I just can't wrap my head around it

[evil^milk]

Still waiting for this to devolve into a UE3 vs. Source discussion

Spoiler

 

[Druckles]

Oh, please what a bunch of horse shit. I know of many catholic priests that molest little children. Where was their moral compass? Some of my most religious friends have done some really ****ed up shit. Your idea that you need religion to guide you is total bullshit that's easy to refute if you just look around you.

You do? Or are you just hearing what you were told?

I didn't say Catholicism is a good example. I never mentioned it. You could even argue it's not really Christianity. Besides, those people weren't taught properly. It had nothing to do with the bible. You could tell a child anything which can skew their moral compass without having to resort to the bible. The bible is just an excuse for stuff.

I could equally easy point at so many people who weren't taught about such and such and have ended up horrible people because of it. I could pick out a proportion of prisoners in your average prison and make a wild hypothesis that fewer of them were brought up in Christian households.

Just because these things happen, doesn't mean it's not true. I never said it was an infallible solution.

There would be no problem with telling the stories as fairy tales and asking children to draw morals from those fairy tales. The bible in christianity is not told as a fairy tale, it is told as fact. You know that.

Fairy tales are told as fact:

Once upon a time...

 

[Shift]

So aside from making this a really nice image that pops up in your head what was the devil's reasoning for doing this?

Well for instance if someone said 'hey would you like an amazing chocolate cake?', that phrase would be given a lot more strength if it was said, while I presented with the chocolate cake in question too.

 

[No Limit]

....
Just because these things happen, doesn't mean it's not true. I never said it was an infallible solution.

What it means is people are people and their religion has nothing to do with their morality. Bad people will be bad, good people will be good. Your suggestion here that you weren't talking about catholics is aboslutely laughable. So now catholicism isn't the right religion to base your morality on? Only christianity is? Does that morality include burning the Quran or attacking muslim mosques?

Fairy tales are told as fact:

Once upon a time...

No, they aren't told for people to base their entire lives around and once the kids that were told those fairy tales they know they were fairy tales. You don't have adults growing up basing their life around beauty and the beast.

Well for instance if someone said 'hey would you like an amazing chocolate cake?', that phrase would be given a lot more strength if it was said, while I presented with the chocolate cake in question too.

Well if the cake was on top of mount everest I'd probably pass on the offer. Besides, if the devil wanted to show God the benefits of being ruler of the world why go up top a mountain? Why not show him things closer up? Like all the hot chicks that he would get to bone or all the servents he would get to have? Would make a much better sell, don't you think?

 

[Mogi67]

why do nerds always think they know anything about society?

 

[Bad^Hat]

And Jesus was God incarnate but at the end of the day he was a man too, that could be tempted just like the rest of humanity, that was one of the points of it all, why would he go to Earth has some amazing flying mega angel? He wanted to put forth the message as a man.

Occam's Razor sez: this makes the bible more palatable to ordinary folk who don't want to bow down to an all-knowing automaton God. Yay praise Jesus he's a normal bloke like us (except the being white thing)!

Fairy tales are told as fact:

Once upon a time...

Hahaha, are you ****ing kidding me.

Gee this thread is fun.

 

[Druckles]

their religion has nothing to do with their morality.

No, their beliefs do.

Bad people will be bad, good people will be good. Your suggestion here that you weren't talking about catholics is aboslutely laughable. So now catholicism isn't the right religion to base your morality on? Only christianity is? Does that morality include burning the Quran or attacking muslim mosques?

True. At some point you got me talking about religion. I'm not, or shouldn't be. Some Christian beliefs, just like most other religions, are good founding for morals.

No, they aren't told for people to base their entire lives around and once the kids that were told those fairy tales they know they were fairy tales. You don't have adults growing up basing their life around beauty and the beast.

Again, it's religion which says you have to base your entire life around it. Belief does not. How much you want to believe parts of a fairy tale are up to your interpretation. For instance, you can wonder whether the children in the Narnian chronicles were dreaming, making it all up or whether he's implying that there really was another world. There's evidence either way for it.

