RE: Challenge regarding Christian morality
January 28, 2015 at 10:20 pm
(This post was last modified: January 28, 2015 at 10:33 pm by Jenny A.)
(January 28, 2015 at 9:05 pm)YGninja Wrote: The importance isn't in the rules themselves, it is in knowing that the rules are set by God. The law is in your hearts, this is why it seems obvious to you, but you can easily override the laws, as i am sure we have all done many hundreds of times in our lives. The important thing is the realization that they are Gods laws.
Hardly. First of all the rules, as you call them have varied with time and place. That suggests they are largely cultural and or biological, not written by god. Even those of you who claim they are written by god, can't agree on what the rules are. If you don't believe me, try sitting down with a Jew or a Islamist, and setting out the rules. And that's just one group of traditions. Hindus will take you further a field.
Second, the rules are damned important. They are what allows human society to function.
Third, generally speaking, more secular nations are more lawful nations. That suggests thinking the are god's rules gets in the way of enforcing the rules.
(January 28, 2015 at 10:03 pm)YGninja Wrote: For instance what the word "Testament", means. Testament means covenant, aka law with God. This is why the NT is referred to as "The Good News". It is the new covenant which superseeds the old. The mosaic law was for a very small, very specific group of people during a very specific time. A tribe of people who were surrounded by other tribes who, for instance, burned alive their own babies as sacrifice. The Mosaic laws were harsh because that tribe needed to remain intact and survive until Jesus would be born, who would "bless all nations". The NT applies to all of us, the OT applied to ancient Israelites before Jesus.
Yes, I gather you see the Gospels as good news. But in order to have a covenant with anyone, that someone must exist. God does not. Nor is it clear how much of the OT Jesus thought applied. He says first one thing than another. And he didn't refer to scripture as a covenant. Why? First of all because neither the Old nor the New Testament had been canonized at that time. And, since it wasn't written until a good 50 years or more after his death, he had nothing to do with the writings now known as the New Testament.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.