I see, Johnny, you are not really up for a challenge. So let me speak for you. I will list the 'objective' cornerstone of you 'morals'.
The Bible is full of commandments given by its god Yahweh but there is only one group of commandments that he specifically gives the title "The Ten Commandments" to and they are not what most Christians think they are. If you ask almost anyone to list The Ten Commandments they will try to recite a partial list found at Exodus 20:1-17 and repeated at Deuteronomy 5:6-21. However if one reads the Bible those commandments are never referred to as "The Ten Commandments" and according to Exodus they are not even on the stone tablets. They are just select commandments from a collection which Moses recited verbally to the people in Exodus.
Where are the actual Ten Commandments?
In Exodus 24:12 Moses gets stone tablets.
In Exodus 32:19 Moses breaks the stone tablets before anyone else has a chance to read them.
In Exodus 34:1 Yahweh said to Moses, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke."
In Exodus 34:10-26 Yahweh says he is making a covenant with Moses then cites the commandments of the covenant.
In Exodus 34:27-28 Yahweh tells Moses to write down the commandments he just cited. The Bible says Moses wrote on the tablets (even though Yahweh said he was going to write on them) the words of the covenant then calls the covenant "The Ten Commandments."
The Ten Commandments (according to the Bible)
1.Obey the commandments. Yahweh will conquer the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, and cut down their Asherah poles.
2.Do not worship any other god, for Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous god. Do not make treaties with those in other lands who worship other gods.
3.Do not make cast idols.
4.Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast during the first month of the Hebrew Year.
5.Sacrifice the first born of every womb, including all the firstborn males of your livestock. You can sacrifice a lamb in place of a firstborn donkey but if you do sacrifice the donkey break its neck. If your firstborn child is a boy sacrifice something else in its place. None shall appear before Yahweh without a sacrifice.
6.Do not work on the sabbath, even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest.
7.Celebrate the Jewish holiday "The Feast of Weeks" with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest and celebrate the Jewish holiday "The Feast of Ingathering" at the turn of the year. Three times a year all your men are to appear before the god of Israel and he will conquer surrounding nations before you enlarging your territory.
8.Do not mix blood sacrifices to Yahweh with yeast and do not let any sacrifice from the Passover Feast remain until morning.
9.Bring the firstfruits of your land to the house of Yahweh, your god.
10.Do not cook a baby goat in his mother's milk.
The name "The Ten Commandments" is only used once in the Bible and it is used for the covenant listed in Exodus 34:10-2 and according to Exodus it is this set of commandments which are on the stone tablets within the Arc of the Covenant. However, the book of Deuteronomy which was written after the book of Exodus tells us that a different list of commandments are written on the stone tablets. Deuteronomy 5:6-21 lists the more commonly known commandments as being written on the stone tablets despite what Exodus clearly tells us.
You do have a weird set of 'morals' Johnny. Really weird. But that is your choice. I'd really like you to tell me how you deal with #5. But, somehow I think you will duck this challenge, too. I really don't blame you.
Since nobody else is going to I guess I'm going to have to reply.
This is what Johnny had to say: "Sure, I'll take your challenge. I believe the Ten Commandments to be laws revealed to mankind by God. Since I believe God to be the objective source of morality in reality, then ny default these Commandments are morally good. "
So, for Johnny and billions of his fellow christians, this would constitute their moral foundation. They are more morally bankrupt that I have at first imagined!
You're making the assumption he can count that high....... :think:
WHO IN THE FUCK MORALS ARE WE TO OBEY AS LONG AS THEY DON'T PURPOSLY HURT ANYONE? The Puritan ethic needs to be destroyed as soon as possible! Solitary
OK bump. Seriously Mike, based on the intellectual level displayed by our aforementioned friend, and due to the fact has posted mostly on one thread and then spottily, I wouldn't be getting my hopes up for a razor sharp and devastating comeback, if you get my meaning.
Quote from: stromboli on May 14, 2015, 04:57:46 PM
OK bump. Seriously Mike, based on the intellectual level displayed by our aforementioned friend, and due to the fact has posted mostly on one thread and then spottily, I wouldn't be getting my hopes up for a razor sharp and devastating comeback, if you get my meaning.
You are right, Strom. I didn't really expect him to reply. I just found the 'real' set of the Ten to so idiotic as to be comical. I thought I'd share them. And it's not like these were dug out of a weird old book nobody has heard of, but the 'literally' true bible. We are all told to read your bible, as though the reading of this book will make you better in some way (all ways??)--and when some of us do read it and question passages like these, we are then told 'well, we didn't really mean that part'. Brain dead would be step up for these guys.
Quote from: Solitary on May 14, 2015, 04:56:02 PM
WHO IN THE FUCK MORALS ARE WE TO OBEY AS LONG AS THEY DON'T PURPOSLY HURT ANYONE? The Puritan ethic needs to be destroyed as soon as possible! Solitary
That's just it Sol, not even the Bible can give us a straight answer.
I don't care for commandments but if one must these are more to my liking:
THE HUMANIST TEN COMMANDMENTS
1) Thou shalt strive to promote the greater good of humanity before all selfish desires.
2) Thou shalt be curious, for asking questions is the only way to find answers.
3) Harm to your fellow human is harm to humanity. Therefore, thou shalt not kill, rape, rob, or otherwise victimize anyone.
4) Thou shall treat all humans as equals, regardless of race, gender, age, creed, identity, orientation, physical ability, or status.
5) Thou shalt use reason as your guide. Science, knowledge, observation, and rational analysis are the best ways to determine any course of action.
6) Thou shalt not force your beliefs onto others, nor insist that yours be the only and correct way to live happily.
7) If thou dost govern, thou shalt govern with reason, not with superstition. Religion should have no place in any government which represents all people and beliefs.
8) Thou shalt act for the betterment of your fellow humans, and be, whenever possible, altruistic in your deeds.
9) Thou shalt be good to the Earth and its bounties, for without it, humankind is lost.
10) Thou shalt impart thy knowledge and wisdom gained in your lifetime to the next generation, so that with each passing century, humanity will grow wiser and more humane.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on May 15, 2015, 08:00:07 AM
I don't care for commandments but if one must these are more to my liking:
THE HUMANIST TEN COMMANDMENTS
1) Thou shalt strive to promote the greater good of humanity before all selfish desires.
2) Thou shalt be curious, for asking questions is the only way to find answers.
3) Harm to your fellow human is harm to humanity. Therefore, thou shalt not kill, rape, rob, or otherwise victimize anyone.
4) Thou shall treat all humans as equals, regardless of race, gender, age, creed, identity, orientation, physical ability, or status.
5) Thou shalt use reason as your guide. Science, knowledge, observation, and rational analysis are the best ways to determine any course of action.
6) Thou shalt not force your beliefs onto others, nor insist that yours be the only and correct way to live happily.
7) If thou dost govern, thou shalt govern with reason, not with superstition. Religion should have no place in any government which represents all people and beliefs.
8) Thou shalt act for the betterment of your fellow humans, and be, whenever possible, altruistic in your deeds.
9) Thou shalt be good to the Earth and its bounties, for without it, humankind is lost.
10) Thou shalt impart thy knowledge and wisdom gained in your lifetime to the next generation, so that with each passing century, humanity will grow wiser and more humane.
Ah, come on, GSO----that makes too much sense--that'd never fly!
Mike, which version is that in? I don't get that in the KJV.
Quote from: aitm on May 15, 2015, 09:08:49 AM
Mike, which version is that in? I don't get that in the KJV.
Probably the NIV which is in plain English. I wouldn't know because my bible is the KJV and I burned that part already. I'm up to Psalms.....
Quote from: aitm on May 15, 2015, 09:08:49 AM
Mike, which version is that in? I don't get that in the KJV.
I have the New Revised Standard Version, 1989. It's Ex 34:11--Ex34:29 I think. I also found it on the net. I have a couple of other versions of the bible--I'll have to look it up in them.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 14, 2015, 04:44:42 PM
Since nobody else is going to I guess I'm going to have to reply.
This is what Johnny had to say: "Sure, I'll take your challenge. I believe the Ten Commandments to be laws revealed to mankind by God. Since I believe God to be the objective source of morality in reality, then ny default these Commandments are morally good. "
So, for Johnny and billions of his fellow christians, this would constitute their moral foundation. They are more morally bankrupt that I have at first imagined!
Classic case of circular thinking going on there.
Hmm I found this to be very interesting, torah into english, very close to what you had : http://www.headcoverings-by-devorah.com/HebEngTaNaKhIndex.html
Quote from: aitm on May 15, 2015, 10:02:43 AM
Hmm I found this to be very interesting, torah into english, very close to what you had : http://www.headcoverings-by-devorah.com/HebEngTaNaKhIndex.html
Thanks, I had not seen that. The torah also calls this list the Ten Commandments. I have the Jerusalem Bible, which looks identical to what I posted, except they are called The Ten Words. I also have version of the bible called The Book, and it is identical to what I posted and it too, calls them the Ten Commandments.
It is also interesting (to me, anyway) that at the time Jesus was supposed to be alive, the Holy Scripture was only the OT. The NT came along quite a bit later. And there were two main versions of it (and many other versions, as well), the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint which was in Greek--the Hebrew Bible was in Hebrew or Aramaic. Paul uses the Septuagint when he quotes Holy Scripture. How do we know? Because there are many verses and phrases that are different in the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint. And he always uses the Septuagint version. Plus, no scripture was broken down into chapters or were the verses numbered. That came much later. So, from the beginning of Christianity, there was confusion/manipulation about what was said in the scriptures.
Quote from: 1liesalot on May 15, 2015, 10:00:10 AM
Classic case of circular thinking going on there.
I would say circular at best--usually no thinking going on at all.
True enough.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 14, 2015, 04:44:42 PM
Since nobody else is going to I guess I'm going to have to reply.
This is what Johnny had to say: "Sure, I'll take your challenge. I believe the Ten Commandments to be laws revealed to mankind by God. Since I believe God to be the objective source of morality in reality, then ny default these Commandments are morally good. "
So, for Johnny and billions of his fellow christians, this would constitute their moral foundation. They are more morally bankrupt that I have at first imagined!
He finaly replies btw
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 16, 2015, 07:27:16 AM
He finaly replies btw
Thanks, did not know that. I must admit I am surprised. I have now responded.
Quote from: aitm on May 15, 2015, 09:08:49 AM
Mike, which version is that in? I don't get that in the KJV.
Don't know if you found this in your KJV, but just in case here is what I lifted from the net.
Exodus Chapter 34
1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.
2 And be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai, and present thyself there to me in the top of the mount.
3 And no man shall come up with thee, neither let any man be seen throughout all the mount; neither let the flocks nor herds feed before that mount.
4 And he hewed two tables of stone like unto the first; and Moses rose up early in the morning, and went up unto mount Sinai, as the LORD had commanded him, and took in his hand the two tables of stone.
5 And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD.
6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
8 And Moses made haste, and bowed his head toward the earth, and worshipped.
9 And he said, If now I have found grace in thy sight, O Lord, let my Lord, I pray thee, go among us; for it is a stiffnecked people; and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for thine inheritance.
10 And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the LORD: for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee.
11 Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite.
12 Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:
13 But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:
14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
15 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;
16 And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.
17 Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
18 The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.
19 All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.
20 But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.
21 Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.
22 And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
23 Thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before the Lord GOD, the God of Israel.
24 For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the LORD thy God thrice in the year.
25 Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
26 The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
27 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
29 And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him.
30 And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him.
31 And Moses called unto them; and Aaron and all the rulers of the congregation returned unto him: and Moses talked with them.
32 And afterward all the children of Israel came nigh: and he gave them in commandment all that the LORD had spoken with him in mount Sinai.
33 And till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a vail on his face.
34 But when Moses went in before the LORD to speak with him, he took the vail off, until he came out. And he came out, and spake unto the children of Israel that which he was commanded.
35 And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses' face shone: and Moses put the vail upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him.
Note that verse 28 tells us this is the 10 Commandments.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 14, 2015, 11:09:38 AM
In Exodus 34:27-28 Yahweh tells Moses to write down the commandments he just cited. The Bible says Moses wrote on the tablets (even though Yahweh said he was going to write on them) the words of the covenant then calls the covenant "The Ten Commandments."
The Ten Commandments (according to the Bible)
2.Do not worship any other god, for Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous god. Do not make treaties with those in other lands who worship other gods.
3.Do not make cast idols.
4.Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast during the first month of the Hebrew Year.
5.Sacrifice the first born of every womb, including all the firstborn males of your livestock. You can sacrifice a lamb in place of a firstborn donkey but if you do sacrifice the donkey break its neck. If your firstborn child is a boy sacrifice something else in its place. None shall appear before Yahweh without a sacrifice.
6.Do not work on the sabbath, even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest.
7.Celebrate the Jewish holiday "The Feast of Weeks" with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest and celebrate the Jewish holiday "The Feast of Ingathering" at the turn of the year. Three times a year all your men are to appear before the god of Israel and he will conquer surrounding nations before you enlarging your territory.
8.Do not mix blood sacrifices to Yahweh with yeast and do not let any sacrifice from the Passover Feast remain until morning.
9.Bring the firstfruits of your land to the house of Yahweh, your god.
10.Do not cook a baby goat in his mother's milk.
