Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Why can't Christians say that parts of the Old Testament don't apply??..
October 16, 2010 at 2:01 am
Quote:I believe it's better to have a goal or conclusion to work towards than to let facts lead one randomly along until they believe they have the correct answer.
(This is going to come in handy around here.)
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Why can't Christians say that parts of the Old Testament don't apply??..
October 16, 2010 at 3:58 am
(October 15, 2010 at 11:07 pm)Chuck Wrote: It would be better for all involved if some people simply fed their brains to pigs.
What have you got against pigs?
Posts: 19789
Threads: 57
Joined: September 24, 2010
Reputation:
85
RE: Why can't Christians say that parts of the Old Testament don't apply??..
October 16, 2010 at 10:43 am
(This post was last modified: October 16, 2010 at 1:37 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(October 16, 2010 at 3:58 am)Minimalist Wrote: (October 15, 2010 at 11:07 pm)Chuck Wrote: It would be better for all involved if some people simply fed their brains to pigs.
What have you got against pigs?
My mistake. I forgot pigs can also get prion disease from eating these brains.
Posts: 328
Threads: 25
Joined: August 15, 2010
Reputation:
4
RE: Why can't Christians say that parts of the Old Testament don't apply??..
October 16, 2010 at 2:38 pm
(October 11, 2010 at 8:38 pm)dave4shmups Wrote: This is the argument that Christians use, when Atheists ask why people don't stone their neighbors for working on the Sabbath, and things like that. How do you counter arguments that these rules were for an earlier time? I mean, there are some old testament verses about people's animals falling into pits that certainly don't apply anymore.
I've had arguments with Christians (Folks I know in real life) about this and they usually reply with a) as you say, it was a different time with different standards for what was acceptable and not (i.e. enslaving fellow human beings) and b) since God is the source of what is right and wrong and acceptable, it's not our place to pass judgement on what he may have did or said in the Old Testament. I think both arguments are highly questionable and contemptible, but as Christians would say, that too is beside the point in the face of the prime mover, judge, jury and executioner.
Our Daily Train blog at jeremystyron.com
---
We have lingered in the chambers of the sea | By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown | Till human voices wake us, and we drown. — T.S. Eliot
"... man always has to decide for himself in the darkness, that he must want beyond what he knows. ..." — Simone de Beauvoir
"As if that blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope; for the first time, in that night alive with signs and stars, I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world. Finding it so much like myself—so like a brother, really—I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again." — Albert Camus, "The Stranger"
---
Posts: 5336
Threads: 198
Joined: June 24, 2010
Reputation:
77
RE: Why can't Christians say that parts of the Old Testament don't apply??..
October 16, 2010 at 3:31 pm
(October 16, 2010 at 2:38 pm)everythingafter Wrote: (October 11, 2010 at 8:38 pm)dave4shmups Wrote: This is the argument that Christians use, when Atheists ask why people don't stone their neighbors for working on the Sabbath, and things like that. How do you counter arguments that these rules were for an earlier time? I mean, there are some old testament verses about people's animals falling into pits that certainly don't apply anymore.
I've had arguments with Christians (Folks I know in real life) about this and they usually reply with a) as you say, it was a different time with different standards for what was acceptable and not (i.e. enslaving fellow human beings) and b) since God is the source of what is right and wrong and acceptable, it's not our place to pass judgement on what he may have did or said in the Old Testament. I think both arguments are highly questionable and contemptible, but as Christians would say, that too is beside the point in the face of the prime mover, judge, jury and executioner.
And these are the same people who say we have a questionable source of moral guidance.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Why can't Christians say that parts of the Old Testament don't apply??..
October 16, 2010 at 6:36 pm
Quote:I've had arguments with Christians (Folks I know in real life) about this and they usually reply with a) as you say, it was a different time with different standards for what was acceptable and not
So how come most of the dumb shits use a different line in the same book to deny gays their civil rights?
H-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e-s!
Posts: 84
Threads: 38
Joined: August 20, 2010
Reputation:
2
RE: Why can't Christians say that parts of the Old Testament don't apply??..
October 16, 2010 at 10:59 pm
Even if parts of the Old Testament don't apply now, the fact that they used to apply should be sufficiently frightening.
Such as taking a rebellious child to be stoned to death by the people. Which makes one wonder who exactly is pro-life.
"People need heroes. They don't need to know how he died clawing his eyes out, screaming for mercy. The real story would just hurt sales, and dampen the spirits of our customers." - Mythology for Profit
Posts: 1497
Threads: 29
Joined: February 16, 2010
Reputation:
23
RE: Why can't Christians say that parts of the Old Testament don't apply??..
October 17, 2010 at 12:33 pm
(October 15, 2010 at 10:34 pm)Godschild Wrote: I believe it's better to have a goal or conclusion to work towards than to let facts lead one randomly along until they believe they have the correct answer. Will get you the Bible verses as soon as I can.
Yes! Can't let facts get in the way of our preconceived notion!
Science flies us to the moon and stars. Religion flies us into buildings.
God allowed 200,000 people to die in an earthquake. So what makes you think he cares about YOUR problems?
Posts: 5336
Threads: 198
Joined: June 24, 2010
Reputation:
77
RE: Why can't Christians say that parts of the Old Testament don't apply??..
October 17, 2010 at 1:33 pm
(October 16, 2010 at 10:59 pm)FadingW Wrote: Such as taking a rebellious child to be stoned to death by the people. Which makes one wonder who exactly is pro-life.
The Biblical god certainly wasn't. Search the Bible in vein for the words "life begins at conception" and post-birth children have absolutely no rights as the property of their father.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Posts: 8781
Threads: 26
Joined: March 15, 2010
Reputation:
29
RE: Why can't Christians say that parts of the Old Testament don't apply??..
October 17, 2010 at 10:54 pm
(This post was last modified: October 17, 2010 at 11:02 pm by Godscreated.)
(October 17, 2010 at 1:33 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: (October 16, 2010 at 10:59 pm)FadingW Wrote: Such as taking a rebellious child to be stoned to death by the people. Which makes one wonder who exactly is pro-life.
The Biblical god certainly wasn't. Search the Bible in vein for the words "life begins at conception" and post-birth children have absolutely no rights as the property of their father.
@ Fading W the child is an adult, the families name was so important then, if a grown child was ruining the family name by being rebellious then stoning was his/her fate if the parents persued that action.
@DP Exodus 21:22-25 give the penalties for one who causes a unborn baby to suffer or die. You sure did not search very hard.
Lev.17:11-14 these verses are penalty for eating blood and they explain why it's not to be eaten, "the life of the flesh is in the blood". So an unborn child has it's own blood (and the type may be different from the mothers) only a few weeks after conception so according to scripture this is when life begins. Remember now that God does give a penalty for harm to an unborn child in Exodus.
(October 17, 2010 at 12:33 pm)Thor Wrote: (October 15, 2010 at 10:34 pm)Godschild Wrote: I believe it's better to have a goal or conclusion to work towards than to let facts lead one randomly along until they believe they have the correct answer. Will get you the Bible verses as soon as I can.
Yes! Can't let facts get in the way of our preconceived notion!
Ha ha ha very funny you know that I meant that once a goal is established then one uses only facts to prove the point or reach the goal.
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
|