A question for theists

[Ecurb Noselrub]

As for the reason why Christians seem to cherry-pick some of the law and leave the rest of it... it's possible they are separating moral laws from ceremonial and community laws, even though the Bible makes no distinction.  A law like homosexuality is viewed by many as a moral law, while a law about wearing clothing made of multiple fibers, or about eating pork, or how to plant your crops, or how to sacrifice animals, might be community or ceremonial, which means beyond their usefulness since communities now are different than in old testament times, and since Jesus' sacrifice made ceremonial law obsolete (no longer sacrificing that lamb).

I don't have this particular problem since I don't think the torah applies to Christians at all - ceremonial or moral. Jesus' new covenant made the whole thing obsolete.

[Hector Valdez]

Ugh...this thread disgusts me.

[xSilverPhinx]

Ugh...this thread disgusts me.

Why?

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Ugh...this thread disgusts me.

Why?

He probably hates any religious theme. But the OP asked a question of theists, so anyone coming to this thread should expect responses from the theistic position.  The title of the thread gives you fair warning.

[Stevil]

Ugh...this thread disgusts me.

Why?

He probably hates any religious theme. But the OP asked a question of theists, so anyone coming to this thread should expect responses from the theistic position.  The title of the thread gives you fair warning.

I don't know.
He was very recently a theist and in some ways I feel he still thinks like a theist. He probably has great sympathy for your position. Maybe he doesn't like the way we are grilling you?
I like RenegeReversi and his contributions on this forum, but I never know what he is going to say. Will be interesting to hear why he doesn't like this thread.

[xSilverPhinx]

Or he could be remembering and pondering his own life as a theist, Idk. I don't want to generalise...

[AnimatedDirt]

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me
If there are either no gods or only one god then it is impossible to have other gods before "me".
How does this serve humanity?

I think the "interpretation" of this is so elementary that it speaks for itself in regards to...

Now that Stevil and Gawen have proven beyond in irrefutable doubt (at least to a bunch of Atheists)...

It becomes evident that while it may be evidence to "a bunch of Atheists" ( I didn't insert that capital 'A', Recusant.    ) it certainly speaks to the surface reading and cherry-picking being done.  One can disagree on points, but don't fake insight on the bible when you admit to having read a few pages here and there.

I have not read the bible.
I have read the first 5-10 pages, I have also read a few pages of the New Testament.
Enough to get the gist.
I don't interpret.
I read the word as written.

To read is to interpret...and your whole post from the above exerpt is an interpretation...a wrong interpretation, but an interpretation nonetheless.

Sure, one apparently doesn't get to heaven by works alone.  However, faith without works is dead according to John chapter 2. 

Okay, so basically you should do your very best to not sin.  However, since nobody is perfect and sinless, you have this Jesus sacrifice that covers you.  However, the existence of the new covenant doesn't dismiss entirely the old covenant.  It just changes the sacrifice that absolves sin from a lamb every year to a one-time-good God-suicide.

This is one of the most intelligent points made from an atheist.  While there is disagreement or no understanding, at least the issues are laid out correctly.  Bruce and I may disagree on what is or isn't still in effect in regards to the OT and the NT or the old covenant and the new on the believer, but we both still hold some core beliefs in common.

[fester30]

Sure, one apparently doesn't get to heaven by works alone.  However, faith without works is dead according to John chapter 2. 

Okay, so basically you should do your very best to not sin.  However, since nobody is perfect and sinless, you have this Jesus sacrifice that covers you.  However, the existence of the new covenant doesn't dismiss entirely the old covenant.  It just changes the sacrifice that absolves sin from a lamb every year to a one-time-good God-suicide.

This is one of the most intelligent points made from an atheist.  While there is disagreement or no understanding, at least the issues are laid out correctly.  Bruce and I may disagree on what is or isn't still in effect in regards to the OT and the NT or the old covenant and the new on the believer, but we both still hold some core beliefs in common.

While I appreciate the compliment, I want to caution that my point was not made from a position of intelligence, but rather from having spent nearly my entire life a Christian, in fact one with extensive knowledge of multiple denominations, having never found one specific congregational membership that satisfied my needs, values, and doubts.  Coming from that position, I can understand the thinking of theists (well, at least Christian theists) better than most people who have never held a belief in a higher power.  It's like someone who moved from France to Germany three years ago.  They grew up speaking the French language, and still are fluent in the French language, even though for three years they've mostly been speaking German.  I am still very fluent in various dialects of Christian, from sit/stand/kneel Roman Catholicism and Lutheran Missouri Synod, to born-again, baptized in the Holy Spirit, forever trying to avoid backsliding Southern Baptist.  While I no longer share beliefs of theists, I don't generally consider them to be idiots as a group, because I'd have to put 30 years of my life into that idiot category if that was the case.  I do hope my contributions can help my fellow non-believers gain a more appreciative understanding of our religious neighbors, just as I hope my work in my community can open up some Southern evangelical minds that non-believers aren't completely evil Devil-worshippers.

So to sum up a long point... don't confuse the books I write in this forum for intelligent thought.  It's just babbling drivel from a man often driven to boredom by nothing to do in my off time in a very hot foreign country away from my lovely, still-vaguely religious wife for six months.

