Old Testament Pfft, Jesus is the MAN!

[chic]

Very true, however not many (if any) make the claims Jesus did, hence why his words have survived.  Because of this reason, we "should" take them as a whole and not in part as the whole speaks volumes to and of the parts.

That's all I'm asking/suggesting of those that are critical of these words.

BTW...Hi chic.  Welcome to HAF.  

Thanks for responding.  Are you saying that Jesus' claim of some relationship to say the O.T. god should be given credibility to enhance his human instruction and teaching?

[AnimatedDirt]

Thanks for responding.  Are you saying that Jesus' claim of some relationship to say the O.T. god should be given credibility to enhance his human instruction and teaching?

No.  It's clear that most of HAF (atheists) doesn't give these credibility.  What I'm saying is that we should interpret this instruction/teachings in light of the whole and not as stand-alone.  When there seems to be contradictions in that the OT God drops the gavel right away (flood, first-born, plagues, Sodom and Gomorrah) and the NT God doesn't drop the gavel at all (cast the first stone, grace, mercy, obey authority)...we miss that the gavel drops either immediately or at some future point.  The point being God drops the gavel.  Judgment is made.  Whether it is now or later is not the point.  If the adulterous person dies now or later, the point is "adultery" (insert anything against the Law as the Law points to sin) is wrong and will be judged by God. 

[chic]

Thanks for responding.  Are you saying that Jesus' claim of some relationship to say the O.T. god should be given credibility to enhance his human instruction and teaching?

No.  It's clear that most of HAF (atheists) doesn't give these credibility.  What I'm saying is that we should interpret this instruction/teachings in light of the whole and not as stand-alone.  When there seems to be contradictions in that the OT God drops the gavel right away (flood, first-born, plagues, Sodom and Gomorrah) and the NT God doesn't drop the gavel at all (cast the first stone, grace, mercy, obey authority)...we miss that the gavel drops either immediately or at some future point.  The point being God drops the gavel.  Judgment is made.  Whether it is now or later is not the point.  If the adulterous person dies now or later, the point is "adultery" (insert anything against the Law as the Law points to sin) is wrong and will be judged by God. 

OK.  You are saying the O.T. commandments apply but the difference is in God's response.  O.T. God kills the sinner now [gavel drops] OK, But then does the N.T. God wait or never punish?  There is some confusion over your words "NT God doesn't drop the gavel at all" and "the gavel drops either immediately or at some future point."  Are you saying the NT God does or does not "judge' us to our detriment?

[AnimatedDirt]

Thanks for responding.  Are you saying that Jesus' claim of some relationship to say the O.T. god should be given credibility to enhance his human instruction and teaching?

No.  It's clear that most of HAF (atheists) doesn't give these credibility.  What I'm saying is that we should interpret this instruction/teachings in light of the whole and not as stand-alone.  When there seems to be contradictions in that the OT God drops the gavel right away (flood, first-born, plagues, Sodom and Gomorrah) and the NT God doesn't drop the gavel at all (cast the first stone, grace, mercy, obey authority)...we miss that the gavel drops either immediately or at some future point.  The point being God drops the gavel.  Judgment is made.  Whether it is now or later is not the point.  If the adulterous person dies now or later, the point is "adultery" (insert anything against the Law as the Law points to sin) is wrong and will be judged by God. 

OK.  You are saying the O.T. commandments apply but the difference is in God's response.  O.T. God kills the sinner now [gavel drops] OK, But then does the N.T. God wait or never punish?

Punishment becomes like that in an adult today that goes against their parental teaching.  Say a child is punished for smoking...as I was as a child.  The punishment is a spanking (I grew up with spanking as the norm) or restrictions of some kind...or both.  Now as an adult, what can my parent do to me now that I know what their wish/teaching is, but I do otherwise?  Nothing.  So the punishment is either the consequences of that act or none at all IN THIS LIFE.  However there is a consequence for going against that which sustains life.  It is death.    But the ultimate death (in which life cannot be restored) is reserved to the end when the gift of life is given out to those that held faith.

There is some confusion over your words "NT God doesn't drop the gavel at all" and "the gavel drops either immediately or at some future point."  Are you saying the NT God does or does not "judge' us to our detriment?

I said does not drop the gavel, but in the context that we do not see it from our perspective as we simply live and die naturally.  Everyone lives and everyone dies at some point.  THIS death is not a punishment per se, but the second death...that which is brought upon the nonbeliever as a result of disbelief or rejection is the punishment.  Judgment day comes.  Whether it is "today" or even after our natural death, it will come...in context of the Bible of course and belief therein. 

[En_Route]

Here are my thoughts.  This is a group of happy "atheists"!  Right?  The concept of a god is alien to us.  So the words ascribed to Jesus are the words of a fallible human being written down and translated by fallible human beings that may or may not be useful today.  We read the ideas of many thinkers from over the centuries and find many of these ideas useless today.  We expect errors from our ancestors as well as from our contemporaries.  Why would we expect anything more from Jesus unless we fall into the trap of granting him theistic license?

