The Dangers of Religious moderation

Nice video, and lesson here to be learnt is, if you don't want your religion to be criticized by people around you, get out of your lazy bum and start doing good to people!

And at the end of the day, if you don't do any good but evil deeds like Al Qaeda, the only thing that suffers is you and your God because people might think, "How can a christian/muslim behave like that? I think their gods are evil."
 
delusional said:
Hey, I'm atheist and i still made arguments for the bible. Of course i was just doing that for fun. I don't think the arguments I've made in the past were nonsense, but actually allowed you to find flaws in your argument and alter it, thus making it stronger. Am i right?
Click to expand...

Well exactly, and I appreciate it very much to have my argument challenged. Otherwise I would not be here.
In case folks haven't noticed, I am also an atheist who argues in favor of following the bible.

The problem in this particular case, however, is that Kadayi is consistently using flawed arguments (ones without any evidence) that, because they are flawed, don't enrich the topic.
And he continues to repeat those same arguments even after they have been disproven.

As I said, I don't care who argues in favor of the bible, but he comes across as more of a christian fundamentalist than the real christians fundamentalists I've spoken to.
There is far more angry determination and flawed logic going on then in my recent discussion with Walter on the same subject.

Basically we're talking about Clarky sort of thinking, where you just say whatever you imagine to be true without supporting it with documentation in any way.

I'm sorry if you do not enjoy being called a liar, Kadayi. But without any providing any evidence, I am afraid that's the only conclusion to draw; you said that you already understand the full bible, so these errors should not be occuring unless they are intentional.


Its deuteronomy 4:2
You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the one that was broken when Kadayi was saying the bible was dead and obsolete, reduced to an instruction manual for ancient jews. Although that's what it was in reality, it's rather obvious that the laws do not describe themselves as such.

Jesus was sneaky though, because he didn't overtly add any laws. All he did was make it against the law to think about sinning, instead of just waiting for the action to occur.

That's why he said he had come down to "fulfil" (fully preach) the bible. People were following the laws, but Jesus declared that the laws are worthless without faith. Jesus said, effectively, that you must follow the laws in body and in mind.

It's basically the same as Numbers when he says the legal system isn't good enough, since we could have blind subservience to the state.

(You are correct, however, that Jesus and his followers broke many of his own rules. The Parisees make note of this as well in the bible.
However, God in both the old and new testaments, always lends special favors to his most devout followers.
A basic unwritten rule is that the rules don't apply to God, and God often goes easy on people he meets in person.)
 
Kadayi Polokov said:
Incidentally in your previous to last post are you trying to argue that the Old Testament isn't the Hebrew Bible, simply because it doesn't say so within the Bible itself?

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

I mean beyond the arrangement of the chapters and the merging of kings the Old Testament is identical to the Hebrew Tanakh in terms of it's content and messages.
Click to expand...

It is not identical, because one has all of Jesus' teachings added onto it.
Jesus says the entire bible must be followed by all men everywhere forever.

You are arguing that we should ignore what the bible says, in favor of a peaceful reality.
That is also what Faizu is saying:
Ignore the bible, follow secular laws, and peace will happen.

That philosophy is not found in the bible. You admit that.
You invented it yourself based on the secular study of history and your own personal opinions.
The bible does not say the bible is obsolete. You say it should be obsolete.

So, your argument that morality comes from the bible is flawed.
Your personal morality comes from research and evidence, even if they are used incorrectly or inadequately in this case.
 
Can you show me the passages in the Old Testament where these teachings of Jesus have been added? Because I'm only interested in knowing at this stage whether what the Christians would call the Old Testament is different from the Hebrew Bible within it's own content (not from without).

The guys at the wiki seem pretty adamant that it's practically identical in terms of actual content.

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

Also can you cite me chapter and verse where Jesus says the entire bible must be followed by all men everywhere forever without exception.

Less speculation as to what you think I think and more focus on providing straight answers please. Old Testament and Hebrew Bible the same text and dialogue yes/no?
 
Kadayi Polokov said:
Can you show me the passages in the Old Testament where these teachings of Jesus have been added? Because I'm only interested in knowing at this stage whether what the Christians would call the Old Testament is different from the Hebrew Bible within it's own content (not from without).

The guys at the wiki seem pretty adamant that it's practically identical in terms of actual content.

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

Also can you cite me chapter and verse where Jesus says the entire bible must be followed by all men everywhere forever without exception.

Less speculation as to what you think I think and more focus on providing straight answers please. Old Testament and Hebrew Bible the same text and dialogue yes/no?
Click to expand...
He's done this a thousand times already.
 
