Quick YEC Debunks

[John V]

Two of us can play scripture tennis, knobjockey.

Uh, I don't think so.

Ever hear of Mark 5:18?

Mark 5
18 And when He got into the boat, he who had been demon-possessed begged Him that he might be with Him.

[Fake Messiah]

Do you understand that the old covenant was made with the people of Israel?

You yourself don't understand it (or consider it bullshit) for you just wrote:

nor do I reject any part of the Bible that I am aware of.

So you do reject parts of it which you feel are not meant for you.

We all know the story when Jesus stopped crowd that wasn't doing anything unusual, but simply applying Old Testament laws of stoning a woman that wasn't fateful to her hubby. But Jesus also said in "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets," Matthew 5:17

So we all know that job of faithful Christians isn't easy. Jesus, in fact, never spells out which parts of the OT should be kept and which ones should be abandoned. So, how are good Christians to decide? The typical rule of thumb goes something like this: if the OT says stuff you like but that is not mentioned by Jesus (i.e. that homosexuality is a sin, etc.), then you'll firmly argue that it's clearly an important part of Christian theology since it's found in the Old Testament. If, on the other hand, it says something you don't like, then you can just go ahead and ignore it since real Christianity is about New Testament anyway. The beauty of this game is that you can make the Bible say pretty much anything you want it to say.

[RoadRunner79]

Do you understand that the old covenant was made with the people of Israel?

You yourself don't understand it (or consider it bullshit) for you just wrote:

nor do I reject any part of the Bible that I am aware of.

So you do reject parts of it which you feel are not meant for you.

We all know the story when Jesus stopped crowd that wasn't doing anything unusual, but simply applying Old Testament laws of stoning a woman that wasn't fateful to her hubby. But Jesus also said in "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets," Matthew 5:17

So we all know that job of faithful Christians isn't easy. Jesus, in fact, never spells out which parts of the OT should be kept and which ones should be abandoned. So, how are good Christians to decide? The typical rule of thumb goes something like this: if the OT says stuff you like but that is not mentioned by Jesus (i.e. that homosexuality is a sin, etc.), then you'll firmly argue that it's clearly an important part of Christian theology since it's found in the Old Testament. If, on the other hand, it says something you don't like, then you can just go ahead and ignore it since real Christianity is about New Testament anyway. The beauty of this game is that you can make the Bible say pretty much anything you want it to say.

Ok... I wouldn't call not following parts that where not meant for me, rejecting parts. 

 When I was on a Christian forum, we had a few Pentecostal people who would come around, and tell  someone like me, that I needed to tarry until the Holy Spirit came (which for them meant speaking in tongues).  They always seem to use the word "tarry" as well.  They didn't like it when I asked them how long they stayed in Jerusalem waiting to speak in tongues (they always seemed to leave the Jerusalem part out (I don't think they actually looked at the verse).  The part, that they didn't seem to be able to understand was that this was a specific command for the people at that time.  They went to the city, and the Holy Spirit was poured out upon them. 

I would strongly disagree, that it is about choosing what someone wants, and condemning those thing which don't effect me.  While this may be a natural inclination, it is not what you should be doing. Frank Turek [here] distinguishes between three categories of the old testament law.  Cerimonial Laws - Judicial/Civil Law - Moral Law

Ceremonial laws - where those laws, which where given specifically to the Nation of Israel to tell them how to worship God.  This included laws such as those meant to set the Hebrews apart as God's chosen people.  This would include practices such as circumcision, the cleansing and purity rituals surrounding the temple, and even wearing mixed fabrics.  These might also be called conventional laws.

Judicial/ Civil laws - These where laws that applied to Nation of Israel.  The included rules and categories for penalties for various crimes, rules for business transactions, and guidelines for the treatment of slaves.  Even though there might be some overlap, I'm not subject to the laws of Canada while I'm here in the US.  I can't go before a judge in the U.S. and start citing U.K.  law to get out of a crime. 

Moral Law - There has been a lot of ink spilled here, talking about morality.  What is Moral/Immoral doesn't change based on what the culture wants or what the culture allows.   Beating a slave to death because you want to, is never moral.  It's not subjective, and therefore, you cannot make it moral, because you want to, or if you and your buddies say it's OK, and not even if you get enough of the culture on your side, it's still wrong.  Moral laws transcend nations, and people, and individuals.  

