Fear of Atheism

[Ross Dolan]

^^^ Grasping at straws. Cutting and pasting doesn't cut it, chap.

Christians do not have to follow the ritual and civil laws of the Torah. Clearly spelled out in Galatians.

NONSENSE!

It would not be wise to take me on regarding what Paul said in Galatians...or about the meeting in Jerusalem that is spoken of. That area is something on which I can write a doctoral thesis.

The only thing truly decided as being an obligation, in the opinion of Paul, (not necessarily agreed to by Peter) was that gentile converts to the new Jewish sect of Christianity did not have to be circumcised...and were not under obligation to follow dietary restrictions in toto.

And one would think that what Jesus said would be more important to Christians than what Paul said. Unfortunately, when wriggling out of the quandary that Jesus' words present, that seldom is important to present day Christians.

The Pharisees themselves complained Jesus did not follow Mosaic civil law.

Okay...so you think Jesus was a liar. I understand.

So go with the Pharisees.

Since you did not stop eating shellfish or pork, and since you didn't practice Sabbath when you were a practicing Catholic, then it was obviously always crystal clear in your mind that you were not/never obligated to follow Mosaic civil laws, nor did your church require you to. Cutting and pasting on this messsage board doesn't change the fact that this was always crystal clear in your mind.

You are correct. I was taught that by the Church.

But now that I no longer follow the dictates of the Church...I see that the Church was always doing what you are doing now.

My suggestion: Stop the nonsense.

 

[Cypress]

NONSENSE!

It would not be wise to take me on regarding what Paul said in Galatians...or about the meeting in Jerusalem that is spoken of. That area is something on which I can write a doctoral thesis.

The only thing truly decided as being an obligation, in the opinion of Paul, (not necessarily agreed to by Peter) was that gentile converts to the new Jewish sect of Christianity did not have to be circumcised...and were not under obligation to follow dietary restrictions in toto.

And one would think that what Jesus said would be more important to Christians than what Paul said. Unfortunately, when wriggling out of the quandary that Jesus' words present, that seldom is important to present day Christians.


Okay...so you think Jesus was a liar. I understand.

So go with the Pharisees.


You are correct. I was taught that by the Church.

But now that I no longer follow the dictates of the Church...I see that the Church was always doing what you are doing now.

My suggestion: Stop the nonsense.

The fact that neither you or any other Christian you know keeps the Sabbath or religiously avoids pork is overwhelming proof that the ritual laws of Torah don't apply to Christianity.

Cutting and pasting does not change that fact.

Everything you need to know about living the Christian life is in the New Testament. The Old Testament is reference material.


I have learned that the most fanatical biblical literalists and cherry pickers are not the right-wing Evangelicals.

They are the atheists and fanatically anti-Christian zealots.

You cherry picked one sentence out of the Bible and then neglected everything else that is written in the New Testament

 

[gmark77]

The fact that neither you or any other Christian you know keeps the Sabbath or religiously avoids pork is overwhelming proof that the ritual laws of Torah don't apply to Christianity.

...as it has developed. It clearly didn't start out the way it looks now. I think everyone here can agree on that. It took hundreds of years to establish the faith.

Everything you need to know about living the Christian life is in the New Testament. The Old Testament is reference material.

This is an oversimplification of the relationship Christians have with the OT. Yes it is a reasonable question as to how much of the "Law" Christians are held to and to assume that the Laws of the OT no longer apply in the same manner, but to assume the OT is nothing more than "reference material" is to miss what many Christians actually think.

10 Reasons the Old Testament Is Important for Christians

The Old Testament was not written to you, but it was written for you.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

You cherry picked one sentence out of the Bible and then neglected everything else that is written in the New Testament

But that one sentence is critical. It is potentially very important. In fact it clearly answers the questions raised in this thread. In plain language. No interpretation needed.

NOW, as to why the same Jesus who said THAT also DID things which called into question the necessity of all the jots and tittles of the law is another thing altogether.

That's a much more interesting question.

 

[Cypress]

...as it has developed. It clearly didn't start out the way it looks now. I think everyone here can agree on that. It took hundreds of years to establish the faith.



This is an oversimplification of the relationship Christians have with the OT. Yes it is a reasonable question as to how much of the "Law" Christians are held to and to assume that the Laws of the OT no longer apply in the same manner, but to assume the OT is nothing more than "reference material" is to miss what many Christians actually think.

10 Reasons the Old Testament Is Important for Christians

The Old Testament was not written to you, but it was written for you.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

But that one sentence is critical. It is potentially very important. In fact it clearly answers the questions raised in this thread. In plain language. No interpretation needed.

NOW, as to why the same Jesus who said THAT also DID things which called into question the necessity of all the jots and tittles of the law is another thing altogether.

