Throwing out the old testament?
Posted on: April 26, 2007 - 3:37pm
Offline
Throwing out the old testament?
Well, I got i nto a discussion with this girl in my drawing class. I meantioned some of the nasty parts of the Bible, about the sexism, murder, bigotry, etc. She says that since they were in the Old Testament, that they should be excluded since Jesus came by in the new one. However, doesn't the Old Testament still have verses that Christians believe? She told me she believed in Adam and Eve instead of evolution, and in the 10 commandments. Correct me if I'm wrong (I might be), but weren't those meantioned in the Old Testament? How can you toss out part of the book without tossing the whole out? Why would an all powerful being need to "revise" himself?
JESUS SAVES!!! .... and takes only half damage!
- Login to post comments
That's not an answer to why you do what you do or say what you say. You are simply brushing me off by taking what you want to read instead of addressing my point. I've backed up how based on other biblical scripture from the NT so there is no assertion - it's from the bible. As I've said before, it's not a question as to if you believe it or not but rather if you can actually approach it from an open minded perspective, which, by your use of obscenities, it's obvious you are unwilling to.
And you are biased in your assumption that they cannot. It seems like it never dawned on you that the so called contradictions are not valid to begin with; you took them based on what someone else said (since the posting from rook is nothing new - any Christian can tell you they've been around for years) and because it seems to be your mission to label it as "delusional", that is to simply dismiss instead of civilly debate, any explanation to a false claim, hence will never be accepted no matter the explanation. Now tell me, how is that discussing or debating?
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
I will have to answer all points one by one.
See? That wasn't so difficult to answer ! I'll look into it, skim it and compare it with the problems I've found within my Bible.
I have to disagree with you. It appears that not only religions are mutually exclusive, but also some denominations are. And the same problem of plurality that I pose in concern to religion (which, by the way, still stands) can also be applied to many (NOT all) denominations as well.
Also, I doubt your sentences on how well believers and non-believers understand the message of Jesus are a very accurate description of reality...
Actually, since it's all part of "God's great plan", then yeah... But nevermind, that was only a joke.
This, actually, has got me thinking: what other things aren't we allowed to do with our body?
Isn't it interesting that God created the human so that it craves for pleasure, yet the things that give it the greatest pleasure were created either toxic, or unhealthy, or generally forbidden? This is the all-lovingness of a sadistic pervert.
...Like all the people that lived BEFORE schizophrenia was even thought about as a disorder? Come now, you can do better than that!
OR unable (apologies for all 3rd world forum members for this)...
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
Jaden's turn.
Thank you for the Bible references, I'll check them too
Keyword here is "some".
Actually, if Jesus was sent to clarify the laws, he succeeded in doing exactly the opposite. Now the law(s) are fuzzier than anyone can imagine (hence Christian denomination as a live proof).
What happened then to all thoe other OT laws? Are they still in effect? If yes, then certainly you see a very big problem, if not, then why were they given in the first place and changed afterwards? This question is directed to the other theists that might see this, as you have answered below.
Let me try.
Deuteronomy: 22:5, 21:11-14, 20:13-14, 16:16, 22:28-29, 25:5, 25:11-12, 12:30, 17:1-7, 17:12-13, 22:23-24, 23:1 (this one is ridiculously eerie), 7:3, 7:5
Numbers: 1:51, 3:10 and 3:38 (these three are absolutely ridiculous, and it certainly isn't error, since they all say the same thing), 9:13
Give it a whirl... I'm DEAD curious.
Qvod erat demonstrandvm. Thank you.
Left Behind is sick... and if there's a debate on which movie should be banned, it probably comes second only to "Jesus Camp".
It's easy to explain: they have absolutely no idea when J.C. is coming back.
But since I am not a believer, I do not obey the stupid laws and canon that Christianity holds forth. Therefore I am not in need to ask such a question. I'm asking it, though, to see what justification(s) YOU have. So how about you answer the question and not project, please?
