So there I was, watching the Atheist Debates video where Matt Dillahunty argues against the Christian response of "but that's the Old Testament"

He makes very good points, I think most of us here would agree. In particular, he brings up Jesus' remarks in Matthew 5, where Jesus makes probably his most obvious endorsement of the Old Testament.

It goes as follows:

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 For truly I tell you, 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 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly 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.

So at this point, Jesus seems to have made a very strong endorsement of the Old Testament.

Matt also draws attention to the passage from 2nd Timothy where Paul also affirms the wisdom of the whole bible:

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Damning stuff, but of course, one Christian Commenter was not happy.

He responded by saying that Jesus, being the Savior, had fulfilled the Law, and therefore he and his followers were off the hook. He refers to a quote from Hebrews:

For it is declared:

“You are a priest forever,
    in the order of Melchizedek.”

18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

20 And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:

“The Lord has sworn
    and will not change his mind:
    ‘You are a priest forever.’”

22 Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.

23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely[c]those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

He decides to be clever by simply stating "read objectively..."

Problem: The only thing this actually proves is that Paul (or someone else, which may be possible) just gave different explanations at different times.

Because, going back to Matthew and the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus didn't just reaffirm the law, he made it stricter.

Murder

21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Adultery

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

And it goes on like this. At this point, the "wretched sinner" has been put in an even more impossible position than they already were, and it's one that doesn't even add up when you think about it. Why would Jesus strengthen the law, if he knew he would soon provide salvation and release from all of it? So he could forgive you even harder?

Ultimately, you're put in a position where it's impossible to not need forgiveness, for the crime of being human.

It is insidious, depressing, degrading, and horribly insulting.

I hope you enjoyed this little epiphany.

Views: 1774

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I hope you enjoyed this little epiphany.

I did.

Ultimately, you're put in a position where it's impossible to not need forgiveness, for the crime of being human.

It is insidious, depressing, degrading, and horribly insulting.

The most concise expression of this is that god broke your leg, then wonders why you don't thank him for supplying a crutch if you beg him for it.

Another way to think of it is:

God brakes your leg, then you praise him for giving you crutches, if not he breaks the rest of your bones for eternity (this time no crutches).

Or perhaps, he sends representatives to TELL YOU that he permanently broke your leg, and your families legs, and, will rent you all crutches for the rest of your life for 10% of your earnings plus unwavering offerings of praise and worship........

...or else he will break all of you and your families bones over and over, continuously, for ever and ever. 

You are free to choose which you prefer.

:D

If you protest that as far as you know though, your leg seems fine, and you don't understand why you need crutches....they tell you that you are not smart enough to know how it works, and that you risk eternal bone meal production if you refuse the invisible crutch he has graciously provided you with.

IE: They tell you you already HAVE the crutch, and, w/o it, you could not walk on your own....but God would take it away, and commence breaking all your descendant's bones, if you don't pay homage to him.

Yes...I would have to agree that is a rather honest summary

Very helpful analogy. Thanks.

Within the natural experience of the "mystical experience" there is a type of love that is sometimes attributed to Agapé, the love felt as described in the bible that is unconditional, ever-forgiving, and without judgement. So, it's no wonder no one can follow the example of Jesus that would abide by the Old Testament. You'd have to be Jesus himself to follow those rules, and perhaps those quotes did come from individuals who entered the altered state of the mystical experience, and were able to write dogma from such an afflatus. In fact, Christian mystics c. 100 A.D. were referring to the altered state they achieved through quietism as "Christ consciousness." So,agapé is without a doubt an achievable altered state, the problem is that it's usually referred to as a temporary experience. Perhaps Jesus had some physiological configuration that allowed him to enter into these states frequently.

Jimmy...are you for real? Seriously?

So, it's no wonder no one can follow the example of Jesus that would abide by the Old Testament. You'd have to be Jesus himself to follow those rules, 

So...you'd have to be Jesus in order to point your finger at, accuse and control or denounce or murder/support-murder of those with lustful thoughts, disrespect to their parents, multi-fabric clothingsabathworking, long hair wearing and so on everything. Jesus would not have had a single break from his murder spree...to have any time to give out unconditional love...unless he was able to unconditionally love people while at the same time hacking up people's bodies. What the f**k are you talking about Jimmy? Have you actually read the old testament? Would Jesus kill the saboth workers or did he just nod his approving head while it happened...while at the same time contemplating pure love?

and perhaps those quotes did come from individuals who entered the altered state of the mystical experience, and were able to write dogma from such an afflatus

Yes...all sorts of people meditate or think hard or take drugs and write down creepy sounding shit. I hardly think one is focusing on love and universal peace while they write down rules or condone rules that call for the execution of just about every doing just about anything considered human. I guess you certainly need a special conscious state while you condone the murder of people who were raped but didn't cry out.

In fact, Christian mystics c. 100 A.D. were referring to the altered state they achieved through quietism as "Christ consciousness." So,agapé is without a doubt an achievable altered state, 

You just made an unfounded claim (that some mystics did some spiritual goo-goo) and then concluded that certainly this goo-goo was a wonk-wonk (what you call agapé). I'd ask you to give an extremely specific and comprehensible definition of this goo-goo and wonk-wonk but I'd bet a lot of money any specific defintion will not be coming.

Perhaps Jesus had some physiological configuration that allowed him to enter into these states frequently.

Yes...and perhaps Jesus played chess and discussed which normal human actions should be met with execution with Harry Potter. Clearly Harry Potter must have achieved agapé as well while he approved the execution of people eating pork and approved God genocidally killing thousands upon thousands of his creations by slow agonising drowning death. Who do you think won the chess game? The one with the most unconditional love, the one who reached agapé or the one who came up with the most ruthless way to murder falliable humans?

Their representatives are usually Christian enough to tell that to children.

They MUST indoctrinate the children. If a person first hears creation myths, etc, as an adult, they will laugh at them as silly superstition.

If they hear them as a young child, from earliest memories, and grow up with everyone around them accepting those beliefs, they don't laugh at them...they accept them as true.......

........but will still laugh at OTHER people's myths as silly superstition, etc.

It is therefore VITAL for a religion to succeed that the children are brainwashed from as early an age as possible....even if the concept has to start with simpler versions, such as Santa Claus knowing what you do, and giving you coal/hell or presents/heaven, etc.

They MUST indoctrinate the children. If a person first hears creation myths, etc, as an adult, they will laugh at them as silly superstition.

Try telling them about the world being made up of invisible particles that can never be seen, that are moving constantly even in a stationary object, and that can sometimes be two places at once or go from one spot to another without ever being at a spot in between.

Most people laugh at such silly beliefs, unless they were taught the atomic theory of matter.   

You can call that "brainwashing" or "indoctrination".  Most of us ordinary people just call it teaching kids about the world they live in.

It's possible to teach adults, too.  It's just harder.  Kids are just better learners, whether we're talking science, or religion, or how to use a smartphone or a TV remote.  Adults are pretty set in our ways, with fairly inflexible brains.

The difference is, adults are taught these things and shown the evidence that supports them; whereas children below the age of seven are taught the myths because they'd find them laughable as adults and there's no supporting evidence to make it non-laughable.

RSS

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service