[AnimatedDirt]

So to sum up a long point... don't confuse the books I write in this forum for intelligent thought.  It's just babbling drivel from a man often driven to boredom by nothing to do in my off time in a very hot foreign country away from my lovely, still-vaguely religious wife for six months.

Definitely not babbling drivel.  It may not be intelligence as you define it, however it shows a working knowledge in the least.  What Stevil has shown is the ability to read a couple of pages and the ability to interpret cherry-picked words to his own satisfaction.  What you've shown is the ability to take into account the WHOLE of the "story" and put an overall theme ( of our context here ) of it in a few words.

[fester30]

So to sum up a long point... don't confuse the books I write in this forum for intelligent thought.  It's just babbling drivel from a man often driven to boredom by nothing to do in my off time in a very hot foreign country away from my lovely, still-vaguely religious wife for six months.

Definitely not babbling drivel.  It may not be intelligence as you define it, however it shows a working knowledge in the least.  What Stevil has shown is the ability to read a couple of pages and the ability to interpret cherry-picked words to his own satisfaction.  What you've shown is the ability to take into account the WHOLE of the "story" and put an overall theme ( of our context here ) of it in a few words.

Which is why I would encourage any non-believer who truly wishes to gain at least a basic understanding of the thought processes of the theists to read as much of the actual scripture as they can stomach (I've read the entire Bible more than once), and to try out a few church services from a few different denominations, preferably with a friend who is a member.  On the other hand, I encourage theists who truly wish to gain the same basic understanding of the non-theist though process to actually befriend one instead of keeping them at a temptation-avoidance distance.  That's difficult in many cases because of some of the churches teaching how dangerous it is to be around the unsaved for too much time, playing with fire and all that.  I see a lot of mental games between atheists and theists trying to best each other with scripture or philosophy.  I find that rather ironic because theists often try to convince people who don't believe in scripture... using scripture.  Atheists often try to convince theists... using that same scripture.  Philosophy and metaphysics is about the only place I see the two sides could really have meaningful discussions, because both sides tend to cherry-pick scripture.  I have done it myself as a member of both sides.  It is simple... God exists in faith, not in evidence.  If a person's faith can convince them of a god, then so be it.  It just doesn't work that way for me.

[AnimatedDirt]

Which is why I would encourage any non-believer who truly wishes to gain at least a basic understanding of the thought processes of the theists to read as much of the actual scripture as they can stomach (I've read the entire Bible more than once), and to try out a few church services from a few different denominations, preferably with a friend who is a member.  On the other hand, I encourage theists who truly wish to gain the same basic understanding of the non-theist though process to actually befriend one instead of keeping them at a temptation-avoidance distance.  That's difficult in many cases because of some of the churches teaching how dangerous it is to be around the unsaved for too much time, playing with fire and all that.  I see a lot of mental games between atheists and theists trying to best each other with scripture or philosophy.  I find that rather ironic because theists often try to convince people who don't believe in scripture... using scripture.  Atheists often try to convince theists... using that same scripture.  Philosophy and metaphysics is about the only place I see the two sides could really have meaningful discussions, because both sides tend to cherry-pick scripture.  I have done it myself as a member of both sides.  It is simple... God exists in faith, not in evidence.  If a person's faith can convince them of a god, then so be it.  It just doesn't work that way for me.

And I would agree...God is not a science question as there is no empirical proof of God nor a test of God, but a question of philosophical proportion and/or a personal test(s) of God as Bruce continually "argues" for and it seems you agree. ( in which is the bold above. )

[Genericguy]

God is not a science question as there is no empirical proof of God nor a test of God...

Lately, I've been thinking about the term "supernatural". If something exists, it exists within nature. If something exists within nature, it is natural for it to exist. Science is the study of nature. These claims of supernatural beings are not outside of science. The inability to disprove something does not discredit it as a scientific claim.

[Crow]

God is not a science question as there is no empirical proof of God nor a test of God...

Lately, I've been thinking about the term "supernatural". If something exists, it exists within nature. If something exists within nature, it is natural for it to exist. Science is the study of nature. These claims of supernatural beings are not outside of science. The inability to disprove something does not discredit it as a scientific claim.

If it did exist and was measurable and testable by science then it would move from supernatural to natural, so far there is nothing to measure therefore its supernatural not natural, and in pretty much all cases be explained as something else that is actually natural. It cant be part of science if it doesn't exist or there is nothing to measure.

[xSilverPhinx]

What's the difference between supernatural and metaphysical? ???

[Stevil]

To read is to interpret...and your whole post from the above exerpt is an interpretation...a wrong interpretation, but an interpretation nonetheless.

I certainly have an outsider's view of Christianity. I do try to understand you AD, thus I ask lots of questions.
I am often left in disbelief with regards to your mental positions, such as when you argue that the 47 mauled by Bears sent by god where not children but were young adults, or when you keep saying that the bible claims..., Jesus claims... therefore it must be true.

Thus I make some claims, but instead of accepting my claims to be true you come back with a counter claim that I have the wrong interpretation.

So obviously you base knowledge off more that mere claims, maybe claims need to be written in your bible for them to be true. I don't know, or maybe claims on forums don't count, maybe I need to write my claims on rice paper.

It baffles me as to when a claim can be considered by you as true.