Hi I am still here. Sorry, due to my schedule it takes me a while to reply to comments. The main thing I want to bring up is that I only read 9 different laws given here in Ex 34. The first commandment you propose 'Obey the commandments' is not in the text. In fact in a recent post of yours you give the KJV translation which says "Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite" (Ex 34:11). Exodus 34:11 just shows how God wants the Israelites to observe the commandments He is giving that day, it is not an actual commandment itself. So throughout Exodus 34 we have God re-writing the Ten Commandments from Exodus 20:1-17, (Ex 34:1) and then we have God telling Moses to write down these 'additional laws' (Ex 34:27).
Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on May 17, 2015, 07:52:00 AM
Hi I am still here. Sorry, due to my schedule it takes me a while to reply to comments. The main thing I want to bring up is that I only read 9 different laws given here in Ex 34. The first commandment you propose 'Obey the commandments' is not in the text. In fact in a recent post of yours you give the KJV translation which says "Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite" (Ex 34:11). Exodus 34:11 just shows how God wants the Israelites to observe the commandments He is giving that day, it is not an actual commandment itself. So throughout Exodus 34 we have God re-writing the Ten Commandments from Exodus 20:1-17, (Ex 34:1) and then we have God telling Moses to write down these 'additional laws' (Ex 34:27).
If you read further, past the listing of the 10, you will find that they are called '10 Commandments'--that is the only place in the bible that has that label. So, if god is re-writing these foundational laws of morality, why make three lists? And which one is the actual list? Is god making this up on the fly? And why is he 'driving' out those 6 tribes? Why not just snap them out of existence--that would be more merciful? And since god called this list (sorry I left off one of them--they are not numbered in the bible; but I think you can figure out what it is) the 10 Commandments, do you follow them?
I'm going to upgrade my analogy. Not tennis balls against a brick wall, but jello against a Teflon wall.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 17, 2015, 09:17:33 AM
If you read further, past the listing of the 10, you will find that they are called '10 Commandments'--that is the only place in the bible that has that label. So, if god is re-writing these foundational laws of morality, why make three lists? And which one is the actual list? Is god making this up on the fly? And why is he 'driving' out those 6 tribes? Why not just snap them out of existence--that would be more merciful? And since god called this list (sorry I left off one of them--they are not numbered in the bible; but I think you can figure out what it is) the 10 Commandments, do you follow them?
The list given in Ex 34 is known as the 'Ritual Decalogue'. It would seem that this set of laws is given in parrallel to the 'Ethical Decalogue' described in Ex 20 and Deut 5. Now the word 'decalogue' means commandments, yet I still have not been able to get past identifying 9. However, you do not need to correct me (unless you really want to) for I will take your word for it that there are ten commandments described in Ex 34. Context is now key in understanding the difference between the 'Ritual Decalogue' (Ex 34) and the 'Ethical Decalogue' (Ex 20, Deut 5). The narrative of Ex 34 is set as a renewal of the covenant following the golden calf incident. After all, right after God said 'you shall only worship me', Moses comes to find the Israelites already worshipping a statue of a golden calf. The Ritual Decalogue is thus an addition to the Ethical Decalogue that God wants the Israelites to follow so that they may strive to refrain from idolatrous behaviour.
Further Explanations:
Ex 34:1 - God says that He will re-write the Ethical Decalogue since Moses had broken the original tablets (from Ex 32:19)
Ex 34:27 - God tells Moses to write down the Ritual Decalogue.
So the author is trying to inform us that God re-wrote the Ethical Decalogue and that Moses wrote the Ritual Decalogue. Some have argued that the verse "And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments" (Ex 34:28) is actually in reference to God re-writing the Ethical Decalogue, not Moses. I am not going to further argue that the subject in this verse is actually God rather than Moses since Deuteronomy tells us that God did re-write the Ethical Decalogue and gave them to Moses (Deut 10:1-6, which describes the Ethical Decalogue as the 'Ten Commandments).
* Point being, as a Christian, I see no need to follow the Ritual Decalogue today since I believe Christ had fulfilled all the sacrificial and ritual laws of the OT upon his death on the cross. The Ethical Decalogue, not being ritual laws, remain today as a moral compass that one should try and follow if they actually beileve in God.
Ex 20 versus Deut 5 Commandments:
The wording between the two lists here is very similiar. Both lists have the same concepts too and are given in the same order. Therefore, I am unsure where you question the comparison of Commandments from Ex 20 and Deut 5. I do not think it will help but I will explain the context for Deut 5. The Ten Commandments spoken in Deut 5 were being addressed to a different set of people. The Israelites who were actually enslaved in Egypt were witness to the Commandments explained in Ex 20. The context of Deut 5 is at a time where the majority of Israelites are now those who were born after the Exodus from Egypt. Since the Ethical Decalogue still applied to them, then it seems that Moses wanted to re-iterate what the laws were.
Overall, I do not see three separate commandment lists throughout Exodus and Deuteronomy. It is possible to reason that the 'Ten Commandments' spoken of in Ex 34:28 refers to the Ethical Decalogue of Ex 20 and not the Ritual Decalogue. And then the Commandments listed in Deut 5 were repeated for a new generation of Israelites. Therefore, I see no need to question on what the Ten Commandments really were in the OT. Oh also, Im holding back on your question on 'why God is driving out the 6 tribes'. Only reason is that I may have written too much here and you may want to argue back against what I just wrote. If you really want me to address it, then I will the next time around.
Who the hell is JohnnyB1993?
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 16, 2015, 04:33:20 PM
Don't know if you found this in your KJV, but just in case here is what I lifted from the net.
Exodus Chapter 34
1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.
2 And be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai, and present thyself there to me in the top of the mount.
3 And no man shall come up with thee, neither let any man be seen throughout all the mount; neither let the flocks nor herds feed before that mount.
4 And he hewed two tables of stone like unto the first; and Moses rose up early in the morning, and went up unto mount Sinai, as the LORD had commanded him, and took in his hand the two tables of stone.
5 And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD.
6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
8 And Moses made haste, and bowed his head toward the earth, and worshipped.
9 And he said, If now I have found grace in thy sight, O Lord, let my Lord, I pray thee, go among us; for it is a stiffnecked people; and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for thine inheritance.
10 And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the LORD: for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee.
11 Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite.
12 Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:
13 But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:
14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
15 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;
16 And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.
17 Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
18 The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.
19 All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.
20 But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.
21 Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.
22 And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
23 Thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before the Lord GOD, the God of Israel.
24 For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the LORD thy God thrice in the year.
25 Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
26 The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
27 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
29 And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him.
30 And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him.
31 And Moses called unto them; and Aaron and all the rulers of the congregation returned unto him: and Moses talked with them.
32 And afterward all the children of Israel came nigh: and he gave them in commandment all that the LORD had spoken with him in mount Sinai.
33 And till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a vail on his face.
34 But when Moses went in before the LORD to speak with him, he took the vail off, until he came out. And he came out, and spake unto the children of Israel that which he was commanded.
35 And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses' face shone: and Moses put the vail upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him.
Note that verse 28 tells us this is the 10 Commandments.
Why the fuck is God long-suffering?
Quote from: 1liesalot on May 19, 2015, 06:36:22 PM
Why the fuck is God long-suffering?
well, he has been in "existence" forever and since he knew the very first day of his forever existence that he would be so fucking incompetent at humans that he has been suffering forever at how badly he fucked it up……got it?
Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on May 19, 2015, 03:45:25 AM
The list given in Ex 34 is known as the 'Ritual Decalogue'. It would seem that this set of laws is given in parrallel to the 'Ethical Decalogue' described in Ex 20 and Deut 5. Now the word 'decalogue' means commandments, yet I still have not been able to get past identifying 9. However, you do not need to correct me (unless you really want to) for I will take your word for it that there are ten commandments described in Ex 34. Context is now key in understanding the difference between the 'Ritual Decalogue' (Ex 34) and the 'Ethical Decalogue' (Ex 20, Deut 5). The narrative of Ex 34 is set as a renewal of the covenant following the golden calf incident. After all, right after God said 'you shall only worship me', Moses comes to find the Israelites already worshipping a statue of a golden calf. The Ritual Decalogue is thus an addition to the Ethical Decalogue that God wants the Israelites to follow so that they may strive to refrain from idolatrous behaviour.
Further Explanations:
Ex 34:1 - God says that He will re-write the Ethical Decalogue since Moses had broken the original tablets (from Ex 32:19)
Ex 34:27 - God tells Moses to write down the Ritual Decalogue.
So the author is trying to inform us that God re-wrote the Ethical Decalogue and that Moses wrote the Ritual Decalogue. Some have argued that the verse "And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments" (Ex 34:28) is actually in reference to God re-writing the Ethical Decalogue, not Moses. I am not going to further argue that the subject in this verse is actually God rather than Moses since Deuteronomy tells us that God did re-write the Ethical Decalogue and gave them to Moses (Deut 10:1-6, which describes the Ethical Decalogue as the 'Ten Commandments).
* Point being, as a Christian, I see no need to follow the Ritual Decalogue today since I believe Christ had fulfilled all the sacrificial and ritual laws of the OT upon his death on the cross. The Ethical Decalogue, not being ritual laws, remain today as a moral compass that one should try and follow if they actually beileve in God.
Ex 20 versus Deut 5 Commandments:
The wording between the two lists here is very similiar. Both lists have the same concepts too and are given in the same order. Therefore, I am unsure where you question the comparison of Commandments from Ex 20 and Deut 5. I do not think it will help but I will explain the context for Deut 5. The Ten Commandments spoken in Deut 5 were being addressed to a different set of people. The Israelites who were actually enslaved in Egypt were witness to the Commandments explained in Ex 20. The context of Deut 5 is at a time where the majority of Israelites are now those who were born after the Exodus from Egypt. Since the Ethical Decalogue still applied to them, then it seems that Moses wanted to re-iterate what the laws were.
Overall, I do not see three separate commandment lists throughout Exodus and Deuteronomy. It is possible to reason that the 'Ten Commandments' spoken of in Ex 34:28 refers to the Ethical Decalogue of Ex 20 and not the Ritual Decalogue. And then the Commandments listed in Deut 5 were repeated for a new generation of Israelites. Therefore, I see no need to question on what the Ten Commandments really were in the OT. Oh also, Im holding back on your question on 'why God is driving out the 6 tribes'. Only reason is that I may have written too much here and you may want to argue back against what I just wrote. If you really want me to address it, then I will the next time around.
I'll repost the 10 commandments for you:
The Ten Commandments (according to the Bible)
1.Obey the commandments. Yahweh will conquer the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, and cut down their Asherah poles.
2.Do not worship any other god, for Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous god. Do not make treaties with those in other lands who worship other gods.
3.Do not make cast idols.
4.Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast during the first month of the Hebrew Year.
5.Sacrifice the first born of every womb, including all the firstborn males of your livestock. You can sacrifice a lamb in place of a firstborn donkey but if you do sacrifice the donkey break its neck. If your firstborn child is a boy sacrifice something else in its place. None shall appear before Yahweh without a sacrifice.
6.Do not work on the sabbath, even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest.
7.Celebrate the Jewish holiday "The Feast of Weeks" with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest and celebrate the Jewish holiday "The Feast of Ingathering" at the turn of the year. Three times a year all your men are to appear before the god of Israel and he will conquer surrounding nations before you enlarging your territory.
8.Do not mix blood sacrifices to Yahweh with yeast and do not let any sacrifice from the Passover Feast remain until morning.
9.Bring the firstfruits of your land to the house of Yahweh, your god.
10.Do not cook a baby goat in his mother's milk.
The name "The Ten Commandments" is only used once in the Bible and it is used for the covenant listed in Exodus 34:10-2 and according to Exodus it is this set of commandments which are on the stone tablets within the Arc of the Covenant. However, the book of Deuteronomy which was written after the book of Exodus tells us that a different list of commandments are written on the stone tablets. Deuteronomy 5:6-21 lists the more commonly known commandments as being written on the stone tablets despite what Exodus clearly tells us.
So, the above is called the ritual decalogue and the other two are the ethical decalogue. I don't find either of those two labels in the bible. Where do you find them? And why would god have one set so different than the other two? If god is perfect, then he seems to have an odd way of structuring His Word. Not only odd, but quite imperfect. I think it is fairly clear that the three were penned by three different authors--none of which are known.
You say: "* Point being, as a Christian, I see no need to follow the Ritual Decalogue today since I believe Christ had fulfilled all the sacrificial and ritual laws of the OT upon his death on the cross. The Ethical Decalogue, not being ritual laws, remain today as a moral compass that one should try and follow if they actually beileve in God. "
Really? Why do you say that. Jesus quite clearly indicated in these verses:
“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.†â€" Matthew 5:18-19
“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.†(Luke 16:17)
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.†(Matthew 5:17)
“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law†(John7:19)
Jesus tells us that the OT Law is not null and void, but very much alive. So, I still say that the only place in the bible that is labeled as the 10 commandments is in Ex 34. And it should, according to Jesus be treated as such.
And as a brief side note, decalogue is Greek for 'ten words'. Also note that nowhere in the bible are any of the commandments numbered by god--so who numbered the commandments?
Oh, and thanks for your reply.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 19, 2015, 08:18:02 PM
I'll repost the 10 commandments for you:
The Ten Commandments (according to the Bible)
1.Obey the commandments. Yahweh will conquer the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, and cut down their Asherah poles.
