Kirk Cameron Pays Gang Members to Preach to Them

[VulcanWay]

Its also a bit illogical that you assume each Christian is 'fundamental' in their belief.

Exodus is from the Old Testament...Christianity if from the New Testament.

But its alright...I know a lot of atheists, or non-theists that make the same mistake.

I made no such mistake.

My point was actually that Christians SHOULD be fundamental in their beliefs instead of picking and choosing what parts of the bible they like to follow.

And while Christianity may emerged due to writings from the New Testament, it certainly also draws on and follows beliefs from the Old Testament. Or should we just throw that part out of "The Bible"?

Are you saying that Christians don't feel a need to follow the whole Ten Commandments thing?

 

[TheAntiLuddite]

The devil is seen as a deceiver and the Christian god is largely (lately) seen as not interacting with the world. What if the "word of god" is actually the "word of the devil"? Wouldn't that be the ultimate deception?

A fair amount of Gnostic thought revolves around the idea of a demiurge, an evil deity who created the equally-evil material world. Some ancient Gnostics even went so far as to link the god of the Old Testament with this demiurge. Not suprisingly, many of these writings, as well as the actual proponents of this type of Gnostic knowledge, disappeared in a puff of smoke (literally). Religious poaching on their territory wasn't suffered lightly by the early Christian church.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Jesus called an arab's daughter "dog" once, that makes him racist.

 

[Azure]

I made no such mistake.

My point was actually that Christians SHOULD be fundamental in their beliefs instead of picking and choosing what parts of the bible they like to follow.

And while Christianity may emerged due to writings from the New Testament, it certainly also draws on and follows beliefs from the Old Testament. Or should we just throw that part out of "The Bible"?

Are you saying that Christians don't feel a need to follow the whole Ten Commandments thing?

Saying that the ten commandments are strictly limited to the old testament shows to me just how well-versed you are in what the Bible says.

Perhaps you should do a little more research...then we'll talk.

Here...I'll give you a hint.

http://www.moseshand.com/questions/p24a.htm

 

[thaiboxerken]

Are you saying that Christians don't feel a need to follow the whole Ten Commandments thing?

Only when it's convenient, do they follow their own tenets. After all, with the "Jesus forgives all sin" card, they don't consider that they have any real accountability anyway.

 

[VulcanWay]

Saying that the ten commandments are strictly limited to the old testament shows to me just how well-versed you are in what the Bible says.

Perhaps you should do a little more research...then we'll talk.

Here...I'll give you a hint.

http://www.moseshand.com/questions/p24a.htm

Thank you for the link - it was very helpful!

I suppose that I am still saying that the Ten Commandments are limited to the OT. The people in the NT aren't coming up with anything new - they're simply telling people to look to the OT.

My other question hasn't been answered yet. If, as you bring up, an OT matter has not been referenced in the NT can it be thrown away and ignored by modern-day Christians?

 

[Hokulele]

So if the NT trumps the OT, do you throw out the Genesis creation myth and replace it with this from John?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Hey, the gansta rappers were right after all!

Word.

 

[Azure]

Thank you for the link - it was very helpful!

I suppose that I am still saying that the Ten Commandments are limited to the OT.

There is your problem. Again, you have a very limited understanding of the Bible.

The people in the NT aren't coming up with anything new - they're simply telling people to look to the OT.

Whats your point?

My other question hasn't been answered yet. If, as you bring up, an OT matter has not been referenced in the NT can it be thrown away and ignored by modern-day Christians?

I never said anything should be thrown out.

The Old Testament is not a guideline for 'any' Christian. In fact, as I understand it, it is a guideline for the Jewish faith. The two are essentially different.

Read here...especially the part about how the law applies to Christians today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament

I think the best explanation of how to use the laws of the old testament...and compare them to the new testament, is to see if the writers of the new testament endorsed them.

Another link that explains it better than I ever could...

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_law.html

Another link here...