That's a much more interesting question.

We're talking about reality here.

The reality of how Jesus' teachings and the New Testament ethos was transmitted to Christianized Europe.

It didn't involve shellfish or pork or animal sacrifice ritual. .

Reality does not include a theoretical discussion of whether gentiles had to follow the ritual law of Torah.

The fact that Ross nor any other Christians here keep the Sabbath or avoid shellfish is unequivocal proof that this mental masturbation about ritual and civil Mosaic law has nothing to do with reality.

 

[Ross Dolan]

The fact that neither you or any other Christian you know keeps the Sabbath or religiously avoids pork is overwhelming proof that the ritual laws of Torah don't apply to Christianity.

So you are saying, in effect, that because neither Trump or any of his underlings pay any attention to the Constituion...that means that the Constitution means nothing?

Where has your thinking gone?

People who become hooked on the god of the Bible...just do not fuck with him.

It has nothing to do with proof that the Bible is True and Correct...and the word of god.

Cutting and pasting does not change that fact.

Everything you need to know about living the Christian life is in the New Testament. The Old Testament is reference material.

I have not cut and pasted a single comment so far. I have cut and pasted the words ascribed to Jesus. I can talk about Galatians (and the matters that arose in Acts from now until the cows come home.

So that stop with that nonsense.

I have learned that the most fanatical biblical literalists and cherry pickers are not the right-wing Evangelicals.

They are the atheists and fanatically anti-Christian zealots.

You cherry picked one sentence out of the Bible and then neglected everything else that is written in the New Testament

You over-state your case repeatedly. There is no way I have neglected EVERYTHING else that is written in the New Testament.

I ASK YOU THIS: Show me anything from the New Testament that says that Jesus was lying or exaggerating when he said what he was quoted as saying in Matthew 5.

 

[Ross Dolan]

We're talking about reality here.

The reality of how Jesus' teachings and the New Testament ethos was transmitted to Christianized Europe.

It didn't involve shellfish or pork or animal sacrifice ritual. .

Reality does not include a theoretical discussion of whether gentiles had to follow the ritual law of Torah.

The fact that Ross nor any other Christians here keep the Sabbath or avoid shellfish is unequivocal proof that this mental masturbation about ritual and civil Mosaic law has nothing to do with reality.

You are saying that the god of the Bible was offended by dozens upon dozens of things that he just decided, "Screw it...now it is OK?"

C'mon, man.

Is it okay with the god if a guy sucks another man's cock...or must practicing Christians stone those men to death?

And if you are saying it no longer applies, where does it say that no longer applies?

 

[NiftyNiblick]

You did insinuate it. -->


My apologies if my interpretation of your statement was incorrect.

I'm tired of Team Democrats losing elections because a vocal minority continue to insinuate that Christianity is evil or that Christians are ignorant. That's not going to fly in the culturally conservative Midwest and Appalachia.

This is why I believe that people in all regions of the present United States would benefit in terms of contentment with partition
as was done by the Soviet Union, India/Pakistan, Ireland, Korea, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and other places where incompatible people tried unsuccessfully to share a common government.

There have been far more divisions than re-uniting situations like Germany and Vietnam.
I suspect North Korea would also want to re-unite if the people weren't too incompetent to overthrow Kim.

There is no reason this couldn't all be done peacefully.
There is no reason the newly separated nations couldn't be trading partners and peaceful neighbors--
if we weren't trying to write each other's laws and tax codes and trying to force our religious values on one another.

A national convention should be held specifically for this purpose.
The South, Middle America, Mountain/Big Sky regions, and Alaska could retain the designation of United State of America.
The West Coast and Hawaii could become a new nation.
New England and New York could join Canada,
while Alberta might likely want to join the United States.

It's radical and would require a lot of thought, work, and sincere intentions,
but our radical problems will never find moderate solutions.
In the end, it will either be peaceful partition or civil / genocidal war,
and right now, in my view, even the latter is preferable to the status quo.

 

[Ross Dolan]

We're talking about reality here.

The reality of how Jesus' teachings and the New Testament ethos was transmitted to Christianized Europe.

It didn't involve shellfish or pork or animal sacrifice ritual. .

Reality does not include a theoretical discussion of whether gentiles had to follow the ritual law of Torah.

The fact that Ross nor any other Christians here keep the Sabbath or avoid shellfish is unequivocal proof that this mental masturbation about ritual and civil Mosaic law has nothing to do with reality.

Don't get me wrong, Cypress.

When I was hooked on this Christ thing...I did exactly what you are doing now. I argued...and did not mind if I obviously was dissembling during my arguments. Defending "the faith" was paramount.

 

[gmark77]

We're talking about reality here.