I already made the comment here that for God to say 'I want you to obey these commandments' is not really a commandment in and of itself. I think in an earlier post you said " (sorry I left off one of them--they are not numbered in the bible; but I think you can figure out what it is) ". The one commandment that you left off, which one was it then? Because the list of ten you just wrote is the same that you have written in past descriptions.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 19, 2015, 08:18:02 PMThe name "The Ten Commandments" is only used once in the Bible
Deuteronomy 10:4 shows Moses explaining how God re-wrote the 'Ten Commandments' on the new tablets just like how He wrote them the former time. Also Jesus refers to the Ethical Decalogue as the 'commandments' in Matthew 19:17-20. Now I could still be wrong, but I think the term 'Ten Commandments' is used at least twice in the Bible, but the example in Matthew 19 shows that Jesus clearly thought of the commandments as consisting of the Ethical, not Ritual Decalogue.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 19, 2015, 08:18:02 PMSo, the above is called the ritual decalogue and the other two are the ethical decalogue. I don't find either of those two labels in the bible. Where do you find them? And why would god have one set so different than the other two? If god is perfect, then he seems to have an odd way of structuring His Word. Not only odd, but quite imperfect.
The terms 'ritual decalogue' and 'ethical decalogue' are just words used to describe the two different set of laws we read in the Bible. The word 'Bible' never appears in the Bible as well, its just a word we use to give a name to the book. Same idea of labelling goes with these two different laws.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 19, 2015, 08:18:02 PMReally? Why do you say that. Jesus quite clearly indicated in these verses:
“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.†â€" Matthew 5:18-19
“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.†(Luke 16:17)
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.†(Matthew 5:17)
“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law†(John7:19)
I was going to use Matthew 5:17, but you beat me to it! Jesus says in Matthew 5:18-19 not an iota or dot will pass away until all of the law is accomplished. Jesus then affirms that He will be responsible for accomplishing the law (Matthew 5:17 "I have come not to abolish but to fulfill"). The majority of OT laws (exception for the Ethical Decalogue) are ritual laws. They involve sacrifices and various other rituals (see Ritual Decalogue). This is what Jesus meant when he came to 'fulfill' the law. Jesus perfectly followed all the OT laws in His life, yet died on the cross as if He broke them (punishment for sin is death). So the point is, Jesus death is believed by Christians to be a sacrifice to end all sacrifices. Christians no longer need to do the rather strange sacrifices and rituals in the OT because Jesus fulfilled them in His life and death on earth. So when a Christian is saved through faith in Christ alone, he or she may want to try and live by the 'new covenant law' Jesus establishes in Mark 14:24, Matthew 26:28, Luke 22:20.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 19, 2015, 08:18:02 PMAnd as a brief side note, decalogue is Greek for 'ten words'. Also note that nowhere in the bible are any of the commandments numbered by god--so who numbered the commandments?
Oh, and thanks for your reply.
Sorry about that , I was referring to the Greek origin of the word, 'déka lógoi', which could mean ten terms or ten commandments. The translation to Hebrew 'aseret ha-dvarîm' should mean 'ten words' or 'ten items'. Furthermore, I guess God numbered the commandments. I mean, the ten commandments (referring to the Ex 20 ones of course) are numbered in the order that God gives them to Moses. So I do not see an issue here.
Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on May 21, 2015, 06:25:10 AM
I already made the comment here that for God to say 'I want you to obey these commandments' is not really a commandment in and of itself. I think in an earlier post you said " (sorry I left off one of them--they are not numbered in the bible; but I think you can figure out what it is) ". The one commandment that you left off, which one was it then? Because the list of ten you just wrote is the same that you have written in past descriptions.
Deuteronomy 10:4 shows Moses explaining how God re-wrote the 'Ten Commandments' on the new tablets just like how He wrote them the former time. Also Jesus refers to the Ethical Decalogue as the 'commandments' in Matthew 19:17-20. Now I could still be wrong, but I think the term 'Ten Commandments' is used at least twice in the Bible, but the example in Matthew 19 shows that Jesus clearly thought of the commandments as consisting of the Ethical, not Ritual Decalogue.
The terms 'ritual decalogue' and 'ethical decalogue' are just words used to describe the two different set of laws we read in the Bible. The word 'Bible' never appears in the Bible as well, its just a word we use to give a name to the book. Same idea of labelling goes with these two different laws.
I was going to use Matthew 5:17, but you beat me to it! Jesus says in Matthew 5:18-19 not an iota or dot will pass away until all of the law is accomplished. Jesus then affirms that He will be responsible for accomplishing the law (Matthew 5:17 "I have come not to abolish but to fulfill"). The majority of OT laws (exception for the Ethical Decalogue) are ritual laws. They involve sacrifices and various other rituals (see Ritual Decalogue). This is what Jesus meant when he came to 'fulfill' the law. Jesus perfectly followed all the OT laws in His life, yet died on the cross as if He broke them (punishment for sin is death). So the point is, Jesus death is believed by Christians to be a sacrifice to end all sacrifices. Christians no longer need to do the rather strange sacrifices and rituals in the OT because Jesus fulfilled them in His life and death on earth. So when a Christian is saved through faith in Christ alone, he or she may want to try and live by the 'new covenant law' Jesus establishes in Mark 14:24, Matthew 26:28, Luke 22:20.
Sorry about that , I was referring to the Greek origin of the word, 'déka lógoi', which could mean ten terms or ten commandments. The translation to Hebrew 'aseret ha-dvarîm' should mean 'ten words' or 'ten items'. Furthermore, I guess God numbered the commandments. I mean, the ten commandments (referring to the Ex 20 ones of course) are numbered in the order that God gives them to Moses. So I do not see an issue here.
Clearly you are a very pleasant person to talk with. But why would you bring a discussion like this to a group of athiests?
Quote from: aitm on May 19, 2015, 07:14:24 PM
well, he has been in "existence" forever and since he knew the very first day of his forever existence that he would be so fucking incompetent at humans that he has been suffering forever at how badly he fucked it up……got it?
Yes, that must be it.
Thanks for your reply, Johnny.
You--I already made the comment here that for God to say 'I want you to obey these commandments' is not really a commandment in and of itself.
Me--I see. So, sometimes god say 'commandment' and means it and other times he uses that word but does not mean it. Which is which and how do you know? (I think the real answer is that you cherry pick, or chose what 'interpretation' you feel meets your needs.) God's Word does not make it known.
You--- I think in an earlier post you said " (sorry I left off one of them--they are not numbered in the bible; but I think you can figure out what it is) ". The one commandment that you left off, which one was it then? Because the list of ten you just wrote is the same that you have written in past descriptions.
Me--Sorry about that. But this is your bible--you tell me. This really illustrates another point. The 'commandments' are listed in three places, yet none of them are designated by god by number. He simply makes a list for some commandments and leaves it up to us to number them. So, why pick those 10? So, you tell me what was left off the list--this is supposed to be the bedrock of your objective morals.
You--Deuteronomy 10:4 shows Moses explaining how God re-wrote the 'Ten Commandments' on the new tablets just like how He wrote them the former time.
Me--You are correct--I was wrong. The 'Ten Commandments' are listed more than once. I had forgotten about the Deu 10 verse. But that illustrates another problem--one I mentioned above--cherry picking. Both the list from Deu and Ex. 34 are labeled the 10 commandments. So, which is it? The one you like? Or the other--for they are both quite different. How do you know which one to follow or make your objective morals?
You-- Also Jesus refers to the Ethical Decalogue as the 'commandments' in Matthew 19:17-20. Now I could still be wrong, but I think the term 'Ten Commandments' is used at least twice in the Bible, but the example in Matthew 19 shows that Jesus clearly thought of the commandments as consisting of the Ethical, not Ritual Decalogue.
Me--Several points here. Nowhere are the designation of 'ethical decalogue' or 'ritual decalogue' used in the bible. They are simply terms used to try to rationalize away the fact that there are two widely differing lists of 10 Commandments, and someone is attempting to tell us why--but that 'why' is simply a matter of opinion. That is shaky ground for me to build a set of morals on. And yes, I said I said that the 10 commandments were listed only once--I was in error. Yes, Jesus does appear to chose either Ex 20 or Deu 5 as his preferred list. But read further in Matt--19:21. It tells us, and this is straight from Jesus' mouth and it a strong suggestion on how to be perfect. Do you follow it? I doubt it--but I don't really know you, so I could easily be wrong. But I don't really see any--as in none--of my christian neighbors following this guideline. That is to give all you have to the poor--indeed, sell all you have, give it away, and then hit the streets following Jesus' word. Have you done that? Can you see yourself ever doing that???
You--The terms 'ritual decalogue' and 'ethical decalogue' are just words used to describe the two different set of laws we read in the Bible. The word 'Bible' never appears in the Bible as well, its just a word we use to give a name to the book. Same idea of labelling goes with these two different laws.
Me--How do you know which set to follow? Should you combine them, and follow all 20? Why or why not? This is quite typical for the bible. It often contradicts itself ; for example, the first two chapters of the genesis tells us two different creation stories. Right off the bat, it gives us a huge clue how the rest of this collected set of writings is going to go.
You--I was going to use Matthew 5:17, but you beat me to it! Jesus says in Matthew 5:18-19 not an iota or dot will pass away until all of the law is accomplished. Jesus then affirms that He will be responsible for accomplishing the law (Matthew 5:17 "I have come not to abolish but to fulfill"). The majority of OT laws (exception for the Ethical Decalogue) are ritual laws. They involve sacrifices and various other rituals (see Ritual Decalogue). This is what Jesus meant when he came to 'fulfill' the law. Jesus perfectly followed all the OT laws in His life, yet died on the cross as if He broke them (punishment for sin is death). So the point is, Jesus death is believed by Christians to be a sacrifice to end all sacrifices. Christians no longer need to do the rather strange sacrifices and rituals in the OT because Jesus fulfilled them in His life and death on earth. So when a Christian is saved through faith in Christ alone, he or she may want to try and live by the 'new covenant law' Jesus establishes in Mark 14:24, Matthew 26:28, Luke 22:20.
Me--this is full of your supposition. It is quite easy to read what you suggested above and come to a different conclusion. It is not at all clear what is meant. This illustrates a huge problem for me. The bible is a collection of mostly unknown writers writing at mostly unknown dates. This collection is only a small fraction of 'holy' material written within the broad time these were written. The bible was developed by sifting through all the available material and selecting what that group wanted. Who knows what those goals were, except that it was and is plainly political. And today, not all bibles are the same. There are literally hundreds of different versions of the book you call the bible. This suggests to me that god had nothing to do with any of it. If so, he is remarkably inept publisher of his Word. If he cannot make his demands known, then how can he be god? It doesn't make any sense to me. But it makes a great deal of sense if we understand this collection to be the political tool of one group to control another group. And your religion has been (and still is) a very, very successful mind control tool.
Quote from: Givemeareason on May 21, 2015, 08:11:32 AM
Clearly you are a very pleasant person to talk with. But why would you bring a discussion like this to a group of athiests?
I think Mike Cl originally brought it up with me. He wanted to discuss it a bit I think
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 22, 2015, 08:52:39 AM
Thanks for your reply, Johnny.
Thanks Mike Cl,
You- This really illustrates another point. The 'commandments' are listed in three places, yet none of them are designated by god by number. He simply makes a list for some commandments and leaves it up to us to number them. So, why pick those 10? So, you tell me what was left off the list--this is supposed to be the bedrock of your objective morals.
Me- Unfortunately, I cannot tell you what was left off the list of the Ritual Decalogue. My original claim is that we actually see 9 (not 10) ritual laws stated in Ex 34. Believe me, I am not trying to beat a dead horse here, but when you said (sorry I left off one of them--they are not numbered in the bible; but I think you can figure out what it is), are you not making the claim that you left off one of the supposed ten commandments from Ex 34? Since I think you did directly make that claim, would the burden of proof not be on you to tell me what commandment you left off when I ask you to show me?
My suspicion is that when you read Ex 34, you will actually come out with 9 ‘ritual laws’. The first commandment according to you is ‘observe the commandments’. Correct me if I am wrong, but you have read that from the text which says ‘observe thou that which I command thee this day (Ex 34:11, KJV translation). From that point, I would agree with you that there are 9 distinct ritual laws that follow. We know these last 9 are commandments or laws because the exact wording or different form of the wording ‘thou shall’ is used throughout Ex 34:12-28). But what about the first one? If a political figure began his address by saying “I have some laws I want you all to follow. I want you to obey these laws. Now here they are…†would anyone really count the “I want you to obey these laws†as an actual law itself? I doubt it, but I’m open to other people’s interpretation.
Anyways, this is my attempt to harmonize the apparent confusion seen in Ex 20, Ex 34, Deut 10:
The ‘Ten Commandments’ described in Deut 10:4 says “He wrote on the tablets, like the former writingâ€. The reader can now know that God re-wrote the commandents from Ex 20 onto new stone tablets (since Moses broke them in Ex 32:19). I actually think that the reader should then understand that the verse “And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments†(Ex 34:28) is referring to God re-writing the commandments from Ex 20 onto the tablets. The ‘He’ is not Moses but is referring to God. Only when one has all the information regarding this scene, can they then accurately piece the parts of the puzzle together. I honestly do not think this is cherry-picking but rather making the most logical assessment from the data we have regarding this series of events in Ex and Deut.