Apparently Matthew 5:19, in the larger context of 5:17-21 is difficult to understand,
BECAUSE THIS IS THE FOURTH OR FIFTH TIME I HAVE REPEATED THIS INFORMATION. :O

As is (apparently the concept of Jesus's teachings being added onto the old ones, to create a whole work known as "The Bible" that christians must read and follow.

With two important concepts so difficult to figure out, will anyone be able to decypher them?

Will anyone figure out these incredibly complex ideas???
 
Can you show me the passages in the Old Testament where these teachings of Jesus have been added? Because I'm only interested in knowing at this stage whether what the Christians would call the Old Testament is different from the Hebrew Bible within it's own content (not from without). If nothing has been added directly, then the book as singular work within itself has to be the same.
 
We do not live in a magical world where the testaments are not connected by the word of Christ.

You are creating a nonsense scenario.

You are saying "what if we were in a world where everything I'm saying isn't wrong?"
We don't live in such a place. We are talking about reality.

In reality, Christians must follow the Old Testament.

The origins of the testament are not relevant, as you have failed to prove them relevant in any way.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
We do not live in a magical world where the testaments are not connected by the word of Christ.

You are creating a nonsense scenario.

You are saying "what if we were in a world where everything I'm saying isn't wrong?"
We don't live in such a place. We are talking about reality.

In reality, Christians must follow the Old Testament.

The origins of the testament are not relevant, as you have failed to prove them relevant in any way.
Click to expand...

I was always under the understanding that the Old Testament law was for the nation of Israel, not to Christians.

this is what I have been taught my entire life, and this site sums it up pretty well.

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

Question: "Do Christians have to obey the Old Testament law?"



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


In place of the Old Testament law, we are under the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2) which is to, ?Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments? (Matthew 22:37-40). If we do these two things, we will be fulfilling all that Christ wants for us to do, ?This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome? (1 John 5:3). Technically, the Ten Commandments are not even applicable to Christians. However, 9 of the Ten Commandments are repeated in the New Testament (all except the command to observe the Sabbath day).Obviously, if we are loving God we won't be worshipping other gods or worshipping idols. If we are loving our neighbors, we won't be murdering them, lying to them, committing adultery against them, or coveting what belongs to them. So, we are not under any of the requirements of the Old Testament law. We are to love God and love our neighbors. If we do those two things faithfully, everything else will fall into place.
Click to expand...

Romans 10:4 (New International Version)
4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
Click to expand...

Galatians 3:23-25 (New International Version)
23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ[a] that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
Click to expand...

Ephesians 2:15 (New International Version)
15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace,
Click to expand...



So now, intead of being under the Old Testament law, we are under the Law of Christ...

Galatians 6:2 (New International Version)
2Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.
Click to expand...

Matthew 22:37-40 (New International Version)
37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
Click to expand...


1 John 5:3 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
3This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome
Click to expand...
 
oh my you didnt join just to defend religion did you? no offense new people but get the **** out ..tired of newbs jumpng in with their two cents at the invitation of one of our members ..if you're inviting people to side with you stop ..it's happened before and almost led to the closure of the politics forum ..so do us all a favour; if you have no intention of being a part of this community we dont want you
 
Stern's harsh but frankly fair there.
It's one thing to be a newb-ite and appear in a discussion.

It's altogether different when you clearly haven't read the thread you're posting in, and your post is just cut-and-paste from some website.
It helps to actually participate in a discussion, not just broadcast inanities.

I've already shown that that specific doctrine, written by Paul of Tarsus, is false prophecy because it is in direct conflict with the teachings of Jesus and the rest of the bible at large.


Stern, however: don't be freaking out on a guy just because of a low postcount. If he's disruptive (which he was in this case) then mods will deal with it.
 
nah I'm not freakin out (secretly i'm trying to determine if it's knghenry) ..just dont like it when peeps join at the request of someone else or just because they support a particular issue ..remember the Protestwannabewarriors? we dont want that again

but if he has legitimate reasons for being here, besides to defend his faith, I have no problem
 
I don't see any evidence that he was recruited to show up, and the entire point of the discussion, for a religious person, is to defend their faith.

As long as they do a good job of it and not just ramble incoherently (Kadayi), then I personally welcome them to participate.
 
I'm bored so i thought i'll debunk the verses techsupport brought up for more clarification why Paul is a Liar.

Romans 10:4 (New International Version)
Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
Click to expand...