Answer: The key to understanding this issue is knowing that the Old Testament law was given to the nation of Israel, not to Christians. Some of the laws were to make the Israelites know how to obey and please God (the Ten Commandments for example), some of them were to show them how to worship God (the sacrificial system), some of them were to simply make the Israelites different from other nations (the food and clothing rules). None of the Old Testament law applies to us today. When Jesus died on the cross, He put an end to the Old Testament law (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15).

http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-law.html

 

[Azure]

So if the NT trumps the OT, do you throw out the Genesis creation myth and replace it with this from John?

You've already thrown it out...so why ask?

I was unaware that Genesis was any sort of law.

 

[Hokulele]

You've already thrown it out...so why ask?

I was unaware that Genesis was any sort of law.

(Note to self, don't try to be funny around certain people.)

 

[skeptifem]

There's proof right there

huh? where?

and dont say 'the bible', thats circular logic.

 

[VulcanWay]

Azure, again thank you for the links.

I understand the concept that the OT was and is a Jewish text and that Chrisianity follows the same god but NT is essentially their rulebook.

Though Hokulele was joking around, the bottom line is that it seems ludicrous that Christians (modern and well as those who created and put together the NT) are able to pick and choose which "words of god" are valid to them and which may be discarded. If a figure from the NT doesn't reference/endorse a book in the OT, does it follow that those lessons/histories applied only to Jews and not to Christians?

Depending on which Christian or Jew you ask, any "history" referenced in the OT could either be literal or meant as a lesson (Genesis, Noah, Sodom, etc). If the way that Christians are to conduct themselves (lessons as opposed to histories) requires endorsement from the NT where the OT is concerned, how do they determine which then are histories to be believed regardless of which faith they follow and which are actually lessons that because they aren't endorsed by NT figures can then be considered not necessary to follow as a Christian?

Whether I understand the Bible personally or not, all the links that I've looked at have been one group or another's interpretation of the Christian texts. As one of your links says, some groups believe that everything in the OT can be safely ignored - that the laws were "nailed to the cross." That leaves them to see the NT as the words of god intended for them, in that example. As I think Dawkins points out (and where I overzealously noted in my original post that led up to this one) the institution of Christianity picks and chooses what to follow - take the good things and throw away the bad things.

How anything "applies to Christians today" is all a matter of interpretation by Christians today.

 

[VulcanWay]

As an Atheist it is also that case that even in the situations (limited as Azure points out) that I have a decent grasp of the bible, I look at it with an Atheist's eyes and not those of a believer who interprets those same words.

It's not what any diety wanted of its creations - it's what the writers in the times that the various books that were assembled into the bible wanted of the populace. Even as I read over the various passages and notes that Azure has provided me, all I see is a new tradition trying to establish itself in an age-old fashion - build on what the populace already knows. Take the OT and then build on that theology until it represents what the writers are striving for.

 

[Azure]

Azure, again thank you for the links.

I understand the concept that the OT was and is a Jewish text and that Chrisianity follows the same god but NT is essentially their rulebook.

The Jewish faith follows the God as described in the old testament....they DO NOT believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

That is the major difference between the two beliefs.

Though Hokulele was joking around, the bottom line is that it seems ludicrous that Christians (modern and well as those who created and put together the NT) are able to pick and choose which "words of god" are valid to them and which may be discarded. If a figure from the NT doesn't reference/endorse a book in the OT, does it follow that those lessons/histories applied only to Jews and not to Christians?

You see, thats the problem. Common belief amongst most Christians I know is that Jesus redefined the law when he was born, and when he died.

So strictly speaking, as I understand it, unless the law was 'restated' in the New Testament, common belief is that it doesn't apply to the Christians who follow the new covenant.

But I certainly understand your point. There are sects of Christianity, I would call them cults, that pick and choose certain elements from the old testament...some they follow, some they discard, or ignore.

To me that is hypocritical.