As I said, the bible is almost like an adult's fairy tale. There's no-one older than you to say "No, it was all made up by this guy, here". Fairy tales and stories are just a metaphor, here.

Hahaha, are you ****ing kidding me.

Gee this thread is fun.

They are. You don't know until you're told otherwise that they're a myth. The story itself gives no indication that it's fictional.

why do nerds always think they know anything about society?

Because they're detached from it. You get a more objective perspective. In theory.

 

[Eejit]

They are. You don't know until you're told otherwise that they're a myth. The story itself gives no indication that it's fictional.

How about when the story diverges from observable reality? Such as the presence of goblins, or magic, or devils or miracles?

 

[Bad^Hat]

Jesus christ this whole discussion has spiraled into something completely unintelligible. On the plus side my ears are much warmer thanks to the brain juice.

They are. You don't know until you're told otherwise that they're a myth. The story itself gives no indication that it's fictional.

And you don't see how this comparison is incompatible with religion in any way?

Oh, I'm sorry, you weren't talking about religion, you were talking about "beliefs." Yes, you're correct, people should totally be able to believe things. Thanks for standing up against those nasty people who were saying otherwise.

All zero of them.

 

[No Limit]

Again, it's religion which says you have to base your entire life around it. Belief does not. How much you want to believe parts of a fairy tale are up to your interpretation. For instance, you can wonder whether the children in the Narnian chronicles were dreaming, making it all up or whether he's implying that there really was another world. There's evidence either way for it.

Druckles, I'm sorry buddy. I don't consider you want to those crazy people but I can't take you seriously when you said there is evidance that the characters in the narnian chronicles were real characters and that the story of these other worlds could actually be true.

Honestly at this point I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

 

[Druckles]

Druckles, I'm sorry buddy. I don't consider you one of those crazy people but I can't take you seriously when you said there is evidance that the characters in the narnian chronicles were real characters and that the story of these other worlds could actually be true.

Honestly at this point I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

Figuratively. In relation to the book itself. Obviously.

How about when the story diverges from observable reality? Such as the presence of goblins, or magic, or devils or miracles?

I suppose when you're younger, you're not convinced they don't exist. Santa Claus, for instance. It surprises me so many kids believe in him and are distraught when they find out he doesn't exist.

When you're older you're aware that people use fictional things to express a point, such as the whole 'taking him up the mountain', thing. As it doesn't deviate completely from reality, you're still able to suspend disbelief. Besides, it's essentially a series of stories about things which actually happened. No-one's denying they're written by someone, thus able to add metaphors and idioms all over the place, but most of the stories themselves are quite believable.

And you don't see how this comparison is incompatible with religion in any way?

But it is compatible... that was what I was getting at.

 

[No Limit]

When you're older you're aware that people use fictional things to express a point, such as the whole 'taking him up the mountain', thing. As it doesn't deviate completely from reality, you're still able to suspend disbelief. Besides, it's essentially a series of stories about things which actually happened. No-one's denying they're written by someone, thus able to add metaphors and idioms all over the place, but most of the stories themselves are quite believable.

Nobody is disputing someone wrote them. What people are disputing are the events that the person(s) writing them described. Obviously the entire "take him to the mountain to show him benefits of ruling everything" is bullshit. But as you just saw christians certainly don't believe it's bullshit. They take that part literally. Well I should correct that, they only take the part literally that science can't dispute. When science does dispute it (we know the earth is round) then suddenly that part becomes a metaphor. But not the part about taking him up a mountain since that obviouosly makes total sense.

 

[Bad^Hat]

I suppose when you're younger, you're not convinced they don't exist. Santa Claus, for instance. It surprises me so many kids believe in him and are distraught when they find out he doesn't exist.

Surprising, that. Maybe it's because they're ****ing children.

Besides, it's essentially a series of stories about things which actually happened. No-one's denying they're written by someone, thus able to add metaphors and idioms all over the place, but most of the stories themselves are quite believable.