This ones fairly easy to debunk since in the Old Testament has many verses that say the Law does not end. Such as

Numbers 15:22-23 (New International Version)
Now if you unintentionally fail to keep any of these commands the LORD gave Moses- any of the LORD's commands to you through him, from the day the LORD gave them and continuing through the generations to come-
Click to expand...
The second part of the verse can be disproved by James 2:19

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that?and shudder.
Click to expand...

This tells us that even the demons believe in God, but is evil righteous?

now heres the second verse you had

Galatians 3:23-25 (New International Version)
23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
Click to expand...

Are we justified by Faith? Well James thinks otherwise.
James 2:20-24 (New International Version)

20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
Click to expand...


Now onto the third verse you presented

Ephesians 2:15 (New International Version)
15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace,
Click to expand...

Cant think of any rebuttal other than Matthew 5:17-20, which is always brought up by Mecha and verses in the Old Testament that say the Law is forever. This can also be supplemented in Matthew chapter 4 when the Devil tempts Jesus in some mountain. Since Jesus defends himself using verses from deuteronomy, the Law. Now why would he be using a book that would become obsolete in the near future?

I do have a question for the people who are defending the bible though. that is why havent you used the Gospel of John? I know Mecha would debunk it since its pretty much Paulian theology, but it is an account of Jesus.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
We do not live in a magical world where the testaments are not connected by the word of Christ.
Click to expand...

I'm asking you is the text in the Old Testament the very same text that makes up the Hebrew Bible? There is no elaboration or speculation beyond it required at this stage. It's a very straight question that requires a very straight answer, nothing more at present.
 
It is obviously similar- but you wouldn't mention something so obvious unless you plan on elaborating, and I can see those gears turning.

You are trying to say that since the old testament is similar to Jewish laws, it only applies to Jews.

That's faulty logic, so don't even try it.

American law is similar to International law.
That does not mean that only americans must follow international laws!

If you weren't going to try that poor logic, then good work.

But if you were, then read up on logical fallacies, or at least try not to let it happen again.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
You are trying to say that since the old testament is similar to Jewish laws, it only applies to Jews.
Click to expand...

No, the agreements God sets down for Noah following the great flood that all his descendants should follow are applicable for all men to follow. But all the laws in Exodus and Deuteronomy are those directed wholly at the Israelites to follow as Gods priests in the holy nation he has set aide from them.
 
I'm afraid you haven't provided any evidence from the bible to support such a statement, despite th fact that I have refuted it repeatedly.
 
Why would a rulebook for staff need a disclaimer to say it's rules don't apply to non-staff? If the scripture can't be broken and it's rules can't be disregarded then how can they possibly be reinterpreted to apply to a wider audience beyond those to whom it was originally decreed and given?
 
You haven't shown that the rules only apply to a limited audience, so this is not a valid question yet.

First, please define the exact limits of the rules, as supported by scriptural references.
 
I bored of quote wars with you when you started concocting paragraphs out of disparate sentences from differing chapters. Regardless of what you personally think, the rest of the world seem to have no problem acknowledging that the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament are in fact one and the same, and that the vast majority of Laws it contains are bound solely to the conduct of the Israelites as a people through Gods Covenant with them.
 
Well if it's that bleedingly obvious, then it shouldn't be so difficult for you to prove the least of the things you say.

Also, try to avoid appeals to authority, like the one you just made.
That's fallacious logic.

Finally, if you are apathetic about a discussion, please refrain from posting in it.
 
The rest of the world also seems to have no problem thinking "your" and "you're" are interchangeable.

So hop to it, Kadayi. You've got some statements to back up.
 
You've already said that repeatedly, but it doesn't mean anything when christianity was intentionally built around the teachings of the hebrew bible.

Please, prove that the old testament is obsolete, because jesus said it isn't, and I trust jesus more than you.
 
If the scripture cannot be broken and the law cannot be reinterpreted how can any laws laid down for the Israelites to follow exclusively in the OT remotely be applicable to Gentiles? God clearly gave those laws to the Israelites. According to your own words God cannot be wrong. It follows that if God cannot be wrong, then his words go beyond question or interpretation. If the words are only for Israelites, no Gentile can be bound by them.
 
You are having a great deal of difficulty with a very simple point:

All people who are god's chosen people must follow the laws of the covenant.
Jews believe they are the true chosen people.
Christians believe they are the true chosen people.

All people who follow the bible are israelites by default, by their own definitions.

Do you understand?

Jesus says repeatedly that the laws of exodus apply to his followers. (Matthew 27:27-28, Matthew 5:21-22, Luke 19:27, etc.)
Jesus is correct, and therefore you are not.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
All people who follow the bible are israelites by default, by their own definitions.
Click to expand...