The human animal has been struggling away from authority, superstition, etc, toward scientific methods and rational thought over many centuries with very little progress.  But arguing about whether the ideas of Jesus are the words of authority for today without considering any modifying historical events is not helping modern humanity.  Some of the ideas proposed in the N.T. may have ethical value and not economic application for our century.  They may be worth debating.

Now, I await my critics.

I agree that ethical ideas whatever the nature of their origin and the course of their subsequent evolution may merit consideration. It is however not feasible to view Christianity as a homogeneous body of belief; it encompasses many variants some of which, to my mind anyway, are rather more appealing than others. We cannot be completely sure that anyone called Jesus actually existed though it seems almost certain he did. The New Testament itself presents many faces of Jesus depending on the theological bent of the writers whose works were ultimately selected for inclusion.  The Jesus that is portrayed in the NT is a composite, contradictory ahistoric figure and we cannot extract from it any coherent, consistent account of what he actually stood for.These kind of bible-knocking arguments are useful in rebutting those who lay claims for its authority and authenticity as the word of God. However, again, I agree in terms of assessing the  worth and/or truth of any particular subset of Christian beliefs this kind of textual analysis is pointless.

[Stevil]

Lots of SDA's are doctors, paramedics, fire fighters and do save lives on the Sabbath...afterall, it is what Christ lived and it is good to do good on the Sabbath.

So more exceptions, when the bible didn't speak of exceptions.
A doctor is allowed to work on the sabbath.

I guess it is good for humanity that Christian's inject logic and common sense into that which reads non nonsensical.

For me, I just simply have to reject the bible and its claims.

As an outsider I don't start with accepting the assertions.
Thus I cannot interpret, twist the words to some how become consistent with the assertions.

How can a non believer possibly believe based on reading the only revealed word of the Christian god, the bible?

[AnimatedDirt]

Lots of SDA's are doctors, paramedics, fire fighters and do save lives on the Sabbath...afterall, it is what Christ lived and it is good to do good on the Sabbath.

So more exceptions, when the bible didn't speak of exceptions.
A doctor is allowed to work on the sabbath.

I guess it is good for humanity that Christian's inject logic and common sense into that which reads non nonsensical.

For me, I just simply have to reject the bible and its claims.

As an outsider I don't start with accepting the assertions.
Thus I cannot interpret, twist the words to some how become consistent with the assertions.

Not an exception.  It's clearly laid out in the Bible, but since you haven't read it apparently, you wouldn't have seen it.  Helping others is a good work.

Let's put it this way:  For me to go out on the Sabbath and do yardwork on my own yard is a sin.  My weekly work will be done or left at a point that it need not be done on the Sabbath.  If I notice a neighbor needs help with THEIR yardwork, for example, it is good work and therefore it is good to do good on the Sabbath.  And that day should be reserved for fellowship with him.  It's not only church, but many other ways.  Church is just the most common "worship" of God.  Helping others is work, but a good work.

It all makes perfect sense and is quite logical.  It's just not logical when one cherry-picks the arguments.

How can a non believer possibly believe based on reading the only revealed word of the Christian god, the bible?

Only by setting out to understand the whole of it and not simply draw conslusions based on one sentence.  But this would take more than cursory reading.

[Gawen]

How can a non believer possibly believe based on reading the only [alleged] revealed word of the Christian god, the bible?

The same way believers do. They have no choice otherwise.

[Stevil]

Not an exception.  It's clearly laid out in the Bible, but since you haven't read it apparently, you wouldn't have seen it.  Helping others is a good work.

It is not clear.
If I were writing a document and stated 10 musts but those musts came with caveats I would need to highlight in the musts that conditions or exceptions apply.

I would then need to clearly state what those were.


When you beloved child rapist protagonist Moses came down with the 10 commandments,
where were the exceptions? The bible wasn't even written at that stage.

When the bible talks of this story, it doesn't highlight that conditions apply.
Your interpreted conditions are hidden amongst other anecdotal stories within the book.

This book would not hold water in a court, it is so vague, so ridiculous.

[Sandra Craft]

When the bible talks of this story, it doesn't highlight that conditions apply.
Your interpreted conditions are hidden amongst other anecdotal stories within the book.

I'm finding a lot of the same thing in The Reason for God by Timothy Keller -- it's a minefield of inconsistencies, assumptions, and commentary treated as gospel.  At one point he gave me a Budhorse moment ("wait, what?") when he referred to a popular atheist's arguements as circular, and I had been thinking a few seconds before that Keller was the king of circular arguements.  Maybe it's a Xtian thing.

[Sweetdeath]

When the bible talks of this story, it doesn't highlight that conditions apply.
Your interpreted conditions are hidden amongst other anecdotal stories within the book.

I'm finding a lot of the same thing in The Reason for God by Timothy Keller -- it's a minefield of inconsistencies, assumptions, and commentary treated as gospel.  At one point he gave me a Budhorse moment ("wait, what?") when he referred to a popular atheist's arguements as circular, and I had been thinking a few seconds before that Ferris was the king of circular arguements.  Maybe it's a Xtian thing.

That sounds so puzzling.

What is Reason for god about?