But it is compatible... that was what I was getting at.

Right. Even the "until you're told otherwise that they're a myth" part. Totally compatible.

 

[comradesean]

I'd argue that the people I know who were brought up in sensible Christian families grew up with what I think are sound moral compasses. Other people, from less Christian backgrounds, tend to a more selfish, less 'typically moral' breed. While I don't agree with my parents anymore, I probably benefited from the way I was brought up.

haha! That's hilarious.
I could just as easily say that I was brought up outside of religion and I find Christian's to be pushy, pompous and sometimes even downright rude. Sometimes even promoting the very behaviors that they so abhor by ostracizing others for no reason than their own whims.

I find your opinions that are stated as facts to be ludicrous. Also very shallow and pedantic.

 

[Druckles]

Well I should correct that, they only take the part literally that science can't dispute. When science does dispute it (we know the earth is round) then suddenly that part becomes a metaphor. But not the part about taking him up a mountain since that obviouosly makes total sense.

And we go back to our original point. Why is this a problem? It serves as a good enough explanation for the time being, and the morals it comes with are sensible enough, so why not use God as an explanation?

I have no idea what happened before the big bang, and neither do you. Anyone who does is wildly speculating. So I'm quite happy to let them believe it was a supernatural being, benevolent or not.

Surprising, that. Maybe it's because they're ****ing children.

You get arrested for that.

Right. Even the "until you're told otherwise that they're a myth" part. Totally compatible.

If there's a being or civilisation out there who can answer it, then yes. The alternative is to die not knowing either way. People spend their lives believing in Leprechauns.

haha! That's hilarious.
I could just as easily say that I was brought up outside of religion and I find Christian's to be pushy, pompous and sometimes even downright rude. Sometimes even promoting the very behaviors that they so abhor by ostracizing others for no reason than their own whims.

Yes, you could. And I'd agree with you.

I find your opinions that are stated as facts to be ludicrous. Also very shallow and pedantic.

I find your post inconsiderate and ignorant. What did I state as fact?

 

[Sulkdodds]

Infinite regress is too big a problem to just leave alone. All theists answers basically boil down to "god did it and god is magic" so everything is a moot point really.

But that's not quite true. To say that the current universe came into being according to principles that existed before it in some unknown form (or somehow outside of what we know as time and space) is surely no more than plenty of scientists say. And it's not a claim that you can really attack the substance of. You can criticise it as unfalsifiable - you can say it's a meaningless statement because it cannot be proven but little more. Sure, the burden of proof is on whoever makes the claim. But it's nice to be able to disprove them, and in this case one cannot. So God exists outside of space and time and brought them into being according to rules? Well, okay. That may be difficult to demonstrate, but said difficulty is not much of a coup for the atheists.

The problem occurs when theists make the jump from "there was a prime mover" to "that prime mover must be our god". As I said, the former statement alone does not come close to justifying the latter. This, more often than not, is where the difference between theists and "some scientists" occurs. One group makes far more assumptions than the other.

Really, some of the arguments in this thread are so quibblingly petty that it makes me ashamed to be an atheist. Maybe I should just call myself a misotheist and have done with it.

Also very shallow and pedantic.

Get out of here, Griffin.

 

[comradesean]

I find your post inconsiderate and ignorant. What did I state as fact?

I am definitely inconsiderate, but then so is this whole thread. Well, Shift is primarily responsible for the "shifting" of this thread from bad to worse.
And if you honestly think that arguing that my god is supernatural so he's more believable than anything you can possible make up so you should believe what I do is the greatest arguement to change people's minds then I'm not really sure how you also expect us to believe that religion is such a good alternative to the lack of religion. In fact, it pretty much makes me think that religion makes you stupid.

Go ahead and believe what you want. I don't even mind that you tell us what you believe on the internet, but can you hold your tongue just once when there's a currently inexplicable or unsolvable question put before you? Using "God" or "God did it" as answers for questions is quite possibly one of the most annoying things Christianity has ever done for humanity.