And as for who or what is responsible for one's being, the answer depends: if you're a believer, it's God (through omniscience and omnipotence), if you're a non-believer, it's probably nature.
It's funny that one can apply the same logic to money... but I haven't seen many poor priests
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
You didn't say another bible! You said a book...if I had known that it would have been answered long ago!
The issue you are touching on and one that will never die so long as people impose their own will on "we think this is what God wants" is that of appearance. Denominations will forever give off contradicting, questionable, and even to the point of hateful messages all because of the wonderful act of making God a business. I am not talking about believers but followers. Believers, and those are far fewer than followers, will understand and make adjustments accordingly. I make no excuses but I also understand what someone in your position must think when you see something like "no idols" and walk into a catholic church and wonder "what the..."
Anything that causes self harm to your body or to be disrespectful to yourself. Drugs, prostitution, stuff like that.
I wouldn't call it sadistic. God gives plenty for pleasure but the pleasure is perverted to forbidden pleasures by man and his desire to push the limits. It's our ever inquisitive nature that tells us to push the boundaries. Sex is wonderful but add sex with drugs and now you've got issues.
I'm not talking about some clinical diagnosis. You really think Cho couldn't have been helped when he was much younger? You think that Ted Bundy couldn't have been helped to not disrespect women as he did well before he decided to take a trip?
The point here is we can't assume that someone like Cho will learn to stick up for himself as he gets older or Bundy will "figure it out" on his own. We cannot and should not think about "me me me" first and should concern ourselves with our neighbors before ourselves. Utopian thinking I know but anything is possible...
It has nothing to do with financial though. Next time you see a disaster with say during the winter someone decided it would be a good idea to put the portable heaters under the blankets and next thing they've lost part of their house to a fire, don't offer them money but your time to help rebuild instead. You go out and buy the paint for them instead of just giving them money and it goes a lot farther for them, especially if you are willing to stick around and paint one of the rooms for them. Another example is that person on the side of the road begging for food. Don't give them the dollar but tell them you are willing to go buy them that combo number 1 from McDonalds if they are truly hungry (and with that you'll find out who really is). This means even more to areas that don't have a lot of money because then your time, which is far more precious, gives way to motivation for those who lost and that motivation never is forgotten.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Quote:
Rigor replied: Or, in other words, they have a choice between believing all nonsense and potentially going to heaven, or be realistic and going to hell.
While I hesitate to pronounce judgement on the soul of any person (it's a coupla pay grades above my level), you pretty much understand that one. Any person having recieved the full truth of the faith as expressed by the Catholic Church and after that, rejecting that teaching endangers their salvation.
Quote:Rigor replied: Oh, aren't we having a wishful thinker amongst us?
"The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith." - taken from http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html - Galileo Galilei's trial, and those are Pope Urban's words on the Earth not being the center of the Universe...
Also note this: "The cardinal [note: Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna], responding to an explosive debate on evolution in the US, had argued that Darwinian concepts of "random variation and natural selection" were incompatible with the Catholic belief that there is a divine purpose and design to nature.
The cardinal also said that the evolution had become an atheistic ideological dogma that was being used against the Church."
Taken from very interesting news: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=401950&in_page_id=1811
Now... what were you saying, again ?
Both links are very interesting, but...
I see seven signatures on Galileo's condemnation. Which one is the Pope's? Only the Holy Father, or Church councils called under his authority for the express purpose of defining doctrine can infallibly define doctrine. This was the judgement of an ecclesial tribunal which is only a disciplinary body and has no authority to define doctrine.
The second link takes me to a news story about the firing of the Vatican astronomer, a priest who is a proponent of random evolution. The article quotes the archbishop of Vienna. Is the archbishop of Vienna the Vicar of Christ? No, the Pope, the bishop of Rome, is the Vicar of Christ. Can the archbishop of Vienna infallibly pornounce doctrine to be believed by all Catholic faithful? No, only the Pope can do that.
