Page 1 of 2 [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

11 Sep 2012, 7:27 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC-9uJrotC4[/youtube]Transcript:

Quote:
Religious people often say that atheists have no morals because they have no moral guide. If you believe this, let me ask you something.

If you're a Christian, chances are the Bible is your moral guide, but is that all the Bible, or just some of it? It's just the good bits, isn't it? The bits you've cherrypicked because obviously if you wanted to live in a Leviticus-style society where people are stoned or mutilated for insane and trivial reasons, you could simply move to Iran.

But how do you decide which are the good bits and which are the bad in the Bible? What do you use as a moral guide? The Bible? Well, surely not. If so, you would simply accept the bad along with the good, which is clearly what the Bible wants you to do, otherwise the bad wouldn't be in there in the first place, would it? But no, you don't do that. You defy the Bible. You sift out the bad and discard it for the ignorant primitive barbarism it is. In short, you edit the Bible to suit your own sensibilities.

So where do you get the moral guidance to impose your authority on the word of the Bible? It has to come from a higher source, doesn't it? (These things usually do.) And it does, of course. It comes from you. You are a higher source than the Bible, a much higher source. The criminals who run religion don't want you to know or to act upon this because then their influence over you would be zero. Yet the evidence is clear. You sifted the good from the bad in the Bible without the Bible's help. You did it against the Bible's will, and you did it all on your own because, whether you like it or not, you have a conscience, which means that you are capable of distinguishing good from evil without the help of scripture, and you have just proven it beyond any shadow of doubt. So, in fact, the Bible is not your moral guide. You are. It doesn't provide you with a moral compass. You do. And the only faith you need is faith in yourself.

O happy day.



Tensu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,661
Location: Nixa, MO, USA

11 Sep 2012, 7:32 am

Tequila wrote:
:
Quote:
if you wanted to live in a Leviticus-style society where people are stoned or mutilated for insane and trivial reasons, you could simply move to Iran.

:roll:

The NT says not to do that OT stuff anymore. This clown needs to get his facts straight.



Last edited by Tensu on 11 Sep 2012, 8:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

Giftorcurse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Apr 2009
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,887
Location: Port Royal, South Carolina

11 Sep 2012, 8:05 am

I'm a Christian, but I'm not flamboyant or show-offish about it. I try to reconcile the Bible with reality.


_________________
Yes, I'm still alive.


invisiblesilent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Aug 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,150

11 Sep 2012, 9:53 am

Tensu wrote:
Tequila wrote:
:
Quote:
if you wanted to live in a Leviticus-style society where people are stoned or mutilated for insane and trivial reasons, you could simply move to Iran.

:roll:

The NT says not to do that OT stuff anymore. This clown needs to get his facts straight.


I'd LOVE to see the evidence for that statement. I don't ever remember reading an explicit rejection of the Old Testament rules in the New Testament. In fact Jesus repeatedly cites Old Testament laws AND specifically states he has not come to destroy the old laws. Maybe YOU need to get YOUR facts straight?



Hopper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Aug 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,908
Location: The outskirts

11 Sep 2012, 10:03 am

I'm an atheist, and this man makes me want to convert to something.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

11 Sep 2012, 10:07 am

Hopper wrote:
I'm an atheist, and this man makes me want to convert to something.


What about Flying Spaghetti Monsterism? The hotline is ready and waiting to take your call.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

11 Sep 2012, 10:17 am

invisiblesilent wrote:
I'd LOVE to see the evidence for that statement. I don't ever remember reading an explicit rejection of the Old Testament rules in the New Testament. In fact Jesus repeatedly cites Old Testament laws AND specifically states he has not come to destroy the old laws. Maybe YOU need to get YOUR facts straight?


