The gruesome world of a Bible literalist

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you've read the NT as you said you have, it should be clear that the Law was ineffective and was replaced.
The law was effective, but as it is said, no one gets saved by the law. The law shows that we are all sinners and fall short of the standard given to us. The OT shows why we need a savior and why we can't save ourselves.
 
Jesus fulfilled the law. He was the only one that could keep the commands of the law. He lived a perfect life. All who try to live by the law are cursed, because if you break ONE commandment you break them all...And we are not only judged by our actions but by OUR hearts for it was written in Matthew:

You have heard that it was said to the people long ago,
 
Yeah, the people who do that are foolish. Literally everyone with a brain knows that Islamists are no threat to the civilised world whatsoever..good call!

Right, like saying 90% of terrorists are brown.
 
The law was effective, but as it is said, no one gets saved by the law. The law shows that we are all sinners and fall short of the standard given to us. The OT shows why we need a savior and why we can't save ourselves.

The law is effective if you keep it, but you're absolutely correct.

Thanks for that Galatians passage, Colby, I don't think it will serve to convince anyone, unfortunately. It's too convenient to ignore these passages and continue to point to the Torah as the rule for Christians.
 
I'm not arguing literal vs figurative, I'm arguing that this passage is obvious hyperbole.

If it were obvious Mr. Kenneth Dale Wakefield would have both his eyes and wife and pets with their heads on.



I don't care whether you dismiss the bible as a story, this has no relevance on what the authors meant. If you don't care to investigate what the authors meant, not sure why you are even posting here.

I know you don't care. You get messages from god and all. People on sherdog pointing out the flaws in your doctrine are far down the ladder of influence. I don't care what the authors meant, if the Christian bible were truly something special no such additional requirements would be necessary. The message should be clear and tangible in all languages, it simply isn't.

You have to be dishonest to argue that the only possible interpretation is that it is not a figure of speech. At the very least, you must concede that it could be hyperbole, in which case you cannot declare that a Christian must accept this as a moral obligation.

My argument is that all interpretations are valid because at its core the text is vague and ripe for dissonance in context. I'm happy Christians like you exist who don't explicitly proselytize and kill people or hurt themselves in the name of their gods but realize that not everyone is like you.
 
My argument is that all interpretations are valid because at its core the text is vague and ripe for dissonance in context. I'm happy Christians like you exist who don't explicitly proselytize and kill people or hurt themselves in the name of their gods but realize that not everyone is like you.

Read the bible...the New Testament specifically...before you start debating.

No Christian would kill in the name of Christ because that is completely unbiblical.

Jesus said this in Matthew:

Eye for Eye

38
 
We don't cherry pick the Mosaic Law because we are not under the Mosaic Law. You can disagree with homosexuality and not look to the Torah, just like you can disagree with drunkenness and not look to the Torah. If I looked to the Torah, I would be under the Old Covenant, and would need to keep the 613 laws. If you've read the NT as you said you have, it should be clear that the Law was ineffective and was replaced.

So the NT says nothing of the sort. What the NT says (or rather, what Jesus is supposed to have said in the Sermon on the Mount IIRC) is that he fulfilled the law. Does that mean the law no longer has any relevance? If so, then what the hell is the OT doing as part of the bible? I know how it became a part of the bible historically, but why if it's now fulfilled and fulfillment means 'no longer necessary' is it still there? I don't know how you can have it both ways. Either the law is fulfilled and is no longer important and shouldn't even be mentioned in Christian theological conversations, or it's still important and Christians just ignore the parts they don't like.

I have an alternative theory: Christians have beliefs that are largely a product of their culture and upbringing, and they utilize the bible in whatever way they see fit to provide divine authority for what they already believed. Which they then, from time to time, use as a club to try and beat down those they disagree with and justify all manner of lunacy like teaching creationism in public schools.

As for me claiming some special status for my interpretation of the bible, I don't interpret the bible in anywhere near the same sense Christians do. I don't care at all about the bible as a guide to living morally or achieving salvation, I only look at it in reference to the ideas and actions of Christians. The only dog I have in this fight is my strident opposition to Christians imposing their religious views on others, and if pointing out internal contradictions in the bible and the hypocritical ways in which Christians leverage scripture to oppress people weakens their arguments I'm happy to do it.
 
No Christian would kill in the name of Christ because that is completely unbiblical.
No. We were to sell our cloaks and buy swords. The swords are not to be bought simply because they are cool.

There are situations in which killing a person is the loving thing to do.

The sermon on the mount is not the be-all end all of Christian teaching and not the main teaching of Christian morality. One should not take the prohibition to seek revenge as a prohibition to oppose evil. That is what we do.
 
Read the bible...the New Testament specifically...before you start debating.

No Christian would kill in the name of Christ because that is completely unbiblical.

Jesus said this in Matthew:

Eye for Eye

38
 
So the NT says nothing of the sort. What the NT says (or rather, what Jesus is supposed to have said in the Sermon on the Mount IIRC) is that he fulfilled the law. Does that mean the law no longer has any relevance? If so, then what the hell is the OT doing as part of the bible? I know how it became a part of the bible historically, but why if it's now fulfilled and fulfillment means 'no longer necessary' is it still there? I don't know how you can have it both ways. Either the law is fulfilled and is no longer important and shouldn't even be mentioned in Christian theological conversations, or it's still important and Christians just ignore the parts they don't like.