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

Who exactly are you trying to kid? The rest of the world clearly doesn't recognise your position at all :dozey:

If the best you can conjour up as a justification to your arguments is to once more propose a context free interpretation of Matthew (which has been through at least two translations in language let's be brutally honest here) and the idea that 'anyone' somehow invalidates all of Gods covenants wholesale within the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible you need to lay off the drugs. Within itself that very passage outlines the sanctity of the complete nature of those laws.

It doesn't take much of a leap of imagination to envisage that the audience to whom Jesus was talking to at the time was comprised solely of Israelites and he is effectively telling them to still honour their peoples traditions and not abandon them. Jesus wasn't broadcasting a national address to the whole world at the time. Context and common sense interpretation are everything.
 
Read your own link.

"At this point in time (722 BCE) the Israelite tribes living in the Kingdom of Judah melded into a single people from all the Israelite tribes."
"By the end of this era (539 BCE), members of the individual Israelite tribes seem to have abandoned their individual identities."

Israelite, as you use the term, is obsolete.
Due to intermarriage, it refers to all jewish peoples.

Christianity is - by the bible's design - synonymous with Messianic Judaism, whose followers are Israelites by their own definition.

Whether you'd like to deny it or not, there are only two options here:

A) "Israelite" has become a completely meaningless term and thus the jewish and christian religions are completely obsolete.

B) "Israelite" is not a meaningless term, and actually refers to any jewish or christian person, whether you like it or not.

:dozey: :dozey: :dozey: :dozey: :dozey: :dozey: :dozey: :dozey:

But seriously, I don't even know what your point is anymore.
You're focussing entirely on easy-to-disprove claims about minutiae, and ignoring that you are fundamentally agreeing with everything I say.

You're agreeing that either the religion is dead or people should start killing in its name.
 
Absinthe said:
Please stop with the appeals to authority/popularity.
Click to expand...

Why? In all seriousness if there was any substance to what Mecha promotes as valid, we'd be seeing it as the rule today. The Jews have gotten by for 2000+ years living under the rules of the Torah, it would of been no big thing for the Christian Churches to have taken up those traditions and incorporated them if there was any validity in doing so. These churches didn't start off as big affairs, they built momentum and numbers up over time. Easy enough to set down ground rules at the beginning.

Mecha can misquote and misrepresent the NT, the OT as much as he wants to support his position, but the plain truth is there is a distinct lack of real world evidence to support his position. He's taking A and B and proposing F, by conveniently sticking his fingers in his ears and ignoring C, D and E, because he is fixed on the idea of F being valid. F doesn't hold up under scrutiny, if you look at it either closely or at a distance.

"At this point in time (722 BCE) the Israelite tribes living in the Kingdom of Judah melded into a single people from all the Israelite tribes."
"By the end of this era (539 BCE), members of the individual Israelite tribes seem to have abandoned their individual identities."
Click to expand...

The Kingdoms were established after the events in Exodus. When God made his covenant with the Israelites in the OT they were one collective people.

You're agreeing that either the religion is dead or people should start killing in its name.
Click to expand...

Neither, because your arguments are wholly invalid and built entirely on sand and flim flam of the first order. Please feel free to astound the rest of the world by publishing a paper/book to argue your position (if Steven Grasse can get published you should have no trouble), but rest assured you've produced nothing so far to convince even a sceptical non-Christian like me that your ideas are remotely worth entertaining beyond ridicule. :dozey:
 
Kadayi Polokov said:
Why? In all seriousness if there was any substance to what Mecha promotes as valid, we'd be seeing it as the rule today. The Jews have gotten by for 2000+ years living under the rules of the Torah, it would of been no big thing for the Christian Churches to have taken up those traditions and incorporated them if there was any validity in doing so. These churches didn't start off as big affairs, they built momentum and numbers up over time. Easy enough to set down groud rules at the beginning.
Click to expand...

The most popular idea is not always the correct one. This has been demonstrated time and time again in practically every topic even remotely related to religion. All legitimate discourse requires a strong basis in reason and factual support.

There is no such thing as "religion with reason". Nor is there such a thing as legitimate evolution of religion. And so invoking the widespread opinion of Jews or any other majority is irrelevant and an indication of an absence of substantial argumentation on your part.

Centuries ago, the idea of the earth being round was dismissed by following your line of thinking. So please don't engage in it. All you're doing is throwing pejorative bursts of bile. You say Mecha is worthy of ridicule, and yet have thus far utterly failed at explaining why this is the case. All rhetoric.
 
proveitwithreligion.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top