And the rest of this thread is just basically just a bunch of bible thumping and bible bashing all as a result of some moron who decided to claim as if he had undeniable proof that God was the catalyst for creating the universe. Sure. You can pretend you know everything already, but I also know you're an idiot. (This isn't directed to anyone in particular. Just so ya know.)

 

[No Limit]

And we go back to our original point. Why is this a problem? It serves as a good enough explanation for the time being, and the morals it comes with are sensible enough, so why not use God as an explanation?

Why was the concept of seeing all the kingdoms of the world a metaphor while bringing Jesus to the mountain wasn't?

It boils down to you deciding what is metaphor and what isn't. You are deciding what you will believe and what you won't believe. I'm tired of having this discussion with you so I'll just leave it at this point.

It's clear the entire bible is just a bunch of fairy tales with imagery that makes no rational sense yet people will still claim the bible is infalible. Then people pick and choose which parts they will believe, which parts they will actually follow and which parts they will totally ignore. And even though the people that believe this shit might be very smart otherwise believing this crap is totally ****ing retarded (I know, I shouldn't say that based on our last religious discussion, but thats exactly what it is as we just saw).

 

[Shift]

Then people pick and choose which parts they will believe, which parts they will actually follow and which parts they will totally ignore.

I don't, and anyone who does shouldn't be called a christian.

 

[Eejit]

Basically people believe in the Christian God because the Bibles describes him and in a feat of circular reasoning says that the Bible is an infallible work attributed to said God. Therefore treating any part of the book as incorrect or 'made up' undermines the entire thing.

Fairytales are fine, and people can believe them if they want if they keep it to themselves. The problem is hundreds of millions of religious folk who want to deny women the choice as to whether to continue a pregnancy. Or deny scientists the chance to research life-saving treatments based on stem-cells. Or denounce certain sexual orientations as an 'abomination'.
While I'm only giving examples related to Christianity given the direction this thread has gone there are similar problems resulting from the beliefs of other religions too. Even the supposedly most benign, Buddhism, results in the suffering of countless animals as followers often refuse to euthanise sick pets or livestock for whom the only recourse is a merciful release simply because they believe it will count towards them being reincarnated as a being high up the ladder.

I don't, and anyone who does shouldn't be called a christian.

So you take every part of the Bible literally? Homosexuality is an abomination? As is consuming shellfish?

 

[Shift]

Well no more so on the New Testament side of things. Jesus reformed it essentially so the New Testament is where most of the references are taken from.

 

[No Limit]

 

[Druckles]

I am definitely inconsiderate, but then so is this whole thread. Well, Shift is primarily responsible for the "shifting" of this thread from bad to worse.

Shift did nothing but state his beliefs. It wasn't him who started the argument.

And if you honestly think that arguing that my god is supernatural so he's more believable than anything you can possible make up so you should believe what I do is the greatest arguement to change people's minds then I'm not really sure how you also expect us to believe that religion is such a good alternative to the lack of religion.

You're sounding more and more ignorant as you go on.

Primarily, I never asked for anyone to change their mind. You came up with that idea on your own.

Secondly, you keep talking about religion, when we're not talking about a specific body or organisation, here. We're talking about beliefs.

Also also never said anything about 'my god' or arguments for or against. Clearly I don't "honestly think that arguing such and such will make you change your mind". I'm not sure where you got that idea from. To me it looks like you saw a religion debate, picked one of the sides, pointed at the other and spouted generic anti-religion nonsense.

In fact, it pretty much makes me think that religion makes you stupid.

Now you're being directly offensive. Implying that I'm stupid. I'm not entirely sure why.

I don't even mind that you tell us what you believe on the internet

Can you hold your tongue just once when there's a currently inexplicable or unsolvable question put before you?

So you do mind. You just contradicted yourself. I'm not sure if you noticed.

Using "God" or "God did it" as answers for questions is quite possibly one of the most annoying things Christianity has ever done for humanity.

