Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Strawberry · 11-07-2002, 10:16 PM

I don't know if I'm in the right forum or not, but this seemed like the likeliest option. I have a sort of complicated question about how to deal with a particular xtian viewpoint.

An argument that my fundie relatives often use in defending the Bible is that the OT was kept in the canonical Bible because it shows us what life would have been like if God hadn't sent Jesus to save us. I.e., the NT is what the "current" word of God is. This is why NTs without their OT companions are so often handed out in attempt to convert people, and why churches focus on the NT so much more than the OT.

So. If they deny the fact that the OT needs to be observed except in cases where Jesus says it does (like the 10 commandments), how can I argue the inconsistencies of the OT vs. the NT, or even point out how ruthless and cruel the OT is? They'd gladly agree with me, but the argument would be that God's Chosen People weren't complete because they didn't yet have their savior, so God could ask them to be warlike and/or punish them with 400-year periods of slavery for not obeying, etc. So God made the Israelites slaughter the Amalekites (sp?) because Jesus wasn't here yet, and Jesus "saved" everyone from "having" to slaughter people. Jesus was the missing element in God's perfect plan, so before he came, God was all-powerful but not necessarily always benevolent; Jesus changed that, and that's why Jesus and Jesus' Word are so much more important than the rest of the Bible and why it's so important that we should be Saved.

Bear in mind that these people view the Crusades, Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, etc., as due to human error rather than God's will, so the fact that people are still metaphorically "slaughtering the Amalekites" is irrelevant.

I'd like to have some ammunition for the Xmas family reunion season.

Strawberry

P.S. Sorry about all the creepy xtian capitalizations, I just realized I put them in and I'm too lazy to go back and fix them all...old habits die hard.

rebelnerd · 11-07-2002, 11:15 PM

Quote:

<strong>Jesus was the missing element in God's perfect plan, so before he came, God was all-powerful but not necessarily always benevolent; Jesus changed that, and that's why Jesus and Jesus' Word are so much more important than the rest of the Bible...</strong>

How about this:

Is the NT god an different god than the OT?
Isn't jebus part of the trinity and therefore also god?
How can you have a missing element in a perfect plan?
When jebus arrived did god suddenly decide to change his/her self?
Isn't god omnipotent and omnibelevolent? If so, how could god change?

A few thoughts.

Filo

frostymama · 11-08-2002, 03:46 AM

where does Jesus say that the 10 commandments need to be observed? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Queen of Swords · 11-08-2002, 04:05 AM

I know he says something like, "Don't think I came to overthrow the law, I came to fulfil it".

11-08-2002, 04:30 AM

Jesus was a Jew himself. He followed those teachings.

Walter_Mitty · 11-08-2002, 05:35 AM

The Bible is like a big Walmart: There's something in it for everyone!

Try this one on them:

The Law of Moses including the 10 Commandments where fulfilled at Christ's death. Christians are now saved by Faith and Hope. Not by works or the law.

Then cite the following from the KJV Bible:

Romans 3;20--

"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets. Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference".

Romans 3:20-28--

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God."

Tell them that you conclude that Christians are saved by the law of faith and not by the deeds of following Mosaic law--including the 10 Commandments.

You can also show them the following verses: 2nd Corinthians 3:6-15, Galatians 3:19-25; 4:21-31; 5:1-5, 18; Ephians 2:15; Colosians. 2:14-17, Acts 15:5-29, and Hebrews 7:11,12 22,28; 8:6-18; 9:1, 9,10,15-22; 10:1-18.

Once you establish that the Old T has been totally replaced by the New T, then bring up Filo's points to them.

Basically, if Jebus is God and God is Jebus, how can God send itself to fullfil the Mosic Law? Also, saying that God was not benevolent until Jebus was sent here DOES NOT absolve God of all those cruelties!

Show them these verses:

Exodus 12:29

"At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead."

AND

Ezekiel 9: 4-6

And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem....let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women...."

The ask them to reconcile those attrocities with:

Dt.24:16
"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

AND

Jer.31:29-30

"In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity."

AND

Ezek.18:20

"The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."

Ask them to explain what sin could be SO horrible that would make a kind, just, and benevolent God have to kill innocent babies and children.