I have an alternative theory: Christians have beliefs that are largely a product of their culture and upbringing, and they utilize the bible in whatever way they see fit to provide divine authority for what they already believed. Which they then, from time to time, use as a club to try and beat down those they disagree with and justify all manner of lunacy like teaching creationism in public schools.

As for me claiming some special status for my interpretation of the bible, I don't interpret the bible in anywhere near the same sense Christians do. I don't care at all about the bible as a guide to living morally or achieving salvation, I only look at it in reference to the ideas and actions of Christians. The only dog I have in this fight is my strident opposition to Christians imposing their religious views on others, and if pointing out internal contradictions in the bible and the hypocritical ways in which Christians leverage scripture to oppress people weakens their arguments I'm happy to do it.

Sidestepping the biblical interpretation, I would respond to the rest of your post with my post from earlier: You can't call me hypocritical if I interpret the NT as taking precedent, as you are claiming an absolute interpretation, yourself. You believe in the Mosaic Law, and I don't. Why are you right and I am wrong?
 
Read the bible...the New Testament specifically...before you start debating.

No Christian would kill in the name of Christ because that is completely unbiblical.

Jesus said this in Matthew:

Eye for Eye

38
 
Sidestepping the biblical interpretation, I would respond to the rest of your post with my post from earlier: You can't call me hypocritical if I interpret the NT as taking precedent, as you are claiming an absolute interpretation, yourself. You believe in the Mosaic Law, and I don't. Why are you right and I am wrong?

I don't believe in Mosaic law, or the new testament. I don't believe in any of your iron age superstition. I'm pointing out that you're saying Mosaic law isn't important, but yet it remains in your holy book, and is cited constantly by your coreligionists. It is an indisputable fact that Mosaic law remains a part of the Christian bible, is it not? So what gives? If Jesus fulfilled it and by doing so eliminated it, why does it still hold so much sway in Christian thought?

Dude, you're way too smart to believe in any of this. It's one thing to have had an experience you think was supernatural and believe in some sort of divinity, but to really think that one of many itinerant anti-Roman Jewish rabbis 2000 years ago was literally the son of God because a bunch of Greeks who never met him wrote it down 100-300 years later defies credulity. You might as well worship Ahura Mazda, it's no less inane.
 
I don't believe in Mosaic law, or the new testament. I don't believe in any of your iron age superstition. I'm pointing out that you're saying Mosaic law isn't important, but yet it remains in your holy book, and is cited constantly by your coreligionists. It is an indisputable fact that Mosaic law remains a part of the Christian bible, is it not?
The Bible includes also murders, blasphemy, offering babies to idols et cetera. What are you driving at? You think that "being in the Bible" makes stuff a Christian imperative?
 
I don't believe in Mosaic law, or the new testament. I don't believe in any of your iron age superstition. I'm pointing out that you're saying Mosaic law isn't important, but yet it remains in your holy book, and is cited constantly by your coreligionists. It is an indisputable fact that Mosaic law remains a part of the Christian bible, is it not? So what gives? If Jesus fulfilled it and by doing so eliminated it, why does it still hold so much sway in Christian thought?

Dude, you're way too smart to believe in any of this. It's one thing to have had an experience you think was supernatural and believe in some sort of divinity, but to really think that one of many itinerant anti-Roman Jewish rabbis 2000 years ago was literally the son of God because a bunch of Greeks who never met him wrote it down 100-300 years later defies credulity. You might as well worship Ahura Mazda, it's no less inane.

My interpretation is that "it isn't important". If I'm honest in my hermeneutics, why would you not accept my view instead of insisting that I must have an agenda of hypocrisy?

I'm not that smart, but beyond that, my intelligence has no relevance on my beliefs. If I had reason to believe in another God, or if I had no reason to believe in any God, I would be doing so.
 
No. We were to sell our cloaks and buy swords. The swords are not to be bought simply because they are cool.

There are situations in which killing a person is the loving thing to do.

The sermon on the mount is not the be-all end all of Christian teaching and not the main teaching of Christian morality. One should not take the prohibition to seek revenge as a prohibition to oppose evil. That is what we do.

Okay I've read the sell our cloaks and buy swords...

But can you show where in scripture (new testament) where it says to kill in the name of Christ?

I'm torn on this because I would personally defend myself and my family if I am put in that position. I'm in law enforcement and carry a gun 90% of the time. I think self defense is a gray area because we are instructed to sell our cloaks and buy swords but we are also instructed to turn the other cheek... Perhaps every situation is different and we have to take it into context I suppose.

Romans 13 I think directly relates to law enforcement in saying:

 
...not getting the point you're trying to make.

Christ commanding us to maim ourselves makes us hypocrites by not doing so and still condemning homosexuality. Ironic to have to address this in a conversation about your interpretation not being honest.
 
But can you show where in scripture (new testament) where it says to kill in the name of Christ?
No. I can cite a bunch of real life examples, though, if you want.

t we are also instructed to turn the other cheek... Perhaps every situation is different and we have to take it into context I suppose.
The thing is this: if you do it for your ego, you're sinning. If you do it because it is the right thing to do, you're not sinning. The "love your enemies" part refers specifically to getting personal revenge. A strike on your right cheek is done with the left hand. It is an insult, not a real threat. Thus you should not get worked over it. Then again if someone gets proactively violent, you have all the reason in the world to stop him.

I hope that clarifies the passage a bit.

I don't know, I suppose you're right there is a time and place for everything. Guess the best way is to seek guidance from God.
There is no time and place for sin, but otherwise that is a good rule of thumb.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top