Then don't believe it. No-one asked you to. Some people find it comforting. If you don't, then don't believe it and leave it alone. Saying "what you believe is annoying and I think you're an idiot" is just argumentative and more unconstructive than declaring God did anything.

And the rest of this thread is just basically just a bunch of bible thumping and bible bashing all as a result of some moron who decided to claim as if he had undeniable proof that God was the catalyst for creating the universe.

No he didn't. He said that he didn't think it was possible that God didn't do it.

The idea of ANYTHING appears from nothing, never mind something like the universe, I find absurd quite frankly.

I find its make much more sense logically to suggest a higher creator

See? He even used the words "I find", as if it was an opinion, not indisputable evidence.

Take it how you will.

Oh, I guess he opened up a whole can of worms by saying that. I don't think he meant it literally. At least, not to you.

Sure. You can pretend you know everything already

No, you can have faith in an answer which otherwise couldn't possibly be answered by our generation. See previous posts.

but I also know you're an idiot.

No. There's that word, again! 'Know'. Do we need a lesson, here?

(This isn't directed to anyone in particular. Just so ya know.)

Except you quoted me and mentioned Shift explicitly.

Also, you didn't answer my question. What did I state as fact?

It boils down to you deciding what is metaphor and what isn't.

That's what I said. Belief's a personal thing. Anyone who says otherwise, is probably being silly.

A religion is something which states which parts of the bible are metaphor and which aren't. That's where things have been going wrong for centuries.

*Jackson eating popcorn*

You're at least the third person to have posted that in this thread. The point was made.

 

[No Limit]

Well no more so on the New Testament side of things. Jesus reformed it essentially so the New Testament is where most of the references are taken from.

Did Jesus say the old testament would no longer apply? Do you actually pay attention in church? Because he said they do apply:

Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished.

So why do you think eating shell fish is ok?

 

[Shift]

I know what he said, but the Law is not the Old Testament at all, where Christianity is concerned the Law is the Ten Commandments, that's what he was referring to.

 

[No Limit]

What? The law is not the old testament but the ten commandments? What in the world gives you that idea?

http://www.greatcom.org/resources/reasons_skeptics/ch_06/default.htm

 

[Shift]

Because they are the fundamental values of which the moral code of Christianity is based on. Not to mention when he says he was there to 'fulfill' them, he meant himself personally, because no other man could, because we were plagued with sin. By dieing on the cross it meant that humanity didn't have to anymore, only faith in himself and his death would grant you salvation.

 

[Druckles]

That website said "most modern scholars think Jesus wrote the first chapters of the Old Testament"

 

[Shift]

That website said "most modern scholars think Jesus wrote the first chapters of the Old Testament"

And yeh exactly, I'd look towards better sources next time.

Shift did nothing but state his beliefs. It wasn't him who started the argument.

Indeed. Typical atheist assumption that is although I will say most atheists on here are generally tactful when it comes to these kind of discussions now. I merely stated what I thought on the topic subject and low and behold I get about 6+ members attacking what I said. I wasn't bothered but I will defend my points but I certainly didn't cause this escalation. But that's why I cannot take atheists who talk of morality seriously, because you get people like comradesean who call people moron's because of their beliefs.

 

[comradesean]

Bunch of bullshit I stopped reading when I realized you're just here to argue

Yes, I do mind when you claim God created the universe because of (insert stupid reason here). That's not you stating an opinion. That's you stating opinion as fact.
I don't even care about whatever tangent you're arguing with the others about right now, in fact I pointed out that most of my arguement was with Shift being a complete dumbass.

If I REALLY have to explain it to you like a child then how about this? You have no ****ing proof (a) God did this. We'd rather look for proof. Get over it.

So you do mind. You just contradicted yourself. I'm not sure if you noticed.

I'm not really sure how one can even contradict himself in the same sentence when the very point of that sentence was to point out that telling me quite plainly that God created the universe because there's no other explainable answer is not telling me you're a christian or you think God probably did it. It's outright trying to convince me there's no other way it could have been created. There's no opinion there. Just misinformation.