Also, according to Dt.24:16, the children are NOT to be put to death for the sins of father. Is God lying? It would seem so because He killed the first born of everyone in Egypt. (though the historical record of ancient Egypt shows no record of this event EVER happening)

[ November 08, 2002: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]</p>

Walter_Mitty · 11-08-2002, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Jesus was the missing element in God's perfect plan, so before he came, God was all-powerful but not necessarily always benevolent; Jesus changed that, and that's why Jesus and Jesus' Word are so much more important than the rest of the Bible and why it's so important that we should be Saved.

In light of the Trinity, this statement makes no sense. If God is Jebus and Jebus is God, how can Jebus be the missing element in God's perfect plan? Also, there are verses that say God is unchanging. If God is ALWAYS God, and Jebus and the holy spirit where ALWAYS part of the Godhead, sending Jebus does not explain away God's attrocities.

Also, if God is not "always" benevolent, what assurance do we have that he won't change his mind again? If it changed once it can change again!

Quote:

An argument that my fundie relatives often use in defending the Bible is that the OT was kept in the canonical Bible because it shows us what life would have been like if God hadn't sent Jesus to save us

Again, if Jebus is God and God is Jebus, how does sending himself suddenly turn God into Mr. Happy? Also, what assurance do we have that God is not going to get all "Old Testament" on us again? Finally, again, this statement still does not absolve God of those attrocities.

I think I'd pay money to have a vid tape of your Thanksgiving day dinner!

Good luck!

[ November 08, 2002: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]</p>

Godless Sodomite · 11-08-2002, 05:55 AM

The whole Hebrew concept of "Messiah" comes from OT teaching. The entire NT stands or falls on the truth of the OT. The OT can be true while the NT is false, but if the OT is false then the NT falls with it. If there's no fall there's no need for salvation. And even if we need some kind of salvation, we can see in the OT messianic prophecies that Jesus doesn't fit the bill and isn't the messiah predicted in the OT--which explains why there's a need for some xians to distribute the OT with the NT. The fundies you're talking about are halfway there. They realize the OT is not important in the modern world. Maybe they'll someday see that the NT isn't relevant either.

-Jerry

Jamie_L · 11-08-2002, 05:58 AM

My pet peeve has always been people who explain away the awful things in the OT with arguements similar to what Strawberry has outlined, but then use the OT to justify other behaviors. Like defending the death penalty with "Eye for an Eye" justice, etc.

Strawberry: Do any of the people you speak of do that? If so, you should just lie in wait until they trot out some OT verse to defend something. Then throw their words back at them about how the OT doesn't apply anymore now that Christ has come.

You can't have it both ways. Either the OT still applies, or it doesn't. You can't pick your favorite bits and ignore the stuff you don't like.

Jamie

Walter_Mitty · 11-08-2002, 06:04 AM

Quote:

You can't pick your favorite bits and ignore the stuff you don't like.

Sure you can! Umpteen hundred x-tian denominations have been doing that since Constantine!

11-07-2002, 10:16 PM	#1
Strawberry Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Lancaster, PA/Toronto, ON, Canada Posts: 627	What's a logical response to an illogical defense of the OT? I don't know if I'm in the right forum or not, but this seemed like the likeliest option. I have a sort of complicated question about how to deal with a particular xtian viewpoint. An argument that my fundie relatives often use in defending the Bible is that the OT was kept in the canonical Bible because it shows us what life would have been like if God hadn't sent Jesus to save us. I.e., the NT is what the "current" word of God is. This is why NTs without their OT companions are so often handed out in attempt to convert people, and why churches focus on the NT so much more than the OT. So. If they deny the fact that the OT needs to be observed except in cases where Jesus says it does (like the 10 commandments), how can I argue the inconsistencies of the OT vs. the NT, or even point out how ruthless and cruel the OT is? They'd gladly agree with me, but the argument would be that God's Chosen People weren't complete because they didn't yet have their savior, so God could ask them to be warlike and/or punish them with 400-year periods of slavery for not obeying, etc. So God made the Israelites slaughter the Amalekites (sp?) because Jesus wasn't here yet, and Jesus "saved" everyone from "having" to slaughter people. Jesus was the missing element in God's perfect plan, so before he came, God was all-powerful but not necessarily always benevolent; Jesus changed that, and that's why Jesus and Jesus' Word are so much more important than the rest of the Bible and why it's so important that we should be Saved. Bear in mind that these people view the Crusades, Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, etc., as due to human error rather than God's will, so the fact that people are still metaphorically "slaughtering the Amalekites" is irrelevant. I'd like to have some ammunition for the Xmas family reunion season. Strawberry P.S. Sorry about all the creepy xtian capitalizations, I just realized I put them in and I'm too lazy to go back and fix them all...old habits die hard.