You- Should you combine them, and follow all 20? Why or why not? This is quite typical for the bible. This is full of your supposition. It is quite easy to read what you suggested above and come to a different conclusion. It is not at all clear what is meant.
Me- I would agree that after Moses wrote the Ritual Decalogue and God re-wrote the Ethical Decalogue, there were indeed 20 (or 19) laws written on the stone tablets. But do not forget that when counting the Levitical laws there are a total of 613 Old Testament laws or something like that. The vast majority of these laws are ‘ritual’ or ‘sacrificial’ laws. My answer to why I do not follow these types of ritual laws are for the exact same answer I previously gave you. Jesus’ death was a sacrifice in and of itself to fulfil these ritual laws.
But to address your comments. You said that my case is ‘full of supposition. I have already tried to back up my claims through Bible references (Matthew 5:17). I state my case as this, Jesus came to fulfil the OT ritual laws and to establish Himself as the true and only mediator for people to get to God. In answer to one of your comments, I do not follow the Ten Commandments (ethical Decalogue) perfectly. The problem is Mike Cl, NO ONE can. This means that every human being, theist or non-theist, should be going to Hell. This is a large answer to why Christ died, not just to fulfil the OT laws but to be our substitute so that if we truly believe in His atoning death, then we do not have to go Hell. Your quote is “It is quite easy to read what you have suggested and come to a different conclusionâ€. Can you give me a more logical conclusion then to when Jesus meant by ‘fulfilling the law’ (Matthew 5:17) and creating a ‘new covenant?’ (Luke 22:20, Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24). Your conclusion would need to be more logical then mine which states that Jesus came to fulfil the OT laws and to be our substitute so that when God judges us, we do not have to go to Hell.
P.S. I know I have written TOO much. But what most people unfortunately never get to understanding is that there is much more to biblical teachings then meets the eye. Please feel free to dismiss this video. But if your open-minded and curious, this is a different perspective of your comments on how Jesus supposedly says that all Christians ought to ‘give everything they have to the poor’.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJLtN1PZuXo
Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on May 24, 2015, 07:29:44 AM
Thanks Mike Cl,
You- This really illustrates another point. The 'commandments' are listed in three places, yet none of them are designated by god by number. He simply makes a list for some commandments and leaves it up to us to number them. So, why pick those 10? So, you tell me what was left off the list--this is supposed to be the bedrock of your objective morals.
Me- Unfortunately, I cannot tell you what was left off the list of the Ritual Decalogue. My original claim is that we actually see 9 (not 10) ritual laws stated in Ex 34. Believe me, I am not trying to beat a dead horse here, but when you said (sorry I left off one of them--they are not numbered in the bible; but I think you can figure out what it is), are you not making the claim that you left off one of the supposed ten commandments from Ex 34? Since I think you did directly make that claim, would the burden of proof not be on you to tell me what commandment you left off when I ask you to show me?
My suspicion is that when you read Ex 34, you will actually come out with 9 ‘ritual laws’. The first commandment according to you is ‘observe the commandments’. Correct me if I am wrong, but you have read that from the text which says ‘observe thou that which I command thee this day (Ex 34:11, KJV translation). From that point, I would agree with you that there are 9 distinct ritual laws that follow. We know these last 9 are commandments or laws because the exact wording or different form of the wording ‘thou shall’ is used throughout Ex 34:12-28). But what about the first one? If a political figure began his address by saying “I have some laws I want you all to follow. I want you to obey these laws. Now here they are…†would anyone really count the “I want you to obey these laws†as an actual law itself? I doubt it, but I’m open to other people’s interpretation.
Okay, Johnny, let's beat a dead horse. Here is another rendering of the Ex 34 list:
In neither of these cases does the Bible refer to “commandments.†In the first instance, they are “words†which “God spake,†while the tablets contain “testimony.†It is only when Moses goes back for new tablets that we see the phrase “ten commandments†(Exodus 34:28). In an interesting turn of events, the commandments on these tablets are significantly different than the ten rules Moses recited for the people, meaning that either Moses’ memory is faulty or God changed his mind.
I. Thou shalt worship no other god.
II. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
III. The feast of unleavened bread thou shalt keep.
IV. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.
V. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest,
and the feast of ingathering at the year’s end.
VI. Thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before the Lord God.
VII. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.
VIII. Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
IX. The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God.
X. Thou shalt not seethe a kid [ie, a young goat] in his mother’s milk.
There are ten of them. Many comments. I guess I'll jump in in the middle. Moses was not a real person. He did not write the first 5 books of the bible. Why? Because real people did. I say people, because there were several. The three lists of 10 commandments were written by 3 different people, with three different reasons. I guess it is easy enough to say that God guided their fingers. If so, then god does indeed work in mysterious ways. And he works in ways all the ancient gods worked in those days. Why would these authors focus on these sets of rules? Because it fit their political agenda, that's why. For me it is clear that the entire bible is constructed for political reasons. For reasons of control. Look at the above list. For whom would it have the least bit of relevance today? Maybe a couple of people who live in the desert, but nobody else. And why give rules that apply only to living in the desert? Why not those who live in other environments? Or other parts of the world? Is you god so shortsighted or so weak that he could not create a coherent message or deliver it to more than one place? Was his original creation so sloppy that it fell apart so quickly and to such an extent that he could not fix it? And this happened more than once, apparently, since he killed all living things in a flood. He still couldn't get it right after that. Isn't it kind of odd that all these commandments were issued in only one language? Is god so shortsighted that he did not know more than one language was spoken then, as well as now? Okay, I'll stop beating that horse now.
Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on May 24, 2015, 07:29:44 AM
Anyways, this is my attempt to harmonize the apparent confusion seen in Ex 20, Ex 34, Deut 10:
The ‘Ten Commandments’ described in Deut 10:4 says “He wrote on the tablets, like the former writingâ€. The reader can now know that God re-wrote the commandents from Ex 20 onto new stone tablets (since Moses broke them in Ex 32:19). I actually think that the reader should then understand that the verse “And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments†(Ex 34:28) is referring to God re-writing the commandments from Ex 20 onto the tablets. The ‘He’ is not Moses but is referring to God. Only when one has all the information regarding this scene, can they then accurately piece the parts of the puzzle together. I honestly do not think this is cherry-picking but rather making the most logical assessment from the data we have regarding this series of events in Ex and Deut.
You- Should you combine them, and follow all 20? Why or why not? This is quite typical for the bible. This is full of your supposition. It is quite easy to read what you suggested above and come to a different conclusion. It is not at all clear what is meant.
Me- I would agree that after Moses wrote the Ritual Decalogue and God re-wrote the Ethical Decalogue, there were indeed 20 (or 19) laws written on the stone tablets. But do not forget that when counting the Levitical laws there are a total of 613 Old Testament laws or something like that. The vast majority of these laws are ‘ritual’ or ‘sacrificial’ laws. My answer to why I do not follow these types of ritual laws are for the exact same answer I previously gave you. Jesus’ death was a sacrifice in and of itself to fulfil these ritual laws.
I don't think the lists can be harmonized. This underlines one of my major concerns about the bible. It cannot be read and understood by any rational person. I has to be interpreted for them by some expert who knows what god is trying to tell us. God's message in this case is so unclear that the average person cannot understand it. So, it has to be harmonized by a priest, or somebody that god has granted vision to. These three lists illustrate that problem. They are all different and those differences have to be accounted for if one wants to harmonize them. And they really can't be, for they are different. But in the hands of a priest, they can be harmonized if you take that priest's word for it. And why would that priest be more insightful than you or me? Because that priest in a priest in some religious hierarchy and that hierarchy's goal is to have as much of the world believe as they do, so they can then control more people. Why do that? For money and power, of course. How do you suppose the Catholic Church has become one of the most wealthy institutions of the world? Or why Joel Osteen can build and live in a multimillion dollar mansion. The use of the terms 'ritual' and 'ethical' to label these lists is an illustration of this point. They appear nowhere in the bible. They are created as categories because there is no other way to explain the contradiction. They are a device created to help explain that which is really unexplainable. And who created this device? The priesthood.
Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on May 24, 2015, 07:29:44 AM
But to address your comments. You said that my case is ‘full of supposition. I have already tried to back up my claims through Bible references (Matthew 5:17). I state my case as this, Jesus came to fulfil the OT ritual laws and to establish Himself as the true and only mediator for people to get to God. In answer to one of your comments, I do not follow the Ten Commandments (ethical Decalogue) perfectly. The problem is Mike Cl, NO ONE can. This means that every human being, theist or non-theist, should be going to Hell. This is a large answer to why Christ died, not just to fulfil the OT laws but to be our substitute so that if we truly believe in His atoning death, then we do not have to go Hell. Your quote is “It is quite easy to read what you have suggested and come to a different conclusionâ€. Can you give me a more logical conclusion then to when Jesus meant by ‘fulfilling the law’ (Matthew 5:17) and creating a ‘new covenant?’ (Luke 22:20, Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24). Your conclusion would need to be more logical then mine which states that Jesus came to fulfil the OT laws and to be our substitute so that when God judges us, we do not have to go to Hell.
/quote]
A more logical conclusion? No problem, at least for me. Jesus came to fulfill. What does that mean? How can the 10 commandments be 'fulfilled'? It is a list, which can be followed or not; and if you follow them you have not completed them or finished them--they are rules to live by all the time, all 10, all at once. It is impossible to fulfill them. You either live by all 10 or you do not--it is a never ending process and cannot be fulfilled. One does not say--'okay, I've now done all 10 commandments, I've fulfilled them and I can quit now.'. Having Jesus say that he has come to fulfill the laws makes no sense. So, the priesthood had to come up with another device to explain what was meant. The average person reading this text cannot make much sense out of it. A priest has to explain it. Your minister had to attend seminary, did he/she not? What do you suppose they were taught? They were taught all the devices that your particular branch of christianity wants you to believe. Why is the bible so convoluted that you cannot pick it up, read it and understand what it means? Because your branch wants to use their devices to control you. That is why there are so many different ways to think and act as a christian. Clearly, Jesus states that he did not intend to change any law of the OT--period. But you cannot accept that, for your priest tells you there is more to it than that. Jesus clearly states that to be as close to god as you can possibly be, you must sell all you own and give it to the poor. You then must follow Jesus. Have you done this? No, because your priest tells you that that is not what is really meant and then they supply you with the device that shows they are correct. You will not find any of your priests who have sold all they have and given unto the poor. Very few christians have. Going to hell--that is easy to figure out. What a wonderful device for the priesthood to use. Fear is a great tool of the religious. It is the whip to keep the flock in check. And of course, the priesthood knows how to keep you out of hell--just follow what they tell you to do. Do their dance and you will be dancing in heaven. All religions promise that.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 25, 2015, 10:43:18 AM
Going to hell--that is easy to figure out. What a wonderful device for the priesthood to use. Fear is a great tool of the religious. It is the whip to keep the flock in check. And of course, the priesthood knows how to keep you out of hell--just follow what they tell you to do. Do their dance and you will be dancing in heaven. All religions promise that.
Mike Cl,
From the information given about Moses breaking the original tablets (Ex 32:19), God saying He would re-write the original words on new tablets (Ex 34:1), and then the confirmation that the re-written words from Ex 20 were written on those new tablets (Deut 10:4) I continue to stand by my stance that the 'Ethical Decalogue' are the set of rules that God wants people to try and stick to the most. Now, I understand why you would think that the Bible was written for political reasons and to 'control' the people, but such notions unfortunately represent more of the ideas of the ill-informed secular culture. A culture that does not have much of a foot to stand on in my opinion. I refuse to call you ignorant since I do not think that is true, but I am sad to ponder that the ideas were you taught about Christianity are nothing more than hyperboles and subjective inferences from people who really have not done their research on the topic.
So, we do not have to go back and forth now over this discussion. I simply ask just one question regarding your recent posts.
Below is a list of the 'Ten Commandments' you last wrote in one of your posts.
I. Thou shalt worship no other god.
II. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
III. The feast of unleavened bread thou shalt keep.
IV. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.
V. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest,
and the feast of ingathering at the year’s end.
VI. Thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before the Lord God.
VII. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.
VIII. Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
IX. The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God.
X. Thou shalt not seethe a kid [ie, a young goat] in his mother’s milk.
Now below is a post on the same 'Ten Commandments' that you wanted to present to me on May 14.
1.Obey the commandments. Yahweh will conquer the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, and cut down their Asherah poles.
2.Do not worship any other god, for Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous god. Do not make treaties with those in other lands who worship other gods.
3.Do not make cast idols.
4.Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast during the first month of the Hebrew Year.
5.Sacrifice the first born of every womb, including all the firstborn males of your livestock. You can sacrifice a lamb in place of a firstborn donkey but if you do sacrifice the donkey break its neck. If your firstborn child is a boy sacrifice something else in its place. None shall appear before Yahweh without a sacrifice.
6.Do not work on the sabbath, even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest.
7.Celebrate the Jewish holiday "The Feast of Weeks" with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest and celebrate the Jewish holiday "The Feast of Ingathering" at the turn of the year. Three times a year all your men are to appear before the god of Israel and he will conquer surrounding nations before you enlarging your territory.