The reality of how Christians ACTUALLY see the OT is mixed, but NOT simply as "reference material". Many Christians quote the OT quite liberally. It is part and parcel of many a sermon. It is the basis on which Christianity was built. Without the OT there is no Christianity.

It didn't involve shellfish or pork or animal sacrifice ritual. .

Thanks largely to Paul's creation of what we understand Christianity to be.

Reality does not include a theoretical discussion of whether gentiles had to follow the ritual law of Torah.

Those were NOT theoretical to the people founding the religion.

The fact that Ross nor any other Christians here keep the Sabbath or avoid shellfish is unequivocal proof that this mental masturbation about ritual and civil Mosaic law has nothing to do with reality.

It sounds like cherry picking to ignore those statements of Jesus which speak against your point.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

In my view, religion, if it must exist at all, should never amount to more than a social hobby.
Otherwise, it does nothing but cause division.

Religion was a phase of human development that no longer serves a purpose among adequately evolved people.

 

[gmark77]

You are saying that the god of the Bible was offended by dozens upon dozens of things that he just decided, "Screw it...now it is OK?"

C'mon, man.

Is it okay with the god if a guy sucks another man's cock...or must practicing Christians stone those men to death?

And if you are saying it no longer applies, where does it say that no longer applies?

There is a stream of thought within some branches of Christianity called "Dispensationalism" in which the theologians reason that mankind's history (per God's view) is broken up into periods of time.

Personally it feels like a "post hoc justification" for how humanity has ALTERED God to meet its own needs, but at least Cypress isn't just off in the weeds.

I don't know if Cypress is a Dispensationalist or not, but it does seem to be of a similar vision. A means by which modern Christians are no longer under Mosaic law.

From what I understand it is an idea first systematized in the 19th century. I honestly don't know what verses they use to justify the concept.

 

[Cypress]

The reality of how Christians ACTUALLY see the OT is mixed, but NOT simply as "reference material". Many Christians quote the OT quite liberally. It is part and parcel of many a sermon. It is the basis on which Christianity was built. Without the OT there is no Christianity.



Thanks largely to Paul's creation of what we understand Christianity to be.



Those were NOT theoretical to the people founding the religion.



It sounds like cherry picking to ignore those statements of Jesus which speak against your point.

Don't get me wrong, Cypress.

When I was hooked on this Christ thing...I did exactly what you are doing now. I argued...and did not mind if I obviously was dissembling during my arguments. Defending "the faith" was paramount.

Everything I wrote on this thread was prefaced by the juxtaposition of Western Civilization and it's experience with Christianity.

Western civilization through the Middle Ages, the Rennassaince, the Enlightenment was essentially Italy, France, England, Holy Roman Empire, Germanic nations, the Low Countries.

It wasn't Palestine or Roman Syria.

The reality for everyone on this board of European descent, is that the teachings, practice, and ethos of Jesus and the NT canon transmitted to Christianized Europe did not include fealty to the ritual and civil laws of Torah.

That's reality.

Reality for Western Civilization is not a theoretical speculation about whether gentiles in first century Palestine and Anatolia needed to convert to Judaism and practice Mosaic ritual.

 

[gmark77]

In my view, religion, if it must exist at all, should never amount to more than a social hobby.
Otherwise, it does nothing but cause trouble.

The ideals espoused in religion are usually things we should strive toward (being kind, not murdering, etc.) but I agree that when you build a social "glue" on the basis of unconfirmable stories that no two people observe in the same way, and you don't allow for the "glue" to be in any way "wrong" then you set up a system whereby people will do evil things in the name of their god.

I don't care about its historical evolution.

For me that's where the meat of the discussion is. It shows the human-features of Christianity or any given religion. It's watching the sausage being made and knowing what all is going into it.

It also helps the modern experience of a religion make more sense.

 

[gmark77]

Everything I wrote on this thread was prefaced by the juxtaposition of Western Civilization and it's experience with Christianity.

Western civilization through the Middle Ages, the Rennassaince, the Enlightenment was essentially Italy, France, England, Germany, the Low Countries.

It wasn't Palestine or Roman Syria.

The reality for everyone on this Board of European descent, is that the teachings, practice, and ethos transmitted to Christianized Europe did not include the ritual and civil laws of Torah.

That's reality.

Reality for Western Civilization is not a theoretical speculation about whether gentiles in first century Palestine and Anatolia needed to convert to Judaism and practice Mosaic ritual.

Would you consider Rome to be in any way associated with Western Civilization? Just curious if that is also off limits for the discussion.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Everything I wrote on this thread was prefaced by the juxtaposition of Western Civilization and it's experience with Christianity.

Western civilization through the Middle Ages, the Rennassaince, the Enlightenment was essentially Italy, France, England, Germany, the Low Countries.