 

[No Limit]

Because they are the fundamental values of which the moral code of Christianity is based on. Not to mention when he says he was there to 'fulfill' them, he meant himself personally, because no other man could, because we were plagued with sin. By dieing on the cross it meant that humanity didn't have to anymore, only faith in himself and his death would grant anyone salvation.

Where did Jesus say that by law he meant the 10 commandments only? He said in the quote I just gave you that whatever the law is it will be holy until the day there is no such thing as heaven and hell. And until Jesus the old testament was the law, correct?

And infact that quote totally destroys your argument:

Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished

NOT THE SMALLEST LETTER OR STROKE shall pass away from law. Seems kind of silly to give all that emphasis about something that is only a few words if he was really just talking about the 10 commendments. And why didn't he just come out and say that?

Just a side question. Have you ever worked on Sunday? Do you go to church each and every Sunday?

 

[Druckles]

I'm here to argue? You are guilty of:

1. Not reading the thread.
2. Not reading my posts.
3. Ignoring responses.
4. Insulting members.
5. Making wild accusations.
6. Contradicting yourself.
7. General trolling.

Yes, I do mind when you claim God created the universe because of (insert stupid reason here).

Well you'll be surprised to hear, then, that I never once in this entire thread claimed that God created the universe. For that matter, I never once implied he existed.

That's not you stating an opinion. That's you stating opinion as fact.

No-one here stated it as fact.

I don't even care about whatever tangent you're arguing with the others about right now, in fact I pointed out that most of my arguement was with Shift being a complete dumbass.

And that's exactly what I'm arguing against. He did nothing no average, respectful Christian would do. He stated his belief and then attempted to defend it when he was attacked.

You sir, on the other hand, are attacking him for no reason other than your own satisfaction.

If I REALLY have to explain it to you like a child then how about this? You have no ****ing proof (a) God did this. We'd rather look for proof. Get over it.

You failed abysmally in explaining that as if I was a child. For a start, you tried to swear at me. Not a good move, when talking to children. Secondly, you started a list and didn't even have a second point. Do you have any idea how silly that is? Thirdly, it didn't make much sense, anyway.

I'm not really sure how one can even contradict himself in the same sentence when the very point of that sentence was to point out that telling me quite plainly that God created the universe because there's no other explainable answer is not telling me you're a christian or you think God probably did it.

Use punctuation and separate your sentences out. It becomes pretty illegible otherwise.

One can easily contradict oneself in the same sentence no matter the point one is trying to make.

For someone who argues about Christians being ignorant, stupid and idiots, you're a pretty ignorant atheist yourself.

It's outright trying to convince me there's no other way it could have been created. There's no opinion there. Just misinformation.

Correct. You are misinformed that I made any argument towards how the universe was created.

 

[comradesean]

Stuff

Alright, so I got over the fact that you just skimmed my post to rant and gave yours a another read over. You're right, that I chose the wrong posts to comment on and in my defense it's hard to keep track of everything in a thread this large. But I'm sorry. *hugs*

I suggest you take my comments as sarcasm instead of pointing out that I wrote "lawlidiot" and ignoring the context. The point wasn't to be insulting, but to point out that if you're doing or going to be doing something stupid, then I've already pointed it out. Just pointing out the contradictions and the fact that I wrote, "Idiot" only emphasis the fact that you didn't even read them.

I'll just finish this by stating my opinion. Go ahead and speak about your religion. It's cool. But just stay away when the Big Boys discuss science. k? Thanks.

Other Stuff

Yeah, not even gonna read that because we both know you're just arguing about my last post which I have already proclaimed to be incorrect. Thanks!

 

[Shift]

NOT THE SMALLEST LETTER OR STROKE shall pass away from law. Seems kind of silly to give all that emphasis about something that is only a few words if he was really just talking about the 10 commendments. And why didn't he just come out and say that?