Depending on which Christian or Jew you ask, any "history" referenced in the OT could either be literal or meant as a lesson (Genesis, Noah, Sodom, etc). If the way that Christians are to conduct themselves (lessons as opposed to histories) requires endorsement from the NT where the OT is concerned, how do they determine which then are histories to be believed regardless of which faith they follow and which are actually lessons that because they aren't endorsed by NT figures can then be considered not necessary to follow as a Christian?

I never said that the OT should be cast aside. I said that many of the laws written there have been made null by the birth and death of Jesus Christ.

I do believe that the Genesis story is endorsed by many apostles and even Jesus himself in the New Testament...so you really have no point here, OUTSIDE of those people that take the OT literate. Obviously there is a problem there.

Whether I understand the Bible personally or not, all the links that I've looked at have been one group or another's interpretation of the Christian texts. As one of your links says, some groups believe that everything in the OT can be safely ignored - that the laws were "nailed to the cross." That leaves them to see the NT as the words of god intended for them, in that example.

Isn't that exactly what I said?

As I understand it, the birth AND death of Jesus essentially nullified those laws. That is common belief amongst Christianity.

As I think Dawkins points out (and where I overzealously noted in my original post that led up to this one) the institution of Christianity picks and chooses what to follow - take the good things and throw away the bad things.

Some parts of Christianity do...yes....I have yet to see any proof that the majority of Christianity does that.

Seems to me Dawkins himself has a problem understanding that. Certainly not the person I would go to for religious understanding. He is a biased source.

How anything "applies to Christians today" is all a matter of interpretation by Christians today.

No. It is a matter of interpretation according to the Bible.

You seem to believe that Christians are for the most part hypocrites. Some are, yes, but there are many who truthfully follow the true teachings of Christianity. Some are more fundamental than others...but their intentions remain sincere.

 

[kurious_kathy]

huh? where?

and dont say 'the bible', thats circular logic.

Okay lets back up and ask "Why do people die?" I believe what the Bible says is true when it tells us wages of sin is death. If God originally walked with Adam and made us holy to live with him forever in the garden what happened? Through science we know our bodies degenerate from day one but science still can't answer why. Do you have any other insights to offer me?

And #2 people are always on a quest to know whether God exists so we see all these different religions that express that, why? May I suggest what scripture teaches is true that God planted eternity in every heart so we would seek him out. I don't want to be rude or crass but I have talked to many pastors that tell me many professing atheists once on their death bed do call a local church to ask the pastor to meet and pray with them before they die so that way they can be sure they haven't left any stone unturned before death. When it all comes down to someones dieing I hear pastors say there really aren't any atheists. The sad thing I question is why do people wait so long to get around to it? Why should it take a fear of death and what may happen next to get someone to reach out to the living God?

 

[mylfmyhnr]

Okay lets back up and ask "Why do people die?" I believe what the Bible says is true when it tells us wages of sin is death. If God originally walked with Adam and made us holy to live with him forever in the garden what happened?

Uh, god got mad, took his ball and said "F*** you guys, I'm goin' home" (insert Cartman accent as you wish).

Through science we know our bodies degenerate from day one but science still can't answer why. Do you have any other insights to offer me?

Seriously? The stars die and new stars are born. We see it happen. Are you telling me that Adam's fall from grace caused the stars to die as well? God was so mad at us that he upset the entirely of his universe just to teach us a lesson?

 

[VulcanWay]

You seem to believe that Christians are for the most part hypocrites. Some are, yes, but there are many who truthfully follow the true teachings of Christianity. Some are more fundamental than others...but their intentions remain sincere.

First, I definitely did learn some new things today and for that I thank you.

I am a cynic, so part of me wants to say that I do see Christians for the most part as hypocrites. I think that the closer truth to things is that if you read the bible, the Christian god is actually a pretty horrible and evil being. Granted, most of that is OT stuff but even the NT Christian god (the same god) says, essentially, "You will believe what I want you to believe, but if you don't I'll see to it that you suffer for all time." And Christians call this "unconditional love." That's what irks me.