Further, the disagreement is not over the biological mechanism of man's origins, with which the Pope (and the article implies, the Cardinal) agree to be evolutionary, but whether there was Divine intention behind that origin.
I could discuss Catholic doctrine and/or the Galileo issue in more detail if you'd like, but I'm thinking it may not be germane to this thread. Perhaps we could start a new one.
Sorry for not using the quote system, but my browsers messing up the right margins and I couldn't reach that option. Thanks for bearing with me.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
Catholics have so many ways of trying to squirm out of the fact that their supposedly infallible church has in fact made mistakes. Galileo was tried by the Roman Inquisition, which was established by Pope Paul III for the purpose of doing just exactly what it was doing. So although it may not meet your surgical definition of what is supposed to be infallible doctrine, it is also clearly true that the church forced early scientists to believe that the earth is the center of the universe.
There are no proponents of "random" evolution, that is a creationist distortion.
Clearly, since the pope has not said why he fired this person, everything is speculation. However, it is not to unreasonable to imagine that the pope would have fired him for a disagreement over evolution, which, if true, would mean that the pope is endorsing ID theory.
And, the ambiguity is probably exactly the point. If the pope were to explain that he fired this man over evolution, that would have to become set Catholic doctrine. By allowing only "sources close to the Holy See" to say anything, they protect themselves against the possibility that their stance on evolution could cost them membership by allowing them to change their minds later. However, this does not change the likelyhood that the pope has enforced ID theory.
Better to clear up the issue now that it's come up.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
It's not my definition. It's the definition of the First Vatican Council, a body empowered by the Church to define dogma. It is an affirmation of what the Church has always and everywhere believed.
So, the tribunal, the Roman Inqusition, had not the competence tro pronounce on matters of faith and doctrine. If this was a Church doctrine, where is the Pope's pronouncement of it as such?
Then why not Copernicus? He was also a devout Catholic, quite possibly a priest. His work on heliocentricity was published in 1543 at the urging of a Catholic cardinal and bishop. The edition included a dedication to Pope Paul III. Kepler didn't seem to have any problem either when he expanded on Copernicus' work ten years prior to Galileo. Maybe it was something Galileo did?
It was. When Galileo was accused of teaching matters contrary to Scripture, an investigation was conducted by Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. The Cardinal concluded that Galileo had not taught heresy, but did warn him not to teach as fact a theory which had not been proven. Strike one.
In 1623, Pope Urban VIII ascended to the Holy See. He was a friend of Galileo, who asked for the Pope's blessing to publish a book on heliocentrism. The Pope agreed, as long as Galileo pressented balanced views of helio- and geo-centrism, and made known the Pope's view if the issue, geocentrism. The end result was biased in favor of the still unproven theory heliocentrism strike two). He put the words of the Pope into the mouth of a dim-witted geocentrist named Simplicius (strike three). The pope was pissed. So off to the Roman Inquisition.
I stand corrected.
Gotta run right now. I'll respond to the rest in another post.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
Again I will have to answer one at a time.
Well, the Bible is a book too, isn't it?
Don't worry, it's OK, I'm looking into what you gave me and studying, so no worries on this point.
Going past your assumption that I have no idea how different types of churches look like from the inside, your argument here still has a very tough problem. What is the basis on which one should know what the real message of God is? Because I sure as fire agree with you that there are many followers, but few believers, but than again, no religion is missing believers. So from this point of view, no religion or denomination stands out from the crowd more than the others. which takes us straight back to "How do we know we made the right choice?"
So: shaving, haircutting, fingernail cutting, tattooing, bodypainting, extremely high heels, surgery, medication (especially referring to painkillers and sometimes antibiotics), amputation, shock therapy, electrostimulation, ... anyway, you see where I'm going, I hope...
Oh, excuse me, and who is supposed to have made our nature inquisitive? I'm sorry, you didn't take down any sadism from God's image. You've actually added some to it: the sadist that also disguises his sadism, so that humans will spend even more tormenting time wondering why shit happens...
