Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Metacrock · 01-19-2005, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godfather

Matt 22:38 says: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind."

However in the Old Testament we see that Deuteronomy 6:5 says: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength."

:huh:

Looks like god feels just fine about changing his own laws even his "greatest commandment." Last I checked, strength and mind were different things.

WEll you know the NT writters used the LXX as their Bible. That was the Bible of the early chruch and it was in fact the Bible a great large percentrage of Palestinian Jews. So Matt is translatting Greek OT in to Greek and then to English (for modern production of "matthew") and the OT is coming from a differen set of texts (Masorectic) and from Hebrew to English.

Metacrock · 01-19-2005, 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Metacrock posts a huge amount of references, too many to check (as he knows), so I just took one at random....

I'm just no damn good!

Quote:

Leviticus 19
20 " 'If a man sleeps with a woman who is a slave girl promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment. Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed. 21 The man, however, must bring a ram to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting for a guilt offering to the LORD . 22 With the ram of the guilt offering the priest is to make atonement for him before the LORD for the sin he has committed, and his sin will be forgiven.

Where is the woman given the benefit of the doubt in that passage?

deut. 22:

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death-the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

Again Metacrock posts a load of crock. There is no 'benefit of the doubt' here. The girl is not killed if she is raped in the countryside.

well duh. You think maybe the bit above that says "do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin..." just might be a benifit of a doubt? Maybe?

what's wrong with you man?

Quote:

But she would be killed if the rape took place elsewhere.

\

does it say that? Is that the first law of atheist hermeneutics: thou shalt be a legalistic and litteralistic as possible.

Remember this is just one thing taken at random. I don't have time for the rest.

O yea that's suppossed to prove that if we look hard we will find a bunch of other enstances where you miss the obvious!

Quote:

David Irving was only tracked down by meticulous examination of sources.

apologists know that if they spew out enough, nobody will have time to check it all.

Right, but knee jerk atheists like Barker never do that do they? So 10,000 Bible contradiction lists are just serious scholarship, right? pull the other one!

Miller (who Metacrock regurgitates) doesn't seem to write in less than 100K....

Miller, who is counted as my friend, and I'm proud to know...

Quote:

Only a theists can think that killing more people was a step forward.

(1) I'm not a theist

(2) where does that come from? what does that have to do with anything

(3) those are brownshirt tacticks.

Metacrock · 01-19-2005, 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slojodan

In Response to Metacrock's post, it is true that there were elaborations on the laws orally, though the Mishnah cannot be certain to be certain representation of them. The point is though, that eaither way polygamy and remarriage was not a sin in either of them. You can say from your texts that monogamy was the norm, and only the rich had multiple wives, but that doesn't change that it was completely accepted as within the law in Judaism. So Jesus making remarriage a sin still IS a change in the law, which was forbidden.

Building a fense around the law was a valid tacktic for Jews. I am also wililng to bet that it was a sin in Heterodox circles such as the essenes.

Quote:

And I noticed you had nothing to say about Jesus's abolishment of the dietary restrictions. I guess there is no real rebuttle for that besides the usual "He didn't change it, he fulfilled it!"

What dietary is laws does Jesus clearly say "Hey, that's not the way anymore?" There really aren't any. It was to Peter that God showed the vision about the sheet full of animals and said they are not unclean. That wasn't to Jesus.

Paul says that the commands of Moseic purity shouldn't be put on uncircumcized Christians but they should abstaine from idols, and the chruch concil adds also from blood.

the direct implication is that both Jesus and Paul understood that a valid kosher practicing Judaism still existed as was within God's plan. The Gentiles are under grace and not required to keep it becuase they dont' identfy with Israel's cultural heritage. The Jews are saved by Grace but can keep the law out of respect.

Calzaer · 01-19-2005, 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by metacrock

(3) those are brownshirt tacticks.

Goodwin's Law. You loose.

Jack the Bodiless · 01-19-2005, 03:56 AM

Metacrock, where are you getting that translation of Leviticus 19:20?

From the KJV:

Quote:

Leviticus 19:20 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.

19:21 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering.

19:22 And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.

SLUGFly · 01-19-2005, 05:01 AM

Christianity vs. Judaism on an atheist website... lmao, this is rich.

Being the arrogant prick that I am, I'd like to add to the dust and kicking.

When the law was given in the Torah and further modified in the books to come, it made sense. It was right. Pigs are dirty animals, shellfish are dirty animals, scavengers are extremely dirty. Eating these animals will make one sick (very high probability). Likewise, sleeping with your neighbour's wife may lead to death or severe beatings. These were appropriate rules.