It wasn't Palestine or Roman Syria.

The reality for everyone on this Board of European descent, is that the teachings, practice, and ethos transmitted to Christianized Europe did not include the ritual and civil laws of Torah.

Nonsense. Of course it did. Marriage, divorce, Baptism, Do unto others, Love your neighbor, Love your god...all were part of the civil laws of the Torah.

What Christianity (as it became more a device of the gentile converts) did not include were two specific things: The dietary restrictions (as indicated in Galatians...and ritual circumcision.

That's reality.

My comment is the reality.

Reality for Western Civilization is not a theoretical speculation about whether gentiles in first century Palestine and Anatolia needed to convert to Judaism and practice Mosaic ritual.

My comment is the reality, Cypress.

 

[gmark77]

Everything I wrote on this thread was prefaced by the juxtaposition of Western Civilization and it's experience with Christianity.

...and that experience INCLUDES trying to understand what Jesus meant when he spoke. It also includes vast exegeses on the Old Testament and the New.

Arguably that is a HUGE amount of what Western Civilization was up to for the first couple hundred years A.D. and well into the Medieval period.

Entire social movements were predicated on different people's reading of Christ's words and reinterpretation of them. Entire cities were destroyed because they interpretted the Bible differently. Entire religions sprang up (Protestantism) because of these "theoreticals"

What you call "hypothetical" was nothing of the sort for most of Christianity's history.

 

[gmark77]

I think it's pretty obvious Christianity has brought a LOT of good and a sizeable amount of bad to the world. The West took the Christianity lane and the East took Buddhism and the Eastern religions. Two divergent paths with pluses and minuses to them.

Would the West be different without Christianity? OH YES! But worse? I dunno. Christianity does a LOT of good and espouses a SOLID pro-human position that is admirable in the extreme. But all religion is tainted by humans. We are the weak link. And arguably no matter which path we took we would still violate our ideals with alarming regularity.

To me religion never stopped anyone from doing whatever evil was truly in their heart and atheism never stopped anyone from doing whatever good was truly in their heart. And, of course, vice versa.

Religion is a nice frame, holds the picture generally up on the wall, but doesn't keep us from fingerpainting on it with blood.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

The ideals espoused in religion are usually things we should strive toward (being kind, not murdering, etc.) but I agree that when you build a social "glue" on the basis of unconfirmable stories that no two people observe in the same way, and you don't allow for the "glue" to be in any way "wrong" then you set up a system whereby people will do evil things in the name of their god.



For me that's where the meat of the discussion is. It shows the human-features of Christianity or any given religion. It's watching the sausage being made and knowing what all is going into it.

It also helps the modern experience of a religion make more sense.

One can know the ingredients of a sausage with that knowledge having little impact on the sausage's edibility.
Perhaps I'm hemorrhaging intellectual curiosity this far into my dotage--that's likely, in fact--
but my interest seems to be limited to what the current ramifications of religion are.

La salsiccia è bruciata.

 

[Cypress]

This is why I believe that people in all regions of the present United States would benefit in terms of contentment with partition
as was done by the Soviet Union, India/Pakistan, Ireland, Korea, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and other places where incompatible people tried unsuccessfully to share a common government.

There have been far more divisions than re-uniting situations like Germany and Vietnam.
I suspect North Korea would also want to re-unite if the people weren't too incompetent to overthrow Kim.

There is no reason this couldn't all be done peacefully.
There is no reason the newly separated nations couldn't be trading partners and peaceful neighbors--
if we weren't trying to write each other's laws and tax codes and trying to force our religious values on one another.

A national convention should be held specifically for this purpose.
The South, Middle America, Mountain/Big Sky regions, and Alaska could retain the designation of United State of America.
The West Coast and Hawaii could become a new nation.
New England and New York could join Canada,
while Alberta might likely want to join the United States.

It's radical and would require a lot of thought, work, and sincere intentions,
but our radical problems will never find moderate solutions.
In the end, it will either be peaceful partition or civil / genocidal war,
and right now, in my view, even the latter is preferable to the status quo.

Since this nation will not partition, Democrats need to ask themselves serious questions about why we are now routinely losing Midwestern and Appalachian states we used to routinely win.

I see no evidence this demise is based on traditionally old school liberal economic policies.

 

[gmark77]

Since this nation will not partition, Democrats need to ask themselves serious questions about why we are now routinely losing Midwestern and Appalachian states we used to routinely win.

I see no evidence this demise is based on traditionally old school liberal economic policies.

Just look at what they voted FOR.

That tells you far more than what they voted AGAINST.

If the Left "lost" the election in 2024 it was only because hatred was more attractive.

So what should the Left do to ameliorate that? Become evil, too? No.