the words of the Incarnate God (or so Christians tell me). Why should you treat them 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.

I have read the entire Gospel thoroughly, I have examined the translators notes and I have read what many commentators have to say about it.

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

Gee you badly want to avoid answering the question don't you.

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

And I am cynical right back at you, you are being vague, evasive - and you didn't even attempt to answer my last question.

 

[Robin]

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.

Er... you apparently have a different version of Matthew to mine. Show me where he does not take a law literally.

He adds to some. He changes some. He apparently has a Leviticus that I have never seen. But he appears to take them quite literally.

As I have said, how else can you take them? Leviticus is not an allegory or a parable.