I still stand by my statement that Christians should all be fundamental...in the sense of following at the very least the NT to the letter. Obey everything or nothing.

Heck, we can go back to the comment of mine about slaves that Azure originally commented on. In the NT there are instructions for how slaves and masters are to act (Luke 12 et al). Some of it could be interpreted as a metaphor, but others it would seem to me to are quite literal. Regardless, the NT acknowledges such institutions as slavery and at no point calls slavery a "bad thing." I can see how a god-endorsed slavery could be brought about on those grounds.

So...do Christians let their slaves rest on Sunday?

 

[Azure]

First, I definitely did learn some new things today and for that I thank you.

Glad to help.

I am a cynic, so part of me wants to say that I do see Christians for the most part as hypocrites.

That would be your opinion. If we're going to judge Christians according to HOW they should believe, most of them are not hypocritical.

I think that the closer truth to things is that if you read the bible, the Christian god is actually a pretty horrible and evil being. Granted, most of that is OT stuff but even the NT Christian god (the same god) says, essentially, "You will believe what I want you to believe, but if you don't I'll see to it that you suffer for all time." And Christians call this "unconditional love." That's what irks me.

I guess part of that unconditional love is also throwing good people into hell...simply because they didn't follow his rules to a tee.

I still stand by my statement that Christians should all be fundamental...in the sense of following at the very least the NT to the letter. Obey everything or nothing.

I think you're confusing what fundamental REALLY means...and what you're suggesting. Fundamental to you is a Christian who isn't hypocritical in what he believes. Such as those who pick and choose what they want to follow from the Bible.

But fundamental ACTUALLY refers to people, Christians in this sense, who take everything the Bible says literally. Earth is 6000 years old, etc, etc, etc. Along with that come gross misinterpretations of the Bible, as well as a BIG misunderstanding about science.

For example...a creationism museum just opened about 4 hours north from where I live. On opening day...the owner said something to the effect of 'evolution is a lie.' or 'evolution isn't true.'

That is an example of someone being SO fundamental in his approach, that he refuses to believe something if it is not written in the Bible. Something along that line.

But, being fundamental isn't always a bad thing either....as long as you don't take the Bible literally.

So...do Christians let their slaves rest on Sunday?

Are Christians allowed to own slaves in North America?

 

[skeptifem]

UH you didnt read what I wrote at all. I asked for proof OUTSIDE OF THE BIBLE, because using the bible as proof of that is circular logic. And here is what you offered:

Okay lets back up and ask "Why do people die?" I believe what the Bible says is true when it tells us.....

And #2 people are always on a quest to know whether God exists so we see all these different religions that express that, why? May I suggest what scripture teaches is true.....

this is circular logic

is what the bible says true?--->yes because its the word of god--->how do we know its the word of god?---> it says so right in the bible---> how do we know the bible is true?---->because its the word of god---> how do we know that?-----> it says so right in the bible --->REPEAT

see how that doesnt quite work? I mean using this sort of logic I could say that batman is a real person, and use a comic book as evidence of his exsistance.

You said theres proof, so cough it up, or quit lecturing everyone.

 

[l0rca]

Through science we know our bodies degenerate from day one but science still can't answer why.

What do you mean, why? You mean what sort of intelligent reason there is for our bodies to degenarate? Or do you mean what the entire process of how our bodies degenerate looks like? Science does answer this last question, and its answer is entangled in evolution, and evolution is entangled in abiogenesis, and abiogenesis is entangled in physics, geometry, then astronomy. In fact, we can give you a very, very good history of "why our bodies degenerate" all the way back to the Big Bang. We can tell you very assuringly that there was no supernatural changes that needed to happen to make our bodies degenerate. And from this, it should be common sense to you: there is no intelligent reason why our bodies degenerate. It will happen naturally all by itself. So in order to have a good argument for an intelligent reason, you're going to have to show how the science is wrong, and simultaneously why your argument has more support for it.