8.Do not mix blood sacrifices to Yahweh with yeast and do not let any sacrifice from the Passover Feast remain until morning.
9.Bring the firstfruits of your land to the house of Yahweh, your god.
10.Do not cook a baby goat in his mother's milk.
Looking at your May 14 Commandments, the 7 commandment (Celebrate Feast of the Weeks) has become commandments 5 and 6 in your latest rendition. On your May 14 list, commandment 8 (Blood sacrifices to Yahweh) seems to have become commandments 7 and 8 in your latest rendition. Finally commandment 5 on your May 14 list (Sacrifice the first born of every womb) appears no where on your most recent list. I am rather confused on why you changed your interpretation on the 'Ritual Decalogue' quite drastically. If you wish to offer an answer, I will certainly read it.
Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on May 29, 2015, 05:33:15 AM
Mike Cl,
From the information given about Moses breaking the original tablets (Ex 32:19), God saying He would re-write the original words on new tablets (Ex 34:1), and then the confirmation that the re-written words from Ex 20 were written on those new tablets (Deut 10:4) I continue to stand by my stance that the 'Ethical Decalogue' are the set of rules that God wants people to try and stick to the most. Now, I understand why you would think that the Bible was written for political reasons and to 'control' the people, but such notions unfortunately represent more of the ideas of the ill-informed secular culture. A culture that does not have much of a foot to stand on in my opinion. I refuse to call you ignorant since I do not think that is true, but I am sad to ponder that the ideas were you taught about Christianity are nothing more than hyperboles and subjective inferences from people who really have not done their research on the topic.
So, we do not have to go back and forth now over this discussion. I simply ask just one question regarding your recent posts.
Below is a list of the 'Ten Commandments' you last wrote in one of your posts.
I. Thou shalt worship no other god.
II. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
III. The feast of unleavened bread thou shalt keep.
IV. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.
V. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest,
and the feast of ingathering at the year’s end.
VI. Thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before the Lord God.
VII. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.
VIII. Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
IX. The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God.
X. Thou shalt not seethe a kid [ie, a young goat] in his mother’s milk.
Now below is a post on the same 'Ten Commandments' that you wanted to present to me on May 14.
1.Obey the commandments. Yahweh will conquer the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, and cut down their Asherah poles.
2.Do not worship any other god, for Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous god. Do not make treaties with those in other lands who worship other gods.
3.Do not make cast idols.
4.Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast during the first month of the Hebrew Year.
5.Sacrifice the first born of every womb, including all the firstborn males of your livestock. You can sacrifice a lamb in place of a firstborn donkey but if you do sacrifice the donkey break its neck. If your firstborn child is a boy sacrifice something else in its place. None shall appear before Yahweh without a sacrifice.
6.Do not work on the sabbath, even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest.
7.Celebrate the Jewish holiday "The Feast of Weeks" with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest and celebrate the Jewish holiday "The Feast of Ingathering" at the turn of the year. Three times a year all your men are to appear before the god of Israel and he will conquer surrounding nations before you enlarging your territory.
8.Do not mix blood sacrifices to Yahweh with yeast and do not let any sacrifice from the Passover Feast remain until morning.
9.Bring the firstfruits of your land to the house of Yahweh, your god.
10.Do not cook a baby goat in his mother's milk.
Looking at your May 14 Commandments, the 7 commandment (Celebrate Feast of the Weeks) has become commandments 5 and 6 in your latest rendition. On your May 14 list, commandment 8 (Blood sacrifices to Yahweh) seems to have become commandments 7 and 8 in your latest rendition. Finally commandment 5 on your May 14 list (Sacrifice the first born of every womb) appears no where on your most recent list. I am rather confused on why you changed your interpretation on the 'Ritual Decalogue' quite drastically. If you wish to offer an answer, I will certainly read it.
Thanks for your reply, Johnny. You say "I continue to stand by my stance that the 'Ethical Decalogue' are the set of rules that God wants people to try and stick to the most. "
Me--I'm sure you do. But you have yet to say why. Anybody with eyes that want to see can easily read the three versions of the 10 commandments. And they can plainly see that God does not elevate any of them over the other two. But you will have the faith (unseasoned belief ) that what you chose to believe is the Truth. After all, God has guided your eyes to see what is necessary to see. Why he chose you to believe this and not anybody else, is beyond my understanding. You call it the Ethical Decalogue--of course you do, you are following the whim of those who teach you (and I say 'whim' since it is not labeled as such in the bible. At least not in any copy I've ever read.)
You---Now, I understand why you would think that the Bible was written for political reasons and to 'control' the people, but such notions unfortunately represent more of the ideas of the ill-informed secular culture. A culture that does not have much of a foot to stand on in my opinion.
Me---Really??? You think I belong to the 'secular culture'? You speak as tho there are two cultures. Yours and those who think like you are the righteous culture and everybody else is of the secular culture? Is the secular culture monolithic? Do all secular cultures think alike? Why is the secular culture ill-informed? It does not know enough? And your culture is not ill-informed? I will assumed you are a creationist--so you think the world is 6 million years old--and just how does that make you 'informed' and not 'ill-informed'?
You--"I refuse to call you ignorant since I do not think that is true, but I am sad to ponder that the ideas were you taught about Christianity are nothing more than hyperboles and subjective inferences from people who really have not done their research on the topic."
Me--Well thank you. I am much more ignorant than I want to be. I suppose, in one sense, I'll die much more ignorant than I want to be, too. But I do not base what I know about your religion from teachers. I base it on the facts I learn from you own studies. My studies are of people from all camps--from creationists, those who believe the bible is the literal word of god and those who think Jesus really did exist--to those who have some doubts about part of that--and from those who think all of those are simply fabrications. The ideas and thoughts I give you are not from 'teachers' but from the facts I have dug out of the evidence--I do not employ wishful thinking or try to push the facts into shapes that I like. It is what it is. You, Johnny, I would not call ignorant, either. I see you as a person who relies on wishful thinking or wishful believing. Why because it is easier. So, I simply see you as being willfully ignorant for you do not want to see factual studies of what you believe, nor do you want to believe those studies to have any merit. I don't think you are stupid--or really ignorant; simply intellectually lazy.
You--" I am rather confused on why you changed your interpretation on the 'Ritual Decalogue' quite drastically. If you wish to offer an answer, I will certainly read it."
Me--Johnny, I don't care about any of those lists in a personal way. I simply used two different web sites to cut-and-paste the list. Ethically, logically, philosophically, and sense wise, they make no sense and I do not think they are relevant in my life. So, I don't care. Except I like to try to understand why people like you think the way they do--what are the reasons you want to have such a narrow set of beliefs and how those came about. I'm just curious.
I'll make a little prediction to myself here. This is the last I'll hear from you. If so, too bad. I still enjoy this type of discussion if you wish to continue.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 29, 2015, 08:11:04 PM
You--" I am rather confused on why you changed your interpretation on the 'Ritual Decalogue' quite drastically. If you wish to offer an answer, I will certainly read it."
Me--Johnny, I don't care about any of those lists in a personal way. I simply used two different web sites to cut-and-paste the list. Ethically, logically, philosophically, and sense wise, they make no sense and I do not think they are relevant in my life. So, I don't care. Except I like to try to understand why people like you think the way they do--what are the reasons you want to have such a narrow set of beliefs and how those came about. I'm just curious.
I will say, I do find it interesting myself on understanding why people think the way they do. If you do not mind Mike Cl, I would like to continue and ask a few more questions. These questions, however, deal more with your comments on Christian theology and the Bible. In some not too long ago past comments, you brought up a number of interesting reasons for why you doubt the 'divine-nature' part of the Bible. This may seem to be at the heart of your atheistic worldview and so I am curious to read your opinions on a few things.
1. 'The Bible was constructed for reasons for control.' Please correct me if I have misquoted you. What do you mean by control? Do you believe that there are people who are sincerely trying to live their lives for Jesus or are most church leaders just trying to get people's money? I agree with you that in the past and even today, there are a number of churches that live for greed and power. Do you think Jesus would approve of such behavior? So basically the control that we do see in some churches, is that a result of those churches following God's word or is it a result of those churches doing certain acts that are self-centered and thus angled against what God's true will is for the believer?
2. Your comment regarding Hell as one of the 'churches devices' got my attention. The idea of Hell is currently an object of fear for many Christians unfortunately. I will have you know though, that my efforts to obey God's commands are not out of fear of going to Hell. I am just speaking for myself though honestly. I would argue, that the most common theme in most religions is the idea that one must do good works in order to get to Heaven (and thus avoid Hell). This is where I think the gospel message in Christianity is actually nothing like religion. Religion teaches this: You must become good by performing works. Performing good works helps you to build faith in God. If you continue doing good works, then you will 'earn' your way out of Hell and into Heaven. Now, this is how I view the Gospel and how it has personally affected my life: God's salvation was given to me as a gift of grace. Since Jesus' lived the life I should have lived and died the death I should have died, now God sees my 'debt of sin' as being paid by Jesus' death on the cross. Knowing that Jesus suffered and died for me on the cross (even though He could have told me to screw off) makes me WANT to put my faith in God. Out of love for what Jesus has done for me, I know try and do good works because I believe that God has already given me salvation through Jesus' deeds. So that is my perception of Hell; I have also never came across a priest who used the device of Hell against me to say 'you must give us money or you'll burn in Hell'! But thats obviously not to say that those types of priests are not out there. Regardless, all religions that I have learned about usually have some sort of 'chosen person' that give you a specific rule set on how to find God (Joseph Smith, Muhammad). I see Christianity as sort of the opposite, rather God comes down to Earth and says I have come to find you.
Ok feel free to critique now. Oh and also, I am not a creationist, I think the Genesis creation stories are allegorical representations of the creation of the world and humanity. Regardless, however God did it, I do believe God created the universe.
How's the air up there?
Johnny, you can pretend that your motives are all pure and positive, but I have been there. I know that the fear is just as much a motivator as the faith. They are two sides of the same coin. Jesus died to save us...FROM HELL!
The bible was collected as a means to control the beliefs of the growing Christian cult, which in addition to it's oral traditions, had amassed quite a number of manuscripts, reported to be gospels or epistles. These men who collected these writings were not themselves divinely inspired, nor did they any miracles to show their consecration as determiners of the Word of God for all men. They simply wanted to control the situation as they saw it. There's nothing necessarily sinister about it. But there's nothing holy about it either. It's just human.
You, as I once did, think that there is some Christianity out there that is separate from religion. Some perfect version of faith. But that is not true, Johnny. The people who practice Christianity, do so in many different ways and have many different beliefs, right down to the deity of Jesus. They are all branches of the same tree. You don't get to dismiss whatever doesn't fit your preconceived notions. You are very prone to rationalizing, instead of reasoning, which is why I gave up on the morality discussion, and why I am wondering why I've chimed in here...
I've imagined theres this proverbial line, invisible, that is the cross between then rationality sets in, and before it. With scripture, rationality should set in and you cross the line when you read into the words it talks about shit like those bizarre rules you are meant to follow, otherwise the ultimate punishment is eternal suffering. I've seen parents use things like this with children "You either behave and do what I say or this monster in the closet will take you away!".
The children end up realizing their is no monster, and it was just words their parents said to get them to behave.
Why is it children learn this, and grow up putting it behind them, and yet adults can't?
Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on June 01, 2015, 05:43:10 AM
I will say, I do find it interesting myself on understanding why people think the way they do. If you do not mind Mike Cl, I would like to continue and ask a few more questions. These questions, however, deal more with your comments on Christian theology and the Bible. In some not too long ago past comments, you brought up a number of interesting reasons for why you doubt the 'divine-nature' part of the Bible. This may seem to be at the heart of your atheistic worldview and so I am curious to read your opinions on a few things.
I would be glad to talk about anything you'd like. To further explain my thinking. I do not see anything as divine. Nothing. There is only nature. All that we see is natural. All man-made objects are ultimately natural for all the materials used were produced by nature. There is no supernatural. Just natural. So, nothing produced by man is supernatural--nothing known by man was supplied in a supernatural way. Supernatural is impossible. And so, because of that I don't even think the word 'theology' is correct for me. Mythology is more accurate in my way of thinking. Why? Because I see all religions as myth based. And Christianity is no different. It is not a special case that transcends all other religions; it is simply one of the more successful ones.
I will address you questions in another set of posts. Thanks for your questions.
Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on June 01, 2015, 05:43:10 AM
1. 'The Bible was constructed for reasons for control.' Please correct me if I have misquoted you. What do you mean by control? Do you believe that there are people who are sincerely trying to live their lives for Jesus or are most church leaders just trying to get people's money? I agree with you that in the past and even today, there are a number of churches that live for greed and power. Do you think Jesus would approve of such behavior? So basically the control that we do see in some churches, is that a result of those churches following God's word or is it a result of those churches doing certain acts that are self-centered and thus angled against what God's true will is for the believer?
Wow! That's a few big questions. I mean entire books have been written and will continue to be written about that paragraph. BTW, have you ever read books that are quite pointed in attacking your understanding of the Bible and God? Anything about the history of the bible, or your religion or Jesus? I understand that it would be a difficult task for you, but to get an honest and well informed set of facts to deal with one has to visit those who are opposed to what you believe.