The pharisees focused on the words (the written word of the Hebrews being the genius and poetry that it was) and lost touch with the reasoning. Jesus pointed this out. Once cooking food became common, people didn't get sick so often from eating pig or shellfish (I can't now think of any land scavenger that we eat today). So eating shellfish and pig were pointless rules. Not working on the sabbath was a pointless rule, saving sacrificial food to be burnt up and wasted was a pointless rule. Jesus pointed that out and illustrated, taught, that rules were not law but guidelines for happy, healthy and generally good living.

2000 years later we're again caught into focusing on the words and not the reasoning. Waiting for marriage is no longer necessary. Abstaining from sex or drugs is no longer necessary, avoiding foods and "foreign gods" (ie. cultures) is no longer necessary, mass is no longer necessary (and quite detrimental), tithes are no longer necessary... We need to abandon the whole superstitious nonsense and focus on what god (or God, or G-d, or Allah, or Jesus, or Jebus, or whoever it's preferred) originally wanted which was for us to have a happy, healthy and productive life.

When my cat was a kitten I wouldn't let him go outside, that was the rule. He's bigger now, he knows to stay away from cars and he knows how to find his way back to the door or window... the rule is no longer relevent and I as my cat's keeper, provider, all but creator, now ignore the rule.

Vorkosigan · 01-19-2005, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Only a theists can think that killing more people was a step forward.

Let's refrain from making blanket attacks on whole populations, please

Vorkosigan
mod

Godfather · 01-19-2005, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metacrock

WEll you know the NT writters used the LXX as their Bible. That was the Bible of the early chruch and it was in fact the Bible a great large percentrage of Palestinian Jews. So Matt is translatting Greek OT in to Greek and then to English (for modern production of "matthew") and the OT is coming from a differen set of texts (Masorectic) and from Hebrew to English.

Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this [is] the first commandment.

It seems like they were able to translate it just fine in Mark. Although you would expect to have differing quotes from a man made Jesus. :huh:

-Godfather

Godfather · 01-19-2005, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLUGFly

We need to abandon the whole superstitious nonsense and focus on what god (or God, or G-d, or Allah, or Jesus, or Jebus, or whoever it's preferred) originally wanted which was for us to have a happy, healthy and productive life.

You make an excellent point SLUGFly. This is the best post I have seen in a while.

-Godfather

Chili · 01-19-2005, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slojodan

I'm not sure where' youre getting your purpose of the law from, but it was quite clear in the Old Testament that the rules were not to convict sin, but to DEFINE sin. Of course there was punishments listed in there, but the rules are the rules. And you can say that without fulfillment sin can exist in heaven, but in the end, you still sinned buddy. You may not be punished for it, but the sinners are still in heaven,.

A clear definition is needed for sin to be known for which the law must be written upon the human heart as if in stone, true, but against which sin must be made known to the believer so that the law can convict the sinner. Just go to Gal.3:17 where Paul said that "in seeking to be justified we are convicted to be sinners," to make justification the purpose of the Law and therefore salvation the fulfillment of the Law.

No, there is no sin in heaven or it would be as flat as the world. Sinners get buried first while the saved go to heaven first and then get buried . . . to make heaven a place on earth with the Thousand Year Reign the equivalent of life eternal between our first and second death.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-19-2005, 05:01 AM	#26
SLUGFly Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: South Korea Posts: 74	Christianity vs. Judaism on an atheist website... lmao, this is rich. Being the arrogant prick that I am, I'd like to add to the dust and kicking. When the law was given in the Torah and further modified in the books to come, it made sense. It was right. Pigs are dirty animals, shellfish are dirty animals, scavengers are extremely dirty. Eating these animals will make one sick (very high probability). Likewise, sleeping with your neighbour's wife may lead to death or severe beatings. These were appropriate rules. The pharisees focused on the words (the written word of the Hebrews being the genius and poetry that it was) and lost touch with the reasoning. Jesus pointed this out. Once cooking food became common, people didn't get sick so often from eating pig or shellfish (I can't now think of any land scavenger that we eat today). So eating shellfish and pig were pointless rules. Not working on the sabbath was a pointless rule, saving sacrificial food to be burnt up and wasted was a pointless rule. Jesus pointed that out and illustrated, taught, that rules were not law but guidelines for happy, healthy and generally good living. 2000 years later we're again caught into focusing on the words and not the reasoning. Waiting for marriage is no longer necessary. Abstaining from sex or drugs is no longer necessary, avoiding foods and "foreign gods" (ie. cultures) is no longer necessary, mass is no longer necessary (and quite detrimental), tithes are no longer necessary... We need to abandon the whole superstitious nonsense and focus on what god (or God, or G-d, or Allah, or Jesus, or Jebus, or whoever it's preferred) originally wanted which was for us to have a happy, healthy and productive life. When my cat was a kitten I wouldn't let him go outside, that was the rule. He's bigger now, he knows to stay away from cars and he knows how to find his way back to the door or window... the rule is no longer relevent and I as my cat's keeper, provider, all but creator, now ignore the rule.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.