Also, I like having sex (I doubt there are many that don't), but I don't do drugs. Yet, since I'm not married, I'm still a hellbound sinner according to at least the Catholic doctrine.
"concern ourselves with our neighbours"... and do WHAT for them, can you tell me? My point was VERY simple in nature: what happened BEFORE schizophrenia was first ever named an illness? When people would simply go crazy and start hearing voices or see mirages that sound and look soooooo damn realistic, and nobody even had any idea what's going on? WHAT were people supposed to do for their neighbours?
Ironically, the worst possible course of action (save, perhaps, for plain death) to take in these cases was taken precisely by the Church, and only the example of Joan of Arc comes to mind...
Actually, you have kind of proven my point perfectly without even knowing. I'll just say this: Imagine that your neighbour's house is on fire, and that you work on 1-2$ per hour...
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
Well, that's some choice, pal... If you came and gave me such a choice in real life, then I'd do all my best to kill you until I'm certain that you're dead.
Hmpf... and people say that God is supposed to be all-loving...
I'm actually surprised, dude... Though I know I shouldn't be.
Man, face it: your infallible church FUCKED IT UP... it FUCKED IT UP with Galilei, it FUCKED IT UP with Giordano Bruno, and it FUCKED IT UP with other occasions as well...
I'll take it from a legal standpoint. That "disciplinary body" is made to apply doctrine and coerce others in cases of straying, disobedience, etc. Since that "disciplinary body" gave that verdict, it can only mean 2 possible things:
- that was the doctrine
- they were terribly wrong
IN EACH CASE, it proves that your Church is NOT infaillible. In the first one, holding a doctrine that is now proven to be false, and in the second case simply being wrong.
Now, because you made me mad, I went Googling for things for you (and you should really thank me for this, you have no idea how many sites spewing hatred and ignorance I had to view before I found what I was looking for):
- http://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html - a... hmm... very creepy essay which kind of proves just what you, a non-geocentrist Catholic, DON'T want to hear... Look at the part concerning the Church Fathers...
- the Papal Bull of Alexander VII declares (translated): "the Pythagorean doctrine concerning the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun is false and altogether incompatible with divine Scripture" and the principles advocated by Copernicus on the position and movement of the earth to be “repugnant to Scripture and to its true and Catholic interpretation" - it can't get more straightforward than that.
And there goes the infaillibility of your Church.
S'allright. Use the wuote system manually, next time. As in: [ quote ] and [ /quote ] (without the spaces, quoted text goes in between).
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
OK I understand. Tell me, without a DNA test to prove it, how do you know your mom is your mom? If you are dating someone special and they tell you they love you, how do you know? What makes you believe each of these cases without proof? I mean you could say that the person loves you by their actions (non-sexual) but any good natured person would do the same. I mean to prove love you could have some kind of MRI that shows the brain activity and associate it to love reactions that other's have.
My point here is this - you trust the words you are given from sources that are close to you and in what I've experienced, I say the same from God himself. It was no choice I made but rather the choice was made for me to understand this is the right way to follow.
How does grooming (shaving, haircuts, etc) disrespect yourself? A person's taste in shoes? Medical assistance to live?
I see where you are going but I don't understand how you got there to begin with. If you have an inflamed appendicitis, surgery to save your life is not disrespecting your body. Adding ass implants because you want a sexier behind is. People say as they get older they want plastic enhancements to keep them young looking but doing these things to your body is a sign you don't respect what God gave you and, as is usually the case, don't like yourself. People think doing these things helps them but it usually doesn't. Sure it might be a band-aid but it almost always denerates back.
If God gave us sex not only for reproduction but for pleasure, but we use it in a disrespectful manor (like the guy who was HIV positive and having unprotected sex to get back at women), how is that God adding sadism? It was not God's intention for sex to be used this way nor any other of his gifts.