The issue of control is a long and complicated story. Start with the beginning of your religion. It has been fairly well established that 2,000 years ago it was simply another sect of reform Jews, who were looking for the messiah to come. Apparently there were many, many of slightly differing ideology. That Christianity would survive was not a given--but it was a given that some sect would come out on top--and Christianity did. But we know little of the actual fighting from within and without for the period of about 50--110 ce. Why? Because most of what was written during that time was destroyed or allowed to rot away. What do we have? We know that there were at least 85 gospels and epistles written during that span. What has survived is in the form of the NT. Paul is the first NT writer. He is attributed 13 NT books. Of those, Hebrews is universally recognized as being fake--not written by him. Of the remaining 12, 6 are thought to have been authored by him. Other than Paul the authors of the rest of the NT are unknown. Plus, it is well established that not one of Paul's epistles are one continuous letter, but a mishmash of several. It does not mean he did not write them, only that they were heavily edited and combined--by him or somebody else. There is evidence of the like in most of the NT books. An interesting job for you, if you are up for it, would be to arrange the books of the NT in chronological order. That would put the writings of Paul first. Then followed by the Mark, Matthew, Luke and last John. That would give one a totally different view of who Jesus was. For Paul one can not find almost no biographical data for Jesus--he is written about as though Jesus Christ is an ethereal being living in heaven--not a physical man living on earth. Of course, establishing the actual dates is not easy. There is much conjecture as to the real dates of authorship. But I subscribe the writings of Paul to be pre 60 ce. Mark at 7- to90 ce; Matt as 90 to 100 ce, Luke a little after Matt and John as 90 to 120. Also, you need to be aware that not a single autograph (that's what the students of textual criticism term the original authors of a work) of any of the NT exists, so we cannot be sure what the authors actually wrote.
Where does control come in? We know of at least 85 gospels and epistles that were written during this time. Where did the non-survivors go? And why? If you were a true believer of a certain set of 'true' beliefs about jesus, what works would you keep? Those that profess what you believe. You would not even need to actively destroy those who write against that belief, just not keep them. And over the centuries they would simply go away. What was in those writings? Obviously things that undercut the christian beliefs. Read what Paul was trying to do--he was trying to get people to follow his precepts of who and what Jesus and God were. That in itself is about control. As the christian religion grew and became stronger a priesthood hierarchy grew. What was their goal? To maintain themselves as leaders and to control the thoughts and actions of the flock. How was that accomplished? By limiting scriptures to those works that allowed them to do that and to interpret those scriptures to allow them to do that. That priesthood has now grown to 10,000's of different sects all claiming to be the 'true' Christianity. Every christian sect has a hierarchy. And I do not know of any sect in which the leaders are as poor, generally, as the flock. And many times, they are mega-more richer. In both political and monetary power.
Throw into the mix that there is not just one agreed upon bible. There are literally hundreds that profess to be the one true bible. Why? Because different sects want different material either added or deleted. Why? To further whatever agenda that sect has. Consider the history of the bible--the different languages with was written in and translated to--the number of mistakes or additions those those books. Study the Septuagint, the Hebrew Bible, the Latin Vulgate, the various early English bibles and the textus recepticus and the writing of the KJ versions. It is not one continuous uninterrupted line but messy and complicated. It takes real effort to dig this stuff out. It is far easier to simply listen to your hierarchy and accept what they tell you is the correct way to look at things.
You ask the following: So basically the control that we do see in some churches, is that a result of those churches following God's word or is it a result of those churches doing certain acts that are self-centered and thus angled against what God's true will is for the believer?
My response--it does not need to be that churches are overtly lusting for control and money. It is deeper than that. There are many, many churches and leaders and people who are honest and sincere in their thoughts of doing good for people and the world. But honesty and sincerity does not always equal truth. Many people sincerely believed the world flat at one time--did not make it so. But all church hierarchies are built to survive. How does an organization survive? By gaining control, power and money. How else can they survive? They can't, so that is simply inherent within each hierarchy. What did Jesus (I think he is a myth, but that is another post) do when he was teaching? Construct a church or series of churches and entice people to come listen? Did he even suggest any churches be built? Did he visit churches and preach? No. He wandered the land gathering his flock as he went. He taught on the fly. Did he demand money? No, he demanded that those who had money give it all away and follow him. So, would Jesus approve of any church on the face of the earth today? What do you think? I think not. He would be active in trying to destroy them.
I eagerly await your response.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 01, 2015, 11:07:10 AM
I would be glad to talk about anything you'd like. To further explain my thinking. I do not see anything as divine. Nothing. There is only nature. All that we see is natural. All man-made objects are ultimately natural for all the materials used were produced by nature. There is no supernatural. Just natural. So, nothing produced by man is supernatural--nothing known by man was supplied in a supernatural way. Supernatural is impossible. And so, because of that I don't even think the word 'theology' is correct for me. Mythology is more accurate in my way of thinking. Why? Because I see all religions as myth based. And Christianity is no different. It is not a special case that transcends all other religions; it is simply one of the more successful ones.
I may have underestimated the breadth and scope of the information regarding the questions I asked. Sorry about that. Anyways you address some interesting points,
1.
I first would just like to point out that my conversion to Christianity really began from evaluating the two biggest questions that I believe face mankind. 1. Does God exist? 2. Did Jesus rise from the dead? Of the arguments given from both Christian and atheist philosophers, I have actually found the evidence for God’s existence and Jesus’ resurrection the more plausible explanations regarding these questions. Before I attempt to address your most recent comments, I have another question in which I am very curious to see your point of view. Do you really think that the supernatural is impossible? If so, could you please provide some evidence regarding your claim?
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 01, 2015, 12:02:44 PM
I eagerly await your response.
2.
Now, some thoughts on the NT. I will admit I do believe that Paul is the author of the 13 NT books traditionally attributed to him. However, for the sake of discussion I will side with you and presume that we can only say that it is more likely than not that Paul is definitely the author of 6 of the 13 NT books attributed to him. So in regards to the chronological order of some of the NT books, here is a very brief image of what I believe:
The 6 books written by Paul: Anytime before 64 A.D (the year Paul died). Also if you think it is necessary for such details, what are the 6 books of the NT that you think Paul wrote?
The remaining 6 books not written by Paul: I cannot say as of right now. I would assume between 50-80 A.D. perhaps but honestly I am not sure.
Hebrews: Between 65-95 A.D.
James: Probably written by James the brother of Jesus who was martyred in 61 A.D.
1 and 2 Peter: Anytime before Peter’s crucifixion in 64 A.D.
1, 2, 3 John: Probably 60-90 A.D.
Jude: Probably 60-90 A.D.
The Gospels and Acts of the Apostles:
Acts: Being a book of history concerning Christians and Jews in the 1st century, Acts was probably written before 62 A.D. Acts would have more likely than not mentioned the destruction of the Jewish temple (70 A.D), Peter’s death (65 A.D.), Paul’s death (64 A.D.) and James’ death (62 A.D.).
Mark, Matthew, Luke: Written before 70 A.D. All three mention Jesus’ prophecy of the destruction of the Jewish temple (Mark 13:1; Matthew 24:1; Luke 21:6). Luke’s Gospel was written before Acts, and if Acts was written before 62 A.D. then the Gospel of Luke was written sometime earlier than that. Keep in mind that Mark and Matthew are thought to be written a bit before Luke.
John: I will accept that John’s Gospel did not primarily about recording historical events. So even though the destruction of the Jewish temple is not mentioned, I would date this gospel to around the 80-90’s A.D.
Textual Criticism:
You- Also, you need to be aware that not a single autograph (that's what the students of textual criticism term the original authors of a work) of any of the NT exists, so we cannot be sure what the authors actually wrote.
Me â€" I respectfully disagree. We have very good manuscript evidence to say that it is more likely than not that the words in our NT books today are the original words written by the authors 2000 years ago. Please see below: Following your logic I assume we also completely disregard everything in the Illiad and all writings of Suetonius?
New Testament: # of manuscripts today:
24000+ Oldest Manuscript: 300+/- years from original (complete text) and
70+/- years from original (fragments of text)
Suetonius: # of manuscripts today: 200 +/- Oldest Manuscript: 800 +/- years from original
Illiad: # of manuscripts 1,757 Oldest Manuscript: 500 +/- years from original
“There was never a time when any one man or group of men controlled the text of the NT. All assertions regarding adding doctrines, changing theologies, removing teachings etc are without merit. The Christian church was a persecuted minority without power to enforce a uniform textual transmission as in Islam.†â€" Dr. James White in his debate against Bart Ehrman “Did the Bible Misquote Jesus?â€
3.
YOU- Did he even suggest any churches be built? Did he visit churches and preach? No. He wandered the land gathering his flock as he went. He taught on the fly. Did he demand money? No, he demanded that those who had money give it all away and follow him. So, would Jesus approve of any church on the face of the earth today? What do you think? I think not. He would be active in trying to destroy them.
ME â€" If there are any churches whose acts and behaviours are against what Jesus taught, then I agree that Jesus would try and stop that church’s behaviour if He were on Earth today. However, your statements seem to miss some key points. It doesn’t matter if Jesus would destroy every church today. If Jesus were on Earth today He would be pleased with the people who worship Him and consider Him their Lord and saviour. So your argument does not seem to have much merit considering what I have just said.
Also you still seem to think that Jesus literally instructs every Christian to give up ALL their money and follow Him. This is overlooking the passage of the story regarding the rich young ruler. The literal point is not that EVERY Christian needs to give up all their money to follow Jesus. The teaching is for people who look towards money as their ‘god’. If money is your true ‘god’ then Jesus wants you to give up. Another example; if romantic love is your one true ‘god’ in life then Jesus would want you to give up that too. The complete fulfilment and sense of purpose that people seek in trying to get money, power, and a romantic love partner cannot actually give you any of those things. Jesus is trying to say that only He can be your one true love. Nothing else.
Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on June 03, 2015, 07:20:11 AM
I may have underestimated the breadth and scope of the information regarding the questions I asked. Sorry about that. Anyways you address some interesting points,
1.
I first would just like to point out that my conversion to Christianity really began from evaluating the two biggest questions that I believe face mankind. 1. Does God exist? 2. Did Jesus rise from the dead? Of the arguments given from both Christian and atheist philosophers, I have actually found the evidence for God’s existence and Jesus’ resurrection the more plausible explanations regarding these questions. Before I attempt to address your most recent comments, I have another question in which I am very curious to see your point of view. Do you really think that the supernatural is impossible? If so, could you please provide some evidence regarding your claim?
Johnny, those are the two questions I asked myself, as well. Yet I came up with the exact opposite answer. The evidence (or lack thereof) lead me to think there is no god and that Jesus was a myth--not even a real man. I find no evidence of any god of any stripe. In each and every case that I have studied a particular god--yes, including God--the evidence suggests to me god was a creation of a particular society or group--man-made in other words. God filled certain needs for that group. If an invisible god actually existed, he/it would have to make his presence known somehow. And why would that god chose a sneaky way--would it not be obvious to all, no matter when or where that person was born? You see, all god's are territorial. None are universal. The Jew/Christian god appeared only in the Middle East and Aftica. Not it North or South America or Australia or Europe. That is kind of odd for a universal god. I find no evidence of any god revealing himself/herself to any large number of people in different places in the same time frame.
Supernatural--god would have be that; beyond or outside nature. Since I see no evidence of any kind for a god, how can I think it exists? And I see no evidence of there being anything beyond or other than the natural world. From the start of this universe to its end, it will consist of substance that can be seen and experienced--even substance I would call invisible, yet can be demonstrated to exist by scientific instruments or can be tested somehow. So, yes, the supernatural is impossible. I have not seen a shred of evidence that it is possible. I have no proof of a test that I can point to that demonstrates there is not supernatural--but there is not a shred of evidence that there is the supernatural. I also have not a shred of proof that the Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist--does that mean I should hold out the possibility that she does exist?
So, that is the intro to why I do not believe in any god--I could go on, but for now you get the idea. As for Jesus, I have more and better evidence (for me, anyway) to think that Jesus was not a real person but the mythical (myth, btw, does not equate to fairy tale or legend, but to the conveyance of a moral or character sketch of importance to a society) man. He not only did not rise from the dead (which is not a unique feat for him, for he is only one of many such mythical dying and rising divine characters from history), he was not real. So, he could not be supernatural either. No more than Osiris can. You see, Johnny, I can make up all sorts of invisible characters in my head, breath life into them if I was a talented story teller or great author (Rolwing invented Harry Potter and many, many see him as almost being real.) How do you prove that Harry is not, indeed alive somewhere?
Once again, Johnny, you tap into a subject that could take up books. But that is fine with me--better too much than not enough. And thanks for your reply.
Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on June 01, 2015, 05:43:10 AM
Knowing that Jesus suffered and died for me on the cross (even though He could have told me to screw off) makes me WANT to put my faith in God. Out of love for what Jesus has done for me, I know try and do good works because I believe that God has already given me salvation through Jesus' deeds. So that is my perception of Hell; I have also never came across a priest who used the device of Hell against me to say 'you must give us money or you'll burn in Hell'! But thats obviously not to say that those types of priests are not out there.
Ok feel free to critique now. Oh and also, I am not a creationist, I think the Genesis creation stories are allegorical representations of the creation of the world and humanity. Regardless, however God did it, I do believe God created the universe.