It's in essence the cherrypicking that is so common among religious people. Usually Christians will cite Jesus as the moral example, but neglect the fact that despite all the stoning and beating of children, forced marriage/rape, and such in the old Testament. Jesus actions are the most immoral because by taking responsibilities for "our" sins, he in fact denies us the ability to be morally accountable for our own actions. Furthermore, the pure idea that the sins he does take on him were not in fact committed by people alive in those days or these days, but by Adam and Eve, doesn't make it better.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

11 Sep 2012, 10:19 am

TM wrote:
It's in essence the cherrypicking that is so common among religious people. Usually Christians will cite Jesus as the moral example, but neglect the fact that despite all the stoning and beating of children, forced marriage/rape, and such in the old Testament. Jesus actions are the most immoral because by taking responsibilities for "our" sins, he in fact denies us the ability to be morally accountable for our own actions.


So if I'm getting this right, they're making a fairy story of a fairy story.



invisiblesilent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Aug 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,150

11 Sep 2012, 10:29 am

Quote:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19)

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)


So much for the NT doing away with the nastiness and vengefulness of the OT laws.



Doctor
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 19

11 Sep 2012, 10:37 am

Tequila wrote:
But how do you decide which are the good bits and which are the bad in the Bible? What do you use as a moral guide? The Bible? Well, surely not.


Well, surely yes. Which Old Testament laws should we follow, New Testament?
Acts 15:28-29 wrote:
For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”

I see. The ones about avoiding blood, idolatry, and fornication. Good health to you too!

Tequila wrote:
If so, you would simply accept the bad along with the good, which is clearly what the Bible wants you to do, otherwise the bad wouldn't be in there in the first place, would it?

Of course it would, because what you call 'the bad' isn't bad, it's just part of a law for different circumstances. That was a law for a country. Case in point - the old testament had a law against murder. You kind of need that in a country. Do you know there isn't technically any Christian law against murder? We don't need one anymore, because now we all live in other countries - countries that all have their own laws against murder.
And even without following the old laws, we learn things from them. Example - I was speaking to a friend today about whether those laws had any softer sentences for children. I suspected not, because in our society we do, and we can see what anarchy it causes. We can see that under God's way of doing things, children were not above the law like they are in this country. We may not be following that law, but it still teaches us about God's views - yes, it would still 'be there in the first place'.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

11 Sep 2012, 10:41 am

Tequila wrote:

So if I'm getting this right, they're making a fairy story of a fairy story.


I'd say its more of a revisionism, in effect they eliminate what is currently deemed inappropriate and interpret the rest in a very positive light without really thinking of the philosophical consequences of it.



Tensu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,661
Location: Nixa, MO, USA

11 Sep 2012, 11:08 am

invisiblesilent wrote:
I'd LOVE to see the evidence for that statement. I don't ever remember reading an explicit rejection of the Old Testament rules in the New Testament. In fact Jesus repeatedly cites Old Testament laws AND specifically states he has not come to destroy the old laws. Maybe YOU need to get YOUR facts straight?

Jhon 8 1-12
Matthew 15 10-13
Matthew 5 38-48
Matthew 12 1-8
Mark 7 14-16
Luke 6 1-10
Romans 3 19-31
Matthew 11 13
Matthew 12 10-13
Galatians chapters 3 and 4
Pretty much the entire epistle to the hebrews

I was going to type the passages but wasn't really up to transcribing the entire new testament into a forum post. These are certainly not the only examples: I can think of more that I couldn't find in a timely manner, Such as Jesus's comments on divorce and Paul's confrontation of Peter, and there are more that I can't think of off the top of my head. Point is they are everywhere. And for the record Jesus said He came not to annul the law, but to fulfill it, because the law fortold of the coming of the messiah. If he never said anything that seemed to contradict the law there would not have been a need to clarify this. Because the Messiah has come, there is no need to be bound to the old law anymore, because we are now under the law of faith.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 86
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

11 Sep 2012, 11:25 am

Tensu wrote:
Tequila wrote:
:
Quote:
if you wanted to live in a Leviticus-style society where people are stoned or mutilated for insane and trivial reasons, you could simply move to Iran.