Now, I would agree, that Jesus never laid out a set of laws to be carried over into the New Testament.  He didn't say, to do this, and don't do this.   In actuality the Christian is no longer bound by the law at all.  In another article by Frank Turek [here] he points out that the law was never meant to be permanent ((Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 16:59-63; Hos. 2:18).  That the this is the New Covenant that is shown in the New Testament.

So, if we are free from the laws, then are we free to do as we please.  Yes and No.  We are free from the law, but we are instead bound to Christ.  Paul says in Romans 6:14-15 that we are no longer "under the law, but under Grace".  He says in 1 Corinthians 9:21 that we are "under the law of Christ"  Jesus says that the entire law, can be summed up by just two.  To love God, and to love your neighbor.  I sometimes make a comparison, that it is as if the speed limits for driving where removed, but we are still to drive responsibly and safely both for ourselves, and those around us.  In Matthew 23:23, Jesus criticizes the pharisees for following the letter of the law, while neglecting the spirit of the law.  It's not about following a strict set of rules, but about fulfilling what it means to be a part of Christ.

So then, of the three categories of laws mentioned above; do any still apply?  Yes the universal or moral laws still apply.  They apply to both the nation of Israel and to the gentile.  They applied before the Old Covenant and after it was completed.  It was wrong for Cain to murder Abel even before there was a law or rule given.  They include things like Murder, theft, sexual immorality.  We are told that the law was given so the the trespass may increase ([Rom 5] The law was given, that we may know that we are sinners [Rom 7]  So not being under the law, doesn't mean that we are free to do whatever we want.  If I want to sleep with my neighbors hot wife, it doesn't make it right or something that as someone in Christ, no matter how much I want it, can make it right.  And if you are only following what you want, then you can you really say that you are following Christ?

[Catholic_Lady]

Great post rr

[Pat Mustard]

Great post rr

What's so good about it? It is the very definition of somebody eating their cake and then trying to make out they still have it.

That post, in fact, would be a perfect application for the UK's brexit negotiation team, it's so full of cakeism.

Despite what rr tries to argue applying the law while ignoring the spirit of it does not free one from following the laws, it is an admonition for one to follow the laws as they were meant to be implemented and not in a perverse way which while grammatically true, still manages to twist the meaning of the law and allow one to commit actions contrary to intent.

A situation would be where you intend to kill someone so you plan your actions in order that you goad them into going for you first, in an attempt to claim you killed them in self-defence. While some readings of most murder laws would allow, grammatically at least, you to get off for murder, if it were found out that you planned the course of action from day one, you'd be convicted (assuming equally competent judge, solicitors & barristers and 12 good people, fair and true).

Once you realise that road runner is twisting the meaning of "obey the letter but not the spirit", then you realise that his argument falls flat on its face.

[Catholic_Lady]

Great post rr

What's so good about it? It is the very definition of somebody eating their cake and then trying to make out they still have it.

That post, in fact, would be a perfect application for the UK's brexit negotiation team, it's so full of cakeism.

Despite what rr tries to argue applying the law while ignoring the spirit of it does not free one from following the laws, it is an admonition for one to follow the laws as they were meant to be implemented and not in a perverse way which while grammatically true, still manages to twist the meaning of the law and allow one to commit actions contrary to intent.

A situation would be where you intend to kill someone so you plan your actions in order that you goad them into going for you first, in an attempt to claim you killed them in self-defence. While some readings of most murder laws would allow, grammatically at least, you to get off for murder, if it were found out that you planned the course of action from day one, you'd be convicted (assuming equally competent judge, solicitors & barristers and 12 good people, fair and true).

Once you realise that road runner is twisting the meaning of "obey the letter but not the spirit", then you realise that his argument falls flat on its face.

Lol ok

[Amarok]

I don't know what your laughing about RR's is rubbish.

[RoadRunner79]

What's so good about it?  It is the very definition of somebody eating their cake and then trying to make out they still have it.