Nope, I won't critique your beliefs. I will ask questions about the why of them, but your beliefs are yours--and I will offer why I think the way I do. We can each do with that info as we wish.
About Genesis and the two stories of creation. You think they are allegorical? Why? And how do you know which stories in the bible are allegorical and which are factual? Why two creation stories? Which one is the real one, if any? Is the book of Daniel real or allegorical? Why? Could not the entire bible be allegorical? Why or why not? Could not Paul's writings be allegorical?
As to fear--I'm not suggesting that the church or the priesthood uses fear is childish ways. First, fear is not a 'bad' feeling. Fear keeps me from jumping off roofs for fun and games. It keeps me from taking foolish risks. Fear is useful. It is a survival tool that is very useful. But like all things it can be misused and abused. Political parties in this country love to use fear to whip the people up about one thing and another. I am not suggesting that the church even uses fear in that obvious way--tho some do. No, it is interwoven into the fabric of their theology. It is a backdrop of all they teach. The minister does not need to slap you up-side your head with fear. It is all around you. Always present. For you, you want to follow what you believe to be the rules god and Jesus, thru god, conveyed to you so that you can get to heaven. The flip side that does not even need to be spoken is that if you don't go to heaven you go to hell. There is no other place to go. There is no third choice--there is not 'I don't want to play' button offered. You have to do this according to god's rules--period. For if you don't the only outcome is hell. And that is free will???? So, you see, the hierarchy that grew up around your religion has fear being an integral part of that religion--it is never forgotten; never really ignored. The Fear is so powerful that it does not even need to be spoken about. (BTW, have you ever done a historical study of hell--the word and the concept? It is an interesting study.)
I gotta run--thanks again for your response--quite remarkable for a strong Christian such as yourself--at least in my experience on boards.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 03, 2015, 09:34:13 AM
You- Supernatural--god would have be that; beyond or outside nature. Since I see no evidence of any kind for a god, how can I think it exists? And I see no evidence of there being anything beyond or other than the natural world. From the start of this universe to its end, it will consist of substance that can be seen and experienced--even substance I would call invisible, yet can be demonstrated to exist by scientific instruments or can be tested somehow. So, yes, the supernatural is impossible. I have not seen a shred of evidence that it is possible. I have no proof of a test that I can point to that demonstrates there is not supernatural--but there is not a shred of evidence that there is the supernatural. I also have not a shred of proof that the Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist--does that mean I should hold out the possibility that she does exist?
Me â€" Few things in this paragraph that I am confused about. You clearly state that God would have to be ‘outside of nature’. By default then I think you and I would agree that any method used to try and detect God’s existence would be in vain. After all, all of our scientific methods involve utensils that are within nature and are thus used to measure things that are also within nature. So using natural methods to try and locate a supernatural being would be committing a serious categorical mistake in my opinion. This is not to say that there can never be evidence for God’s existence, but rather, absolutely proving or disproving the existence of God would be almost impossible. Considering the Invisible Pink Unicorn, there is evidence that we would expect to measure and observe if such a creature really did exist. The unicorn (can it really be pink by the way if its invisible?) would be a part of the natural world and so it would probably have predictable behaviours interacting within the world (eating grass, footprints etc). The invisible unicorn could still be detected because it is interacting within the world in a predictable way. Many identities exist in this manner such as the force of gravity and magnetism. We cannot see these forces but they all act in predictable ways within the natural world. Therefore I do not liken the comparison of God to an invisible animal. I suppose I would conclude that you may be committing the ‘absence of evidence must mean evidence of absence’ fallacy. It may seem like the supernatural is impossible to you, but I am not sure if you can conclude with 100% certainty that your statement is true. Rather the supernatural may very well be impossible to detect via natural equipment but the supernatural could still very well exist.
You- For you, you want to follow what you believe to be the rules god and Jesus, thru god, conveyed to you so that you can get to heaven. The flip side that does not even need to be spoken is that if you don't go to heaven you go to hell.
Me- My response is more of a psychological question I suppose. I am just rather curious on how you can explain my condition of ‘having faith in Jesus’. The reason why I bring this up is because I am curious by it myself, and also because I think you may have misunderstood my position on ‘Hell’. You say that I want to follow the rules of God so that I can get into Heaven, but I am trying to tell you that is not actually the case (for me personally). I agree, many Christians try to do good works so that they can get into Heaven. I do not view my position in the same light. Rather, I have faith that Jesus’ death completely paid the debt for all my past sins and all of my future sins. Therefore, I am actually already going to Heaven because of my faith in Christ. I believe that I do not need to do any more good works to get into Heaven because J esus has already lived the perfect life for me. However, I am honestly telling you that I STILL try and follow all of the Ten Commandments to the best of my abilities. So I actually find my behaviour rather strange. To put it in a more simple way, if Hell did not exist, (and everyone went to Heaven no matter what they did), I would continue to try and follow the laws of God just out of love for what Jesus did for me on the cross. Not sure if you have further comments on that, but I did want to clear up that I do NOT do good works to get into Heaven. I do good works for God’s sake, not for my sake. Isiah 64:6 “And all of our righteous deeds are like a filthy garmentâ€.
Absence of evidence, after 2000 or more years of humans looking into the subject, is indeed evidence of absence. It is not empirical proof of absence, but it is most definitely evidence.
Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on June 08, 2015, 01:26:11 AM
Johnny- â€" Few things in this paragraph that I am confused about. You clearly state that God would have to be ‘outside of nature’. By default then I think you and I would agree that any method used to try and detect God’s existence would be in vain. After all, all of our scientific methods involve utensils that are within nature and are thus used to measure things that are also within nature. So using natural methods to try and locate a supernatural being would be committing a serious categorical mistake in my opinion.
Mike---Yes, it would not be possible to find proof of an other than natural thing, including god. What I find so very strange about people who believe in a supernatural god is that they don't need proof. This god is supposed to have created a race of material beings and insist that they worship him and follow his rules. How are we to follow rules that we cannot hope to see or know? How does that god communicate to those he created? But, you say, 'we have scripture.' Which scripture are you referring to? Every religion known to man has scripture. How am I supposed to know which one is the 'real' one? For a god, this is incredibly sloppy work. but it is something that people would come up with--people who wanted a pipeline to god to control those around him.
Johnny--- This is not to say that there can never be evidence for God’s existence, but rather, absolutely proving or disproving the existence of God would be almost impossible.
Mike--Once again, why does god make this whole process so murky and difficult to follow? Seems pretty simple for the all powerful creator to find an efficient way of telling his creation what the creator wants. What we have are multiple religions and multiple scriptures. That smacks of people using those things as tools to gain control over others.
Johnny-- I suppose I would conclude that you may be committing the ‘absence of evidence must mean evidence of absence’ fallacy. It may seem like the supernatural is impossible to you, but I am not sure if you can conclude with 100% certainty that your statement is true. Rather the supernatural may very well be impossible to detect via natural equipment but the supernatural could still very well exist.
Mike---The absence of evidence does not mean there is no evidence. I agree. Just because I cannot find evidence does not mean it cannot exist. But there are times when the absence of evidence is indeed proof that evidence does not exist. There has not been one shred of physical evidence to lead one to think there is a god of any kind. So, with 100% certainty I can say that there has never been any physical proof that a god exists. And I can say with 100% certainty that the supernatural does not exist; no proof of that has ever been shown to be true. And I can also say with 100% accuracy and certainty that there are thousands of religions on earth that claim to be the one true religion with the one true god supported by the one true scripture. That all leads me to say with 100% certainty that god does not exist--not any god. It is all man-made.
Mike- For you, you want to follow what you believe to be the rules god and Jesus, thru god, conveyed to you so that you can get to heaven. The flip side that does not even need to be spoken is that if you don't go to heaven you go to hell.
Johnny-- I agree, many Christians try to do good works so that they can get into Heaven. I do not view my position in the same light. Rather, I have faith that Jesus’ death completely paid the debt for all my past sins and all of my future sins. Therefore, I am actually already going to Heaven because of my faith in Christ. I believe that I do not need to do any more good works to get into Heaven because Jesus has already lived the perfect life for me. However, I am honestly telling you that I STILL try and follow all of the Ten Commandments to the best of my abilities. So I actually find my behaviour rather strange. To put it in a more simple way, if Hell did not exist, (and everyone went to Heaven no matter what they did), I would continue to try and follow the laws of God just out of love for what Jesus did for me on the cross. Not sure if you have further comments on that, but I did want to clear up that I do NOT do good works to get into Heaven. I do good works for God’s sake, not for my sake. Isiah 64:6 “And all of our righteous deeds are like a filthy garmentâ€.
Mike--I find it commendable that you want to do good for your fellow man. And that you do that even if you were not going to heaven and even if hell were not in the picture. I sometimes get the idea that many Christians would burn, pillage and rape if not for the fear of God and hell; and the desire to go to heaven. That that fear is all that restrains them--why do I get that feeling? Because they want to know what keeps me, as an atheist, from doing just that. Why don't I just lie, cheat, steal and destroy on a whim, since I don't have any guidance from scripture or god. So, Johnny, let me say this to you--I am not going to heaven or hell--they don't exist. I don't fear god--gods don't exist. Yet the best feelings in my life is when I lend a helping hand to my fellow human. Yep--I simply like to help because that is the legitimate goal of a society and that is what makes me feel good. I don't do good because god told me to, but because my parents taught me to and because I've learned they were right. When I die that will be it--gone forever; my only wish is I have this world just a tiny bit better than when I entered it.
Johnny, have you ever studied the process of how your scripture, your Bible was formed? How it was canonized? You should. That will show you how god had nothing to do with it--it is all a human construct. I don't mean a surface study with one author or book--you must find out who has written that the Bible is 100% accurate and how it was formed is gods plan. And you have to find authors who believe the opposite and one who believes somewhere in the middle. Cover all angles. Then figure out for your self what is accurate. But that would take a great deal of courage for a strong believing Christian.
And Johnny, I do not find your behavior strange, for most of the people in your church, your religion are good people wanting to do what is good for themselves, their families, their neighbors and the world. What I find destructive in your religion is the hierarchy that teaches you these falsehoods and myths as the Truth. What do they gain from it--wealth and power! As an experiment, research the top people in the structure of your denomination and see if any of them are close to being poor in any material way. I will tell you now, without knowing your denomination that you will find nobody. Just as you will not find any congressmen/women who are poor. It is about power and wealth.
Johnny, consider Mark 10:21--21 Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, "One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me. Johnny, do you know of anyone who has done that? Any church leader? Any church member? Have you?
And BTW, Johnny, thanks for your reply. I think if I were to meet you in person, I'd like your company. :)
Question to Mike- is it more or less fun playing with your food if it doesn't know its being played with?
Quote from: stromboli on June 08, 2015, 06:52:45 PM
Question to Mike- is it more or less fun playing with your food if it doesn't know its being played with?