[AnimatedDirt]

Not an exception.  It's clearly laid out in the Bible, but since you haven't read it apparently, you wouldn't have seen it.  Helping others is a good work.

It is not clear.
If I were writing a document and stated 10 musts but those musts came with caveats I would need to highlight in the musts that conditions or exceptions apply.

I would then need to clearly state what those were.


When you beloved child rapist protagonist Moses came down with the 10 commandments,
where were the exceptions? The bible wasn't even written at that stage.

When the bible talks of this story, it doesn't highlight that conditions apply.
Your interpreted conditions are hidden amongst other anecdotal stories within the book.

This book would not hold water in a court, it is so vague, so ridiculous.

Can't help but giggle.

Obviously there wasn't as many exceptions in the OT times...hence the gavel drop more often than not.  It was the time of teaching...much like spankings, time-outs, and restrictions during the early years of children.  When they become adults, they no longer get punished by the parents when they do something wrong...

So when the NT came or rather the teachings of Jesus, in simple words, what once were "children" and treated as such, became adults and told now they were to follow the teachings not because they had to, but because they believed it...as it really had been from the beginning.  But since you don't know anything other than the things YOU find wrong, you missed that part.

It's just a bit humorous to me that you, Stevil, seem so angry for something that is a fairytale.  All I'm attempting to get you/whomever is wondering, to do is to look at it as a whole since we have the WHOLE to judge it by.

It's funny you think the book wouldn't hold water in court.  The whole "plan" of saving that which is lost is based wholely on Justice.  The reason the fairytale Christ came and died is because it is the only way legally, according to his own law which this fairytale God submits to, can save that which he apparently loves...and he can only save those that love him in return...or as a class action lawsuit would work, those that take part in the class action law suit.

[Sweetdeath]

What makes me giggle, AD, is the use of god and justice in the same sentence. That actually makes sense to you. The worship me or die attitude. As i seem to recall, many dictators have the same attitude.

[AnimatedDirt]

What makes me giggle, AD, is the use of god and justice in the same sentence. That actually makes sense to you. The worship me or die attitude. As i seem to recall, many dictators have the same attitude.

You're not dead, are you?

[Stevil]

Can't help but giggle.

This reminds me, I saw a horror movie once where a little girl giggled every time people died.

Obviously there wasn't as many exceptions in the OT times...hence the gavel drop more often than not.  It was the time of teaching...much like spankings, time-outs, and restrictions during the early years of children.  When they become adults, they no longer get punished by the parents when they do something wrong...

Only, there is a big difference between time-out and killing the offender.
With time-out, the person is unharmed, has time to reflect and may learn, with death no lessons are learnt.
But I have to giggle at the preposterous notion that AD can't see the difference and instead chooses to interpret the killing of people in the OT by his beloved god as being by-the-by just and perfect in every way.
In business speak this is known as "polishing the turd"

So when the NT came or rather the teachings of Jesus, in simple words, what once were "children" and treated as such, became adults and told now they were to follow the teachings not because they had to, but because they believed it

but the teachings were to not worry about food, water or clothing, have faith that god would take care of that as long as you prioritise on seeking the kingdom of god.
I have to giggle because the vast, vast, vast majority of Christians, including AD do not follow this advice. I am saddened to feel that those truly faithful, that do follow this advise, they die young from starvation or hypothermia due to it being non conducive to life.

It's just a bit humorous to me that you, Stevil, seem so angry for something that is a fairytale.

It's nice to know that you see humour in other's anger. A pleasurable moment for you no doubt.
Unfortunately, I must spoil your party here.
I have no anger towards your god or your Jesus. I don't believe they exist. The stories of the bible are silly stories, seemingly written by a teenage boy with much angst and an excitement for war and death. He must have had low self esteem and viewed women as a threat.
I am extremely confussed with regards to how anybody can read the bible and simply choose to "believe" it. It seems impossible to me to believe but I guess most people are caught when they are too young to think for themselves, their parents force it on them. So how did this cycle begin?
I presume through ignorance and through enforcement by a ruthless governing power.
I do get angry though when Christian folk use their unfounded beliefs to influence law and hence the way I must live my life. Why should I be impacted by others beliefs?

All I'm attempting to get you/whomever is wondering, to do is to look at it as a whole since we have the WHOLE to judge it by.

You talk of a whole but all I see are unfounded assertions and a multitude of interpretations. In my opinion there is nothing at the foundation level, nothing to base a starting point from. Christianity is just empty.

It's funny you think the book wouldn't hold water in court.  The whole "plan" of saving that which is lost is based wholely on Justice.

I think that court is about enforcing a safe society, not so much about justice.
Justice is vengeance, justice is comic book ideology. Children's thinking.

The reason the fairytale Christ came and died is because it is the only way legally, according to his own law which this fairytale God submits to, can save that which he apparently loves...

If there was a dude called Jesus, then he died because he was human. We all die, there is nothing special about death. Death does not save us from life, we don't need saving. We cannot delegate accountability of our own actions onto someone else, as responsible adults we accept accountability. Christianity is fundamentally flawed, I cannot understand it, it is nonsense.