That post, in fact, would be a perfect application for the UK's brexit negotiation team, it's so full of cakeism.

Despite what rr tries to argue applying the law while ignoring the spirit of it does not free one from following the laws, it is an admonition for one to follow the laws as they were meant to be implemented and not in a perverse way which while grammatically true, still manages to twist the meaning of the law and allow one to commit actions contrary to intent.

A situation would be where you intend to kill someone so you plan your actions in order that you goad them into going for you first, in an attempt to claim you killed them in self-defence.  While some readings of most murder laws would allow, grammatically at least, you to get off for murder, if it were found out that you planned the course of action from day one, you'd be convicted (assuming equally competent judge, solicitors & barristers and 12 good people, fair and true).

Once you realise that road runner is twisting the meaning of "obey the letter but not the spirit", then you realise that his argument falls flat on its face.

Lol ok

It's like some don't even try to understand, and of course most of what I said, seems to have been ignored.  This is just speculation, but perhaps in a mind that is very concrete in their thinking, it doesn't make sense that the law is completed, and while not held to the law, we are held to another standard.

[vorlon13]

What is so acceptable to the Lord God Almighty about having menstrual blood exuding from His gentile worshippers and what makes menstrual blood exuding from a Jewish worshipper such an abomination ??

[Fake Messiah]

Moral laws transcend nations, and people, and individuals.

No they don't. As Nietzsche stated, "there are altogether no moral facts". Humans give themselves moral codes wherever they live because humans are a moral--that is a social--species.

Every society has its morality, but each is different. What is deemed good in one society is often deemed bad in another; for instance, killing is immoral in most societies (under most but not all circumstances), but head-hunting is or was a valuable and appropriate behavior in some societies. In other words, morality is not absolute or universal but relative.
We do design our morals by listening to other people and whether they suffer or not, they are not naturally engraved in us because if that was the case we would simply know them and would not spend centuries discussing them.

Now, I would agree, that Jesus never laid out a set of laws to be carried over into the New Testament.  He didn't say, to do this, and don't do this.  In actuality the Christian is no longer bound by the law at all.  In another article by Frank Turek [here] he points out that the law was never meant to be permanent ((Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 16:59-63; Hos. 2:18).  That the this is the New Covenant that is shown in the New Testament.

Well, I find myself arguing with one side of Christianity of a RR who admits that OT laws were bad, like slavery, but says they are not to be obliged anymore. I mean are you that oblivious to other Christians? Even on this forum you have Christians that see what you wrote is rubbish because they see those laws as good, including the slavery.
Or take that Loy Mauch, a christian Republican and former member of the Arkansas State House of Representatives, who said: "If slavery were so God-awful, why didn't Jesus or Paul condemn it [in the Bible]?"

That Frank Turek really tiptoes around Matthew 5:17-19 which is pretty clear "whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven"
He takes that it as allegorical because, as you say, "In Matthew 23:23 "Jesus criticizes the pharisees for following the letter of the law, while neglecting the spirit of the law."

Big deal because in other parts, Jesus criticizes the pharisees for not following the letter of the law which was killing of children that did not "honor their parents":
And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”  -- Mark 7:9

You could say he makes it clear that the old laws must be obeyed no matter the "the culture" people find themselves in and we could even say the progress of morality.

It's all part of conflicting nature of Bible so in the end you do find yourself picking and choosing:

They include things like Murder, theft, sexual immorality.

And of course let me guess gays are against god but not pork. Are you going to be like that Christian Sally Kern, a former Oklahoma state legislator, who said that homosexuality posed a direct and immediate threat to the United States even bigger then terrorism? And with the rest of the christian crowd like Tony Perkins, Bryan Fischer, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, Marcus Bachmann, Mike Huckabee, Gary Bauer, Peter LaBarbera and Rick Santorum, as well as homophobic preachers who all blame gays for natural disasters and some even said that gays should be killed.
Not very "loving your neighbor". I mean I would be happy if Christianity was just as you summoned it "To love God, and to love your neighbor." but it's more than that and it's sad that you don't see it. Suddenly that "love your neighbor" or "Don't kill" lose their meaning when sinners that offend god are in question.