Just a side question. Have you ever worked on Sunday? Do you go to church each and every Sunday?

'not the smallest letter or stroke until everything is acomplished'. You are putting things in brackets next to these words as if you think you know what he is talking about, but you just keep getting it wrong. What do you think he meant by 'until all is accomplished'? Until he set out to do what he himself had to do, to die on the cross for humanity so he could 'fulfill' all the Laws. And well he could have meant all the Laws that the Jews at the time followed too, its opened to debate.

Please stop trying to trip me up on Biblical terms because your understanding of the Bible is weak I'm afraid. And yes, I go to church every sunday, not because I have to, but because I like learning more about my faith, and because the people there are really friendly and I get on with them a lot.

 

[No Limit]

Have you ever worked on Sunday? And you never missed church on Sunday, not once?

And I'm not misquoting anything as you just suggested, I am quoting Matthew 5:18 who you said is one of the greatest historias ever. He says:

I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

You seem to think that the meaning of "until everything is accomplished" isn't clear. What is not clear about it? The sentance begins with "until heaven and earth disappear". Has earth and heaven disappeared?

I'm not trying to trip you up, I'm just asking you questions.

So again, what was law before jesus christ? Was the entire old testament law or was it just the 10 commendments?

Obviously it was the entire old testament. So you need to show me where in the new testament Jesus specifically says that when he mentions law he only talks about the 10 commendments. Otherwise your understanding of your own faith is wrong.

 

[Shift]

Well all he says is 'the Law', so that pretty much open to debate about what he means. Although just speaking to someone who's been Christian longer than I have and she said he means all the laws of old, basically the Jews at the time made all these ancient laws that you had to follow to word. And all laws made within the Old Testament. Jesus made it his personal mission to 'fulfill' all these laws himself because humanity couldn't, and by dieing on the cross ('everything is accomplished'), he made so that humanity didn't need to follow any of these laws anymore.

In a nutshell.

 

[RidleyRockets]

You seem to think that the meaning of "until everything is accomplished" isn't clear. What is not clear about it?

This is when Jesus accomplished everything.

 

[No Limit]

Well all he says is 'the Law', so that pretty much open to debate about what he means. Although just speaking to someone who's been Christian longer than I have and she said he means all the laws of old, basically the Jews at the time made all these ancient laws that you had to follow to word. And all laws made within the Old Testament. Jesus made it his personal mission to 'fulfill' all these laws himself because humanity couldn't, and by dieing on the cross ('everything is accomplished'), he made so that humanity didn't need to follow any of these laws anymore.

In a nutshell.

I don't care what your christian friend says. I am asking you. And the question I am asking you is about a direct quote from someone you called the greatest historian ever.

What the "law" is is perfectly clear. Before christ what was law? Was it just the 10 commendments or was it the entire old testament? The answer to that is clear, it was the old testament. So unless you have somewhere in the new testament that jesus said only the 10 commendments apply or only the 10 commendments are law then according to Matthew you are not following your religion properly.

You keep going back to "everything accomplished" yet you ignore the begining of that very sentance that explain what it is to accomplish everything, "until heaven and earth don't exist". There is no ambiguity about that sentance, it's perfectly clear. Until heaven and earth no longer exist the old testament is law.

I look forward to your response as this is a really interesting discussion in my opinion, gives us all an opportunity to understand the bible more when we have someone like you that goes to church each and every sunday and can explain to us the things we see as contradictions in your faith.

 

[Shift]

That's not the clear answer at all, he just says 'the Law' which to my understanding he meant the Jewish Law at the time, which the Jews still follow to this day for some crazy reason. He was preaching to the Jews afterall.

 

[No Limit]

Yes, he meant jewish law. Thank you. Jewish law was the old testament.

So please, either admit he was saying that jewish law doesn't go away or show me in the new testament where he says only the 10 commendments apply.

If you can't do that then you agree that the old testament applies and if you ever ate shellfish in your life you commited an abomination.