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

11-08-2002, 03:46 AM	#3
frostymama Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Georgia USA Posts: 927	where does Jesus say that the 10 commandments need to be observed? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

11-08-2002, 04:05 AM	#4
Queen of Swords Contributor Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Canada. Finally. Posts: 10,155	I know he says something like, "Don't think I came to overthrow the law, I came to fulfil it".

11-08-2002, 04:30 AM	#5
Jagged Guest Posts: n/a	Jesus was a Jew himself. He followed those teachings.

11-08-2002, 05:35 AM	#6
Walter_Mitty Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: . Posts: 467	The Bible is like a big Walmart: There's something in it for everyone! Try this one on them: The Law of Moses including the 10 Commandments where fulfilled at Christ's death. Christians are now saved by Faith and Hope. Not by works or the law. Then cite the following from the KJV Bible: Romans 3;20-- "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets. Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference". Romans 3:20-28-- "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God." Tell them that you conclude that Christians are saved by the law of faith and not by the deeds of following Mosaic law--including the 10 Commandments. You can also show them the following verses: 2nd Corinthians 3:6-15, Galatians 3:19-25; 4:21-31; 5:1-5, 18; Ephians 2:15; Colosians. 2:14-17, Acts 15:5-29, and Hebrews 7:11,12 22,28; 8:6-18; 9:1, 9,10,15-22; 10:1-18. Once you establish that the Old T has been totally replaced by the New T, then bring up Filo's points to them. Basically, if Jebus is God and God is Jebus, how can God send itself to fullfil the Mosic Law? Also, saying that God was not benevolent until Jebus was sent here DOES NOT absolve God of all those cruelties! Show them these verses: Exodus 12:29 "At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead." AND Ezekiel 9: 4-6 And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem....let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women...." The ask them to reconcile those attrocities with: Dt.24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." AND Jer.31:29-30 "In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity." AND Ezek.18:20 "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." Ask them to explain what sin could be SO horrible that would make a kind, just, and benevolent God have to kill innocent babies and children. Also, according to Dt.24:16, the children are NOT to be put to death for the sins of father. Is God lying? It would seem so because He killed the first born of everyone in Egypt. (though the historical record of ancient Egypt shows no record of this event EVER happening) [ November 08, 2002: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]</p>

11-08-2002, 05:55 AM	#8
Godless Sodomite Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: New York Posts: 453	The whole Hebrew concept of "Messiah" comes from OT teaching. The entire NT stands or falls on the truth of the OT. The OT can be true while the NT is false, but if the OT is false then the NT falls with it. If there's no fall there's no need for salvation. And even if we need some kind of salvation, we can see in the OT messianic prophecies that Jesus doesn't fit the bill and isn't the messiah predicted in the OT--which explains why there's a need for some xians to distribute the OT with the NT. The fundies you're talking about are halfway there. They realize the OT is not important in the modern world. Maybe they'll someday see that the NT isn't relevant either. -Jerry

11-08-2002, 05:58 AM	#9
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	My pet peeve has always been people who explain away the awful things in the OT with arguements similar to what Strawberry has outlined, but then use the OT to justify other behaviors. Like defending the death penalty with "Eye for an Eye" justice, etc. Strawberry: Do any of the people you speak of do that? If so, you should just lie in wait until they trot out some OT verse to defend something. Then throw their words back at them about how the OT doesn't apply anymore now that Christ has come. You can't have it both ways. Either the OT still applies, or it doesn't. You can't pick your favorite bits and ignore the stuff you don't like. Jamie

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.