:roll:

The NT says not to do that OT stuff anymore. This clown needs to get his facts straight.


Yet Jesus tells his followers to forget their (earthly) parents. Some advice! He also tells you to render unto the Kaiser what is the Kaiser's. Hence a good Christian would be obliged to obedience to Hitler or Mussolini. And he also tells you to take no thought for tomorrow. Bread and Fish will come raining down from the sky.

ruveyn



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

11 Sep 2012, 11:26 am

ruveyn wrote:
Bread and Fish will come raining down from the sky.


No sauce with it, cooking equipment and utensils, nor plates? The bastard.



invisiblesilent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Aug 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,150

11 Sep 2012, 11:27 am

Quote:
Jhon 8 1-12
Matthew 15 10-13
Matthew 5 38-48
Matthew 12 1-8
Mark 7 14-16
Luke 6 1-10
Romans 3 19-31
Matthew 11 13
Matthew 12 10-13
Galatians chapters 3 and 4
Pretty much the entire epistle to the hebrews


I believe I mentioned explicit rejections of the laws of the Old Testament. None of those was a specific rejection of the body of OT law. So, Jesus rejected a couple of the OT laws in those passages you listed (at least 3 of them were about the Sabbath by the way which is hardly the kind of OT craziness we were talking about). In the passages I cited above Jesus EXPLICITLY states that the old laws are still in force. The fact that in other passages he redacts a handful of said laws does not contradict those statements.

So far all you have proved is that your holy book (and I am just talking the NT now) is internally inconsistent. That might be due to the fact that most of it was written by authors (and not even always the same author within given books!) who lived more than a hundred years after the death of Jesus. Followed by an editorial process (because mortal beings can totally edit divinely inspired writings O_o).

Have the intellectual honesty to say "you're right, the Bible is as internally inconsistent as can be and doesn't make a lot of sense. My belief is based purely on faith". I might then gain an iota of respect for those beliefs. As long as you try defending the Bible through reason and argument you just look ridiculous.



Tensu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,661
Location: Nixa, MO, USA

11 Sep 2012, 11:57 am

invisiblesilent wrote:
I believe I mentioned explicit rejections of the laws of the Old Testament. None of those was a specific rejection of the body of OT law. So, Jesus rejected a couple of the OT laws in those passages you listed (at least 3 of them were about the Sabbath by the way which is hardly the kind of OT craziness we were talking about). In the passages I cited above Jesus EXPLICITLY states that the old laws are still in force. The fact that in other passages he redacts a handful of said laws does not contradict those statements.

So far all you have proved is that your holy book (and I am just talking the NT now) is internally inconsistent. That might be due to the fact that most of it was written by authors (and not even the same author within given books!) who lived more than a hundred years after the death of Jesus. Followed by an editorial process (because mortal beings can totally edit divinely inspired writings O_o).

Have the intellectual honesty to say "you're right, the Bible is as internally inconsistent as can be and doesn't make a lot of sense. My belief is based purely on faith". I might then gain an iota of respect for those beliefs. As long as you try defending the Bible through reason and argument you just look ridiculous.


Did you look at the passages from the epistles? Paul repeatedly tells people in his epistles that they are under the Law of Faith now and the old law no longer applies to them.

And I never said the old law has gone away. I said it doesn't apply to christians. This is not inconsistent. Both Jesus and Paul say the Law still exists, it just doesn't apply to christians because we are under the law of faith.

Also your claim that the authors of the NT books where written over a hundred years after Jesus is wrong. The gospel of Luke was written around AD 60. Matthew and Mark were probably written closer to AD 90, but where based on earlier sources. Most of Paul's epistles where written between AD 50 and AD 60. As AD 33 Is the year Jesus is generally believed to have been crucified, this is hardly over a hundred years later.