I also love being with a woman in a sexual manor and yes according to Catholic dogma you are condemned if you have premarital sex. Thing is, and this is usually where it's missed, "marriage" (keep in mind I'm referring only to man + woman here) is not a term that comes from the concept of a ceremony, the ring, the contract, etc. When a man and a woman join together and become "one flesh"...guess what that's marriage. This is why it is said that sex should be between two people who love one another. God will bless this, with or without a ceremony, because God knows the intention of each person's heart. What is a perversion of the gift of love is when it's used for personal enjoyment. I'll give you a hint though, it's forgivable....the catch though is you have to want to be forgiven (repentance).
See my point was why did it have to get to the point of us having to define it? If it could have been prevented, why didn't we as a society take more steps to prevent it?
You ask, "do what for them?" Does the concept of friendship and fellowship seem that far away to you?
Fear is what makes society "dispose" of people they don't understand, like Joan of Arc. Fear is what makes people not walk up to their neighbors to say hello, make small talk, offer themselves as friends, if they are moving lend yourself or your vehicle for them to use. Fear is what makes us not want to stop to help someone fix a flat. Fear is what makes us not want to do any of these things for perfect strangers. Granted there are evils of this world that we see daily, people being set up and people exploiting goodwill, but should that stop us?
You know your last point, I prove something you said right, what was that?
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
to totus_tuus and rigor,
You know as I was reading your posts concerning the Catholic church, something was really starting to get disturbing.
I wanted to say that EVERYONE who has been or is a Christian today should be ashamed of the things that were done by man in the name of God when involved the condemnation on Earth of a group of people or a way of life they did not agree with. I am not proud to be associated with the past when it involves the inquisition, the crucades, or so on. These are clear cut cases in which fear and hate were used in the name of God to serve no purpose other than dismissal or, worse, power plays. Even by today's standards, saying that God hates America because we allow homosexuality is not something I want to be associated with because we as individuals should not hate.
War against evil is one thing and I believe that there will be times in which it is necessary. But doing it because of motives for power, for hate, or because you don't like a person (sounds like Iraq doesn't it?) and hiding those motives by using the name of God as your reason are not to be supported at all.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Sorry for taking so long to respond, but pressing domestic duties have kept me away from the computer for a bit.
[
Clearly, since the pope has not said why he fired this person, everything is speculation. However, it is not to unreasonable to imagine that the pope would have fired him for a disagreement over evolution, which, if true, would mean that the pope is endorsing ID theory.
And, the ambiguity is probably exactly the point. If the pope were to explain that he fired this man over evolution, that would have to become set Catholic doctrine. By allowing only "sources close to the Holy See" to say anything, they protect themselves against the possibility that their stance on evolution could cost them membership by allowing them to change their minds later. However, this does not change the likelyhood that the pope has enforced ID theory.
Exactly. If by intelligent design (ID), you mean that there is an intelligence guiding the progress of evolution. Catholics are free to believe in the process of evolution, and it is indeed the direction in which the scientific evidence points, and is the theory which I embrace. We must, however, believe that man was the intention of the instigator of the evolutionary process. This belief I hold, and apparently the priest who was fired, did not. This teaching is promulgated in Pius XII's encyclical "Humani Generis", para 36 :"For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God."
The astronomer fired by the Pope obviously did not hold this view, and nearly embraced heresy. The Pope obviously fire this man through an intermediary to avoid causing confusion regarding the Church's teaching. I don't disagree with very much you said here at all.
I must say here, that I am not a Fundamentalist, and do not adhere to a literaralist interpretation of the Scriptures. I would no more turn the Bible for scientific explanations of the universe than I would go to my auto mechanic to perform a coronary bypass for me. Genesis was not intended to be a scientific text, to explain the how of the universe; but rather to explain God's inetent in the Creation, the why of the Universe. I believe that the Church has learned a valuable lesson about meddling in scientific pronouncements from the whole Galileo fiasco (yes, I believe the Galileo thing was badly handled) and the current Pontiff has applied those lessons in theis instance.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II