:))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
If it doesn't know, but then it slowly dawns on them. Then the scrambling is fun to watch. :)
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 08, 2015, 07:22:23 PM
:))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
If it doesn't know, but then it slowly dawns on them. Then the scrambling is fun to watch. :)
Yes, that is definitely the best. To watch that process of slÍ€oÍ¢w̨ rÌ´ȩ̷͟al̸͞iÍ€zÍžatÍœi҉̴͞o̸͜n̢͟͟,Ì...Í'ÌÌ'Í'Ì͎͚̣̩̦ ̮̼ͬu̵nÍ—Í,,Ì,,̊̇ͪͯ͢tÍ,,̆Í'Í,,Í Ì°Ì°ÌºÌ¼Ì¤Ìºi̷̤̟̖ͤͫÍ...̼̘lÌ...ÌÌ"Ì»Í"Í"ÍŽ Ì,̵͖̦̰̮̥̘̗͛t̮ͬ̆ͥÍÍ"̟̣̩̪h͈͖͙̦̜eÌ'Í®Í'ÍÍ•Ì®Í"Í™Í͚̬y͉͙̯̌ͬ̀̚ Í,ͪ̉ͥÌ...ÌŽÌ·Ì̜̰rÌ'Ì"Íͧ̽Ì...̛͙̹ͯÍ"̳eÌŠÌ...Ì"̢̺̼͙͊̿͌ͥaÍÌÍ'Ì'ͤ̿l̽̊Í,̀ͪÍ'̦͕͢iͬÍÌ,,Í,,Ì̖̚zÌ̧̀eÍ,̞̰̙͖̤͌̉̃̎͗ t̆Í̾Ì...̲̋Í"ÌÍ"͚͎hÍ,,̨̃Ì̪̩Í"̱̹͇Í̼eÌ,̬̜̖̪̥ͬ͗̋ͧͨ̆̈͢Ìỷ͗ͬÌ̛̦̦̥͕̀'Í̿ͬ͗͛Í,͋ͨÌ̢̙͜͟Ì͎̲ṙ̿Ì,Ì,Í̙͎̼eͣͮͫÌÌµÌ Í†Ì½ÌÍ©ÌÌŸÌœÌ Ì͚̳͚̩bÍ›ÌÍ©ÌÌÍšÍ"̤aÌ,Ì¿Ì"ÌŽÌͦÌ'̵̴̱̬̲͎ÍÌ–cÌÍ†ÌŠÌ¾ÍŸÍ ÌªÌ°Ì¦Ì®Í–Ì¥Ì®kͫͧ̿ͪÍ'Í,Ì"̪̫͗̽̀̕eÌŽÍ¥Í,ÌŠÍ,Í¥Í Í͕̀Í...Ì̘̰̱dͯͧÍ,̉ͯ̆ͣÍÌ¶Í˜Ì£Ì¦Í‡Ì ÍŽ Ì"͆Ì'ͧ̌̇̕ÍÍ̤͖̮̻̙iͧÍ'̋ͨÌ"Ì½Í¦Í Í¢Í¡Ḭ̖̳̤̟̀n͗ͤ̇Í,͆̌͗Ì̹͖͎͟ṫÍ,,ͪÍÍÌŽÍ Ì·Í•Ì²ÌÌ oÌŠÌ¿ÌŽÍ,ͨͤÌ...Ì...ͨÍ̸̟̦̦ ͧ̃̀Í...͉͈ä̎Ì,,̇ͨÌ̵̷̪̬̪̆̽ͬ Í̋̋̆ͩ̚Í,,Í̖̤̩̘̺̯̲̪͕ͤcÍ'ͥͪͪͥ͛̽Í,,̜͖̮̺̗oͯÌ'Ì̋̉Í,͈̲͇̲Ì͇Í͙͉r̃Ì...̾ͧ̀ͨÌ"Ì͉̙̀Í"Í"̙̪̼̞n̉ͮ͋Ì'̤͙͎̼̮̪̺̤̆̌͢e̓Ì"Í'ÌÍ̡ͩ̆ÍÍ̱̣̱rÍ,Ì'ÍÍ'̴͇̰͛ͣ͡Í̺ Ì'ÌŽÍÌ°Ì–Ì—Í̬w͇̗̥͕ͯ͋͞iͧͥ̾ͧ̌Í̸͎̪̫͙͎ͬtͤÌÍ‹Í¥Í,,Í̧̟̖̯̫̱͘hͦÍ'̶͉̣̊ͣ͋͌͗̕ ̀̊Í͗̾Í'Ì"Í Í"Ì–Í"n͙̹͈̯̤ͤ̌̾͊̆ͮ̌͡Í̪͇Í"ỏͥ͌ͦ̚ÌÌÍ'ÌŠÌ´Ì§Ì¡ÌŸÌœÌ Ì–Ì«Ì¬ Í'Í'Ì"̃̚̚ÍÍ—Ì'Í̧̢Ì̺Ì̥̥͖̤̯w̧̢͗ͣ̋ÍÌ̞̲̲̗̻aÍ'ͦͯ̾Ì,Í'̖̾Í...͎̪yͫ͆ÌÌ...̴̇̋ͧ͆Ì͉̘Í̮̜̱ ͆̇ͨ̚Íͯͧ͘Í"̤̘oͪÌ'͈̜̃͊͟Í"̳͈ŭÍÌ͖̫͇͡t͗̃̉Ì,Ì,̰͙͙̟͇ͫ,Í,,ͯ͗̇Í'Í«ÌŠÌÌ´Í҉̢̺Í...Í•Ì®Ì¤Ì¹Ì¦Ì®ÌŸÍ‰Ì®Ì©ÌžÍ Ìͣ̾̃̉Į̷̀̆̚̕͟Í"̟̯aÌ'̀̾͗̈ÍÍ̢͈̘̟̥͚͖͉̰͘Í̼̬̺nͯ͆Ì...Í¥Í'̨ͤ̈ÍÍ¢Í˜Ì§ÍŽÍŽÌ Ì°ÌœÍ"̲Í"͚͉̙̦̤͕̬dͨÌ"Í£Í̶̵Ị͉͙́Í...Ì»Í...Ì Í†ÌšÌ‰Í‹Í©Ì†Ì¿Í̸̸̷̸͚͈ÌyÌ¿Í,,̇͗̌ͤͫͥÌÌ€Í'̃̊͊ͯÌ,Ì̡̞͚̞̼͆͡Í...Ì®ÌÍ•oÌ¿Í'̾Í'̈ͧ͌Ì...ÍŠÍ'̛͆̀̕͢͞ÌÍ–Í"Ì®ÌÌ©Ì®uÌ'ͪ͛ÍÍ›Í,,Í,Ì,,̴̖̟̞̾̌̆͊ͫͪͧͩ͋͢Í...̼̪̜͕͕͕̦̺Í"̤Ì͙̜̳̳ ͩͧ̆ͦÍ'ͧ̊̚Í'̋͊̇ͤ҉̸̥̜̩̬͙̰̘̰̯͞Ì͉͇̹̻̩̲̟̘ḟͣ͌ͬÌ̆̾ͣÍ'Í¦Í Ì¢ÌµÍ˜Í"Í"Ì«eÍ©Í—Ì,Ì‹Í'ͫͨÌ...Í—Ì'͌ͥ̆ͧ̈Í̴̹̼̳̮̘͢͡a͊̃̿Ì'Ì€Ì¾Ì½ÌµÌ¢Í Ì»Ì¹ÍˆÌ¥Ì¯Ì̺̗͚̟ÌÌ sÍ,,Í̆͊Í,,Í,,̇̀Ì,,̴̴̺̫ͥ͞Í"̱̩t̽̋ͩͬ̌ͬÌ...̸̷̴̸̨̦̪͋ͧ̓͛̽̌ͯ̓Ị̦͇̦̯͕̻̞͇͎̬̳̹̀ Ì...ͣͪÍͫ͋̈͌͆Ì"Ì"ͦÌ'͗ͯ̇Í'̧͋Ị̫̺́oÍ¨ÍªÍƒÌ‹Ì¡Ì¶Í ÍˆÍ"Í"Í–Ì Ì¼Í...̲Ì̹̦̖̣̪nÍ,,̃ͬÌÌÌ"̞͗ͥ̌͘͞Í̹ÌÌ͚̗Ì̳Í...̙̞̻͎̫̩̳̰ ̛̜͖̬̖̎͋̊ͥ̈ͥ̕Ì̤̳͕Í̳̺̺̻̟̪tͣ͛̃ͮ͌ͤͫÍÍ¬Í§Ì¿Í¦ÌŒÍ˜ÍŸÒ‰ÍŽÌ Ì–Ì¼ÌÌhͨÌ,Í‹Í›ÌÍ¥Í§Í¬ÍžÌ·Í Í"̦̜̘Í"eͤ͛ͥͥ͋Ì"̈ͤÍ'Í,̓Í,ͨÍÍ̶̡̡̀Í̪Í̙̯̮iÌ...Íͪ̈ͫ̾̚Ì...̽̽ÌͪÍ,Í€Í˜Ò‰Í Ì¸Ì¼ÌºÌ–Ì©Í–rÍ,,̆Í'ͤÌ"̈Í'ͨÌÍ'ͯ̃Ì"Ì...Í̷̸̧̥͙͎̃ͩ͆ͨÌÌ°Ì Í‰Ì²Í...Ì̹ Ì"͌ͩÌÌŠÌŽÍ®Í ÍÍœÌœÌŸÌ Í"Ì͕͇͇̥͇͈̳̹̬̖͚fÌ'̀̊Ì"̡͘Í̢̨̬͉̲Í"͕̪̦Í"Ì®eÍŠÍŒÍͫ͆Ì'̷̴̢̢͜ÌÍ̪̟͖̩Í͈͕aÍŠÌŽÍ¥Í,Í‹Ì†Ì¢Ì¡Í Í̮͎̯̥̫Í̼̪Í"̩͎̪̪͇̲ÌÌœÍ...rÍŒÍ,͛ͩ͋ͣͮÌ...Ì̌ͨ͌ÌÍ,Í,,͢͡͡Í...̮͕̙̮̺̳̮̺̗.ͪͦÌÍ,Ì'͆Í,̹̰͖͙̩͚͇̺̖̮̼̜̣͕͖̤͖̜͖͜
*cough cough*
Ugh, excuse me, I started to reveal my true form for a second there. Gonna have to keep a better eye on that.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 14, 2015, 11:09:38 AM
5.Sacrifice the first born of every womb, including all the firstborn males of your livestock. You can sacrifice a lamb in place of a firstborn donkey but if you do sacrifice the donkey break its neck. If your firstborn child is a boy sacrifice something else in its place. None shall appear before Yahweh without a sacrifice.
Mike what scripture are you using for the underlined?
Quote from: KingJ on July 01, 2015, 05:16:07 AM
Mike what scripture are you using for the underlined?
A King James copied from the internet. I don't remember the site now. Simply googled it. Why? What difference does it make?
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 01, 2015, 08:46:58 AM
A King James copied from the internet. I don't remember the site now. Simply googled it. Why? What difference does it make?
The rest of the commandments you mention are not really an issue. The underlined is. I would like to know the context. It seems
completely naked at the moment.
Quote from: KingJ on July 01, 2015, 10:31:25 AM
The rest of the commandments you mention are not really an issue. The underlined is. I would like to know the context. It seems completely naked at the moment.
I'm not sure what you mean. It was copied in total from that web site and from a copy of the KJ bible. How more dressed up do you need it?
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 01, 2015, 10:51:57 AM
I'm not sure what you mean. It was copied in total from that web site and from a copy of the KJ bible. How more dressed up do you need it?
Well I am guessing you quoted Exodus 13:2
Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever opens the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.
13:1-10 In remembrance of the destruction of the first-born of Egypt, both of man and of beast, and the deliverance of the Israelites out of bondage, the first-born males of the Israelites were set apart to the Lord. By this was set before them, that their lives were preserved through the ransom of the atonement, which in due time was to be made for sin. They were also to consider their lives, thus ransomed from death, as now to be consecrated to the service of God.
Note it does not say '''sacrifice'''. Quite a
humungous word blunder wouldn't you agree?
Quote from: KingJ on July 01, 2015, 11:12:35 AM
Well I am guessing you quoted Exodus 13:2 Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever opens the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.
13:1-10 In remembrance of the destruction of the first-born of Egypt, both of man and of beast, and the deliverance of the Israelites out of bondage, the first-born males of the Israelites were set apart to the Lord. By this was set before them, that their lives were preserved through the ransom of the atonement, which in due time was to be made for sin. They were also to consider their lives, thus ransomed from death, as now to be consecrated to the service of God.
Note it does not say '''sacrifice'''. Quite a humungous word blunder wouldn't you agree?
No need to guess--read the entire thread and you will see that I posted all three versions of the 10 commandments. They are posted and credited in full in the thread.
Paul was correct in saying that the commandments are impossible to follow, both the 613 and the 10 ... or even the Golden Rule. He tried to come up with a reason for this, that he explained in his Epistle to the Romans (actually Jews living in Rome). That the whole point is to draw a line in the sand, with a system that can't be fully obeyed ... so that people will feel guilty enough that they will start loving each other, for lack of anything better to do. I like Paul's conclusion ... even if the subsequent Jewish-Roman wars went totally against his hopes. With Paul's paean to love, I don't even need Jesus' words. What Paul was saying, in the body of Jesus ... is that that body is the body of believers, not some historical folk rabbi. Again, it helps to know the language ... Jesus is Aramaic for the Hebrew, Yehoshua (Joshua) ... which means, "G-d Saves". It is a mantra, not a person, probably chanted originally by the Jewish congregations (Gentiles would fail to understand, as usual).
Quote from: Baruch on July 02, 2015, 09:39:08 AM
Paul was correct in saying that the commandments are impossible to follow, both the 613 and the 10 ... or even the Golden Rule. He tried to come up with a reason for this, that he explained in his Epistle to the Romans (actually Jews living in Rome). That the whole point is to draw a line in the sand, with a system that can't be fully obeyed ... so that people will feel guilty enough that they will start loving each other, for lack of anything better to do. I like Paul's conclusion ... even if the subsequent Jewish-Roman wars went totally against his hopes. With Paul's paean to love, I don't even need Jesus' words. What Paul was saying, in the body of Jesus ... is that that body is the body of believers, not some historical folk rabbi. Again, it helps to know the language ... Jesus is Aramaic for the Hebrew, Yehoshua (Joshua) ... which means, "G-d Saves". It is a mantra, not a person, probably chanted originally by the Jewish congregations (Gentiles would fail to understand, as usual).
Rom 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what
I hate, that do I.
Two facts jump out at me on what Paul said here.
1. Paul HATES doing those things He does.
2. Paul use to murder Christians, Paul is NOT referring to murdering.
We are in an evil world and tempted daily with sin. We can be forgiven for giving in to
venial sins. We must just be sure to hate them. Hating them leads to repentance. Mortal sins is an entirely separate issue.
So, Paul is not saying the commandments are impossible to follow. He is saying there are commandments that anger God more then others. We know this. Not all sinners were stoned to death OT.
In my personal experience, I beg do differ ... regardless of the ontological status of Jesus' sin or not. As a human being, not as a Christian, but as a Jew, Paul speaks to me. But he is hard to understand, because we can't cross-examine him. And he was as charismatic as a Siberian shaman. I would therefore suspect his "devil" was depression, the flip side of the acting out of his manic phase. You have superimposed the theology of Calvin, who lived 1500 years after Paul, and didn't properly understand him (especially regarding a perfect elect in this life ... the real Christians ... which is a Cathar heresy, that a Frenchman like